Talk:Hostel (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Unknown
This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
This article, category, or template is part of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to horror film and fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hostel (film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Americans Most expensive???

I just watched the movie tonight, and something in this article doesn't match up with what I saw. The customer that is chatting up Paxton, he said that he paid $50G for his girl. The article says that the most expensive is Americans at $25G. Should the article not be edited for this? From what the article says, is it not Russians - $5,000, Europeans - $10,000, Americans - $25,000, and then wouldn't Asians be $50,000??? Please correct me if I'm wrong... NetStormer 05:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a price list shown on the back of a business card in the movie, which is where these prices came from. Japanese are not listed. It's possible that the customer had a special requirement of some sort which would explain the extra cost. But he referred to Paxton as a "big spender" when Paxton said that his victim was an American, so I'm inclined to believe that the filmmakers or the character were just confused. 68.7.103.197 22:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
As noted, the prices quoted in the article come directly from the buisness card. But it should be obvious these are the base prices for a body without any special requests. If a client was going to be picky, specify an age range, specify a gender, hair color, etc. The price would go up. Obviously meeting this clients special request cost him $50,000.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.0.67.128 (talk • contribs).
Perhaps it is the price paid to the suppliers of the victims versus what is charged to customers. But if Asians command the highest price, wouldn't they be listed first at $50,000?

It is important to note that the card was taken from the coat pocket of a European customer. Could it be that the denomination was meant to be in Euros and not US dollars? Also, it would not be far fetched to consider that the price for an American client would be more than that of a European. It is not uncommon for American consumers to be charged higher prices than their European counterparts, especially in Europe.161.51.11.2 13:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urban Legend

Does anyone know what UL the article refers to?--142.177.120.226 04:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

The "themes" section is heavily done in POV manner. 205.238.205.220 02:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think someone should clean up the Cast section- I've not enough battery life or patience to do so now though. Deltro 02:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite legal to have the cast c/p'ed like that onto the page. I'm not going to change it because I'm not sure, but if anyone is, go for it. Jjjsixsix 19:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • cast info is most definitely fair use 69.142.21.24 07:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


The film trailer claims EMTs were called at one of the advance screenings due to reactions from the audience. Is this true? -unsigned

I can't comment specifically on this movie, but the stories of EMTs reviving people at horror films is a fairly common publicity trick. Compare William Castle and Macabre or the news stories of people fainting during the reading of Guts. -Fuzzy 21:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Violence

I think there should be something about truly violent and gross this film is. Its not just torture, its much more intense than that. Elleohelle

This movie does sound like it's worse than torture. Brian

The film was not exceptionally violent. Compared to movies like saw, there was nothing spectacular about it.

This is a hardly a violent film. What? A drill in the leg, cut tendons, a hanging eyeball (that looks terribly fake), and two lost fingers...that's the only gore, disregarding the usual shootings etc. you see in every movie these days. Oh and the chainsaw thro the leg, but there was a much better chainsaw scene in Dawn of the Dead, and that movie sunk without a trace.

If the film has been criticized (or lauded) for being exceptionally violent, then notable such criticism could be included. I actually find this more likely than the film being criticized for being an unrealistic portrayal of Slovakia. Demi T/C 21:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Demi, it is surely unlikely that people who have never been to Slovakia and haven't ever heard about Slovakia will criticize that. The producers emphasize the location of the story in the movie as well as in the advertisements. They could set the story into an unspecified country and declare that it is pure fantasy. They didn't do that. The violence in the movie is related to the criticism I mentioned: the movie describes Slovakia as a dangerous country. It's not only the torture, also violence of the Slovak police in the movie is opposite to the reality.

