Talk:Cannibal Holocaust

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Cannibal Holocaust is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 18, 2008.
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics 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.
Featured article FA
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority 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.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Cannibal Holocaust was selected as the Portal of Horror Horror-related article of the month for March 2007.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Contents

[edit] Animal Torture

Has it been officially confirmed that the animal torture in the film is, in fact genuine? I'm not talking about a conviction, but more of a confirmation by the creators. - 202.138.30.92 20:09, 22 November 2005(UTC)

Animal Torture is a funny word, because it implies that they torture animals for no reason. the treatment of animals in this movie is no worse then the treatment of animals in real life, in just about every country on earth. - 202.63.42.174 07:11, 24 November 2005(UTC)
It very much has been confirmed, both by actors, crew, director, pretty much everyone involved. Helltopay27 17:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Everyone involved in this film should die as horribly as those animals did and I truly hope and pray that they do. Yes, it is true that in real animals are treated badly, perhaps as badly, but it was not the point of this movie to show us how bad they are treated in real life but rather to torture them for entertainment, and I am sure many people enjoy this. Such people should simply take whatever weapons, guns