Ruthenian 17:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

... The violence in a film is not judged on its realism or whether other movies are worse. You can't just invent criteria to fit making a movie non-violent. -RannXXV 09:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Having read the synopsis it does seem that the whole plot is basically driven by one scene of extreme violence after another. Even apart from this, that the whole film revolves round people wanting to pay to torture people, and indeed particular types of people, seems to make not only this, but to what extent the director should portray this, an issue. All in all, there should be a section on violecnce since it is so central to the film. --Ajcee7 17:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quentin Tarantino

if he didn't direct it, what excatly did he do? just give it money? or did he contribute with some ideas? could this be explained?--Jaysscholar 03:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

He put his name on it so more people would buy tickets. It's called clever marketing. JackO'Lantern 08:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
He produced the film. --AWF
He reportedly helped write and edit the film.

Also, I think saying the guy escaping by piling dead bodies on himself, and saying it was a tribute to a bit part character's story in a Tarantino affiliated movie is a bit of a stretch..

[edit] Link to Snuff?

Why is there a link to snuff films on this page? The plot description doesn't mention anything relating to snuff in the movie, and the film itself certainly isn't snuff. mtz206 18:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it depicts violent and torturous murder makes it very closely related to snuff films, except snuff films are supposed to be real while this movie is just fiction. - Kharpert
By your logic, any film that includes torture or murder is related to snuff, which simply can't be the case. The "except" clause in your statement makes this inherently not related to snuff. If this movie was about snuff films (see 8mm (film), then this link would be appropriate. Otherwise, the link should be removed. mtz206 15:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I haven't seen the movie, but the link to snuff seems appropriate. Not because the movie itself features violence, but because one of the themes seems to be people getting their rocks off from torturing and killing other people- which is the idea behind snuff films. SchnappM 09:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
"people getting their rocks off from torturing and killing" is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a film to be considered snuff. unless part of the plot in Hostel is that these murders are filmed for entertainment purposes, there is little direct relationship to snuff mtz206 13:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree, there's very little reason to include "Snuff film" as a "See Also". If it's been notably compared to snuff films, then the comparison should be in the article (perhaps under "Criticism") and "snuff film" wikilinked. Same if snuff films are somehow part of the movie's subject matter. Just letting it float there seems like some kind of snide way of criticizing the movie for its violence without actually demonstrating such criticism. Demi T/C 21:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Deleting link per above. --mtz206 14:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other themes

I thought that the theme (rather intentional or not) of the rich trodding over the poor was much more interesting than people paying for their lust.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.164.231.195 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Success?

The section talking about a likely sequel call the movie a big success. Is it? There isn't any data on what it cost or what it made, and it's already fallen to #5, below Narnia which has been out a heck of a lot longer. I think if it's going to be called a success, it needs to be sourced at least a little bit with a cost/proft comparison. -RannXXV 04:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The article said that the movie cost 4 million to make and it grossed 49 million. The success of a movie should never be measured by how much money it made. 161.51.11.2 13:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources?

I found no source for this: "I made this movie because I want people to think about... where society is going in terms of exploitation and pornography," director Eli Roth explained in an interview. "It's no accident that these guys are American, that they are very sexist in their attitude towards women, and that the things that they feel about the girls in Eastern Europe is very much based in American fantasies and stereotypes. Everything comes back to bite them in the ass though; they definitely pay for it." Elsan 22:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, there are no sources for the "Criticism" section--it needs some. Demi T/C 21:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

John Olsen of the ACLU said in the April 12 edition of the Herald Tribune: "That Eli Roth is largely regarded by all except the most juvenile and underdeveloped minds as at best a third-rate writer and director is neither in dispute nor anywhere as offensive as his blatantly racist portrayal of European countries and their wonderful cultures. Eli Roth is an ignorant little man, largely projecting his own pathetic unknowledgeable understandings of others people and geography, confusing one region for the other, and portraying women in degrading sexist images. He not only does this, as if this is not punishably offensive in itself, but then goes on to say he is doing it to 'educate' people about the dangers of violence, pornography, and cultural insensitivity! Eli Roth is a hypocritical talentless hack charlaton who suffers from a sad poverty of imagination and like all who are uncreative embrace the use of violent and sexual imagery to fill the vacancy of a story and idiotically attempt to distract viewers from the sheer worthlessness and scatological nature of his so called 'films.' But viewers are far more enlightened and intelligent than Mr. Roth realizes or is capable of appreciating. If there is anyone in need to educate themselves of other cultures and geography, then, it is none other than Eli Roth himself, and I would suggest he read and study and make up for the obvious glaring holes in his laughable 'education' and film making abilities."

Demi, could you please specify what kind of sources? There are many sources. The criticism was published in Slovak and Czech newspapers, TV stations, internet journals, blogs, forums and so on... All sources I have seen are in Slovak or Czech language. I can also provide likns to the crime statistics mentioned in the "Criticism" section. Ruthenian 18:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm unsure exactly what the point of these statistics are, in the article's context. While it might be a valid criticism to say it portrays the place as more dangerous than it is, the way it's phrased now makes it more of a "It's better than the US!" argument, which is neither encyclopedic nor relevant to this article. -RannXXV 19:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, what is the source for the prices of victims, the card seen in the film gives prices of 5,000 for Russians, 10,000 for Europeans, and 25,000 for Americans. The American client's comments also seem to attest to Americans being the most expensive.

[edit] Critical Reaction

Since the article currently holds information on debateable controversy, I thought that a section pertaining to the above would be appropriate. For example, while the film received mixed reaction, it managed to win a majority of positive reviews on rottentomatoes.com. Trivia may also be included, regarding cameos, urban legend details, and the like. --AWF

[edit] Themes

Personally, I feel that the themes section is hard to justify. Unless someone comes up with citations of people interpretting the themes, does this really belong in an encyclopedia? As it is, I tried to present a more balanced viewpoint and I cleaned up the section some. -Fuzzy 21:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely concur. While I thought the essay was an interesting and worthy discussion (I enjoyed reading it), it doesn't really come accross as neutral and objective. Consider reviewing WP:5P. Film, like any art, can be open to a wide range interpretation. If subjective points of view are to be presented, it may be helpful to at most present the points of view that have a more substantial consensus developed Sort 12:43, 9 March 2006
Meh, and people are, as usual, just deleting the sections they don't agree with and inserting in place their opinions. Moreover, they're doing so in a chatty fashion right down to parenthesized notes question the prior editor's competence. Most of the edits are from IP addresses, so I don't really know that there's much that can be done short of waiting for the dust to clear, then clean things back up using the article history. -Fuzzy 04:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Section

POV much? Needs to be rewritten in an encyclopaedic style and with a bit more balance I think. Weebs 16:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If these criticisms are from a third party source then they should be cited in the article. Otherwise it sounds to me like the editor inserter a lot of his or her personal opinions. Maybe a NPOV statement should be inserted for that section. Piercetp 06:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm considering editing the section to be a "Reaction" page, because the article is heavily POV indeed. It uses "is" statements and lacks citations in proper places. Additionally, the section tries to act as if it was trashed by the critics; it wasn't. It recieved mixed reviews and even some positive ones. I'll get to work on fixing both that and the Plot section as soon as possible. --Nqnpipnr

[edit] Sex and violence section

Just read the sex and violence subsection, completely violates the Wikipedia NPOV policy. Someone needs to change it.... --Dunlevyd 01:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Reading through this nobody denies that these places eist i beleive they do. Drom

[edit] http://www.blatanikov.com

I don't have a clue why that's there. All i see it as, is advertising the bid on e-bay rather than being informative. Also, the bid expired. Though i haven't watched the film, I dont think this should be there and for the time being i will remove it and if people feel it should be there put it back up. Please post here explaining its relevance before putting back up. Thank You.

Forgot to post my details and this was the original post. "The domain http://www.blatanikov.com (the name of the contact for the Elite Hunters) is being sold on E-bay: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7609793394" Shoot The Moon 17:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, one thing's for sure... either no one wanted it, or no one knew about it... $1.00US starting bid... that's cheap for a domain name... They'll probably put it up again... NetStormer 05:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

This is absurd, bordering on racist.

Also, begging and looting street children, if any, are or were in reality in the most cases Gypsies in countries like Russia, Ukraine, Romania, but not in any of the current EU countries, including Slovakia.

The criticism section needs a major overhaul, and whilst the film certain did suck, it could do with making slightly less into an "attack" section. Some sources wouldn't be remiss either. - FrancisTyers 02:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Having been to Romania and Bulgaria I can tell you that is how gypsies really act. They are a big problem in Eastern Europe. Someone should probably just give them a small amount of land in Russia for them to settle in. Do everyone a favor. Volksgeist 02:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow, generalising a whole ethnic group by a few limited encounters, way to go. Having said that, the only place I was ever spat on was in Romania, and that was by an old gypsy woman 'cos I told this kid she was with to stop bugging me and to get a job — I suppose to a tourist they are a nuisance, but I think the bigger problem is of systematised discrimination. Consider that the "big problem" may have other causes than just the fact that they were born as Roma. Besides, this isn't the place for discussion on this topic. Its for discussion on how to make the page better. - FrancisTyers · 13:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah you guys are really genius etnographers. In Slovakia around 80 percent of all Roma adults are unemployed. Why? Because they dont want to be employed genius. When a factory or a industrial park is builded, most of the offers go directly to roma heavily populated regions because of the unemployment problem. However, the Roma are too lazy and stupid to work more than just 5 hours a day. Most of the Roma live in poverty. Why? Because the main income into their family treasury is social cash recievment or petty theft. Then the US (with their native american population crammed into small zoo-like reservations) starts criticizing us for being racist and having a prejudice against them. look at your own minorities! Black, Hispanic, Native, Asian, do they actually get the same chance in life as you do? Is that immigrant worker in your local Wal-Mart happy with his life? Is he glad he works in Wal-Mart? Would You be glad to work in Wal-Mart? - xyz1258 · 22:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There is also some POV in the Trivia section, regarding Roth telling Tarantino to "cash in." WTF is up with that? --Nqnpipnr

[edit] Idea for the Criticism Section

I was disgusted at how bad of a movie Hostel is. Besides being culturally incorrect, the film is filled with very bad plot holes, cliches, unrealistic (and almost cartoon-like in some cases) depictions of gore, and just horrible direction. I mean, can't anyone criticise the movie for how bad it is (and why nobody should take it or Eli Roth seriously). As for Quentin Tarantino, it's obvious he had very little to do with the film since he wouldn't put out something so bad.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.188.250.41 (talk • contribs).

Obviously you've never seen Reservoir Dogs.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.250.94.140 (talk • contribs).

Personal taste has nothing to do with the article, they are created to be unbiased at wikipedia, what you worte was.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.233.156 (talk • contribs).

The Critism section appears highly POV and should be cleaned up. This might be because it was written by an editor who has been heavily involoved in Slovakia articles and might have taken personal offense at the film. -Husnock 17:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The "criticism" section has some very definite flaws. "Slovakia is really in Central, rather than Eastern Europe" - arguably true, but how is this relevant? Does the movie even make the claim that Slovakia is in Eastern Europe? "[A]lthough the country has some underdeveloped regions, it hardly differs from any other Central or West European country" - again arguably true, but the claim is very generic. The same could easily be said about both the United States and Venezuela, for example. Further, I can think of a handful of rural places in Sweden (which by no serious measure is considered a poorer country than Slovakia) which are at least as run-down as the ones depicted in the film, and I'm sure you can find places in for example Arkansas or Idaho just like the places depicted in the film. —Gabbe 15:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Train Station

In the film, there's a train station called something like 'Podicany'. Does anyone know if this was a real train station? If so, where is it? I know that most of the film was shot in Prague, Czech Republic but I'm just curious to know if this station was just staged or it actually exists. -Tachante

(If you mean the train station in the end of the film) Yes, there is such a train station. In the windows of the train you can read the name 'Praha'. It's the czech name for 'Prague', so this train station exists, but the commercial and advertising on this train station is a little bit mixed. At the top of the staircase is a german commercial 'Jetzt auch 'am' DVD' and at the bottom of the staircase is a czech commercial for Coca Cola. I don't think that the Open/Closed-Sign (at the toilet) in Prague is only in german (Geöffnet/Geschlossen), englisch (Open/Closed) and french (ouvrez/fermez?),too. There should be also the czech words for 'open' and 'close'.


It's the train station where the japanese girl committed suicide and jumped in front of the train. It reads 'Podicany' reading it again... Tachante These places exist dont fool yourself

[edit] The "War"

Some folks have expressed a need for clarification on what the "war" is that is mentione din Slovakia. When I saw the film, I at once thought World War II, since thats really the only major war Slovakia has actually been in as a declared party wihtin the past 60 years (I might be missing some Communist conflicts, however, and I am a World War II historian). I also think the filmmakers probably thought that Slovakia was just "one of those Eastern European countries" or grouped it all together with Yugoslavia which has had plenty of recent wars. -Husnock 18:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

When I saw the movie, I thought immediately about the latter case (Slovakia confused with former Yugoslavia or an entirely fictious conflict). I would suggest the removal of the WWII reference as it is (in my opinion) irrelevant in this context. Tankred 20:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious that they're not talking about World War II -- that's just silly. World War II affected nearly all of Europe, so any reference to things being different in Slovakia "since the war" would be nonsensical if World War II were the war in question -- the same would be true of France or the UK or Italy or Austria or anywhere, pretty much. When I heard the line, I assumed it was the filmmakers just being stupid, whether or not they meant Slovenia, but by the end of the movie, when the whole conspiracy had played out, I had a different idea: I thought maybe the "since the war" line was used to feel out exactly how culturally ignorant these stupid Americans were. After all, they were looking for rubes, dumb provincial Americans who would be easily led according to their plans. Other events in the movie back this up, I think (the portrayal of our heroes as only being interested in smoking pot and getting girls, etc.). I don't think this should be listed as necessarily an error. --Masterofzen 04:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 or 2006?

Hostel 2 and IMDB both claim that this is a 2005 film, not 2006. Is that correct?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.215.248.182 (talk • contribs) .


(reply)I don't think so. IMDB tends to put the year of production started on films more then release. By the way, sorry if I replied to this wrong; I'm kinda new to the whole Wiki editing thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.63.94 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] German version of this film

Perhaps these are additional information for the subject 'Trivia'.

You mentioned that in the film the 'dutch' people in Amsterdam speak German, in the German version the 'dutch' people speak Viennese (it's a dialect of German used by Austrian; in German 'Wienerisch').

In the German version of Hostel 'The German Surgeon' speak Spanish and Paxtons monologue is also in (not-subtitled) Spanish.

[edit] Police

I don't think the cops were in on it, why does it say so on the article ?


They were in on it...they stopped traffic when Paxton was trying to escape as they were looking for him....they knew this whole business was taking place - mass numbers of tourists and locals were getting killed and going missing so how could they not know about this place? Plus, note the attitude of the policeman when (i think it was Paxton, or his American counterpart) when they went to report someone missing... Tachante

[edit] 9 Languages

I was just watching the commentary on the DVD and they say there were 9 languages in the film. But Wikipedia lists only 8. Wasn't there Russian in the film? Dose anyone speak russian and can confirm that. I think they were singing a russian song in the sauna. Czech and Slovak, aren't they very similar, how do we know wich one was used? I also wrote down two words from the subtitle: Senoratas, sayonara, are these italian? --Steinninn 06:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I added an example for all the non english languages. Please don't add other languages without bringing an example. At lease leave a message in my usertalk and tell me where it is in the movie and I can provide the audio file. To answere my own question, Senoratas is Spanish and Sayonara is Japanese. Thanks --Steinninn 21:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/o/s/Talk%7EHostel_%28film%29_9167.html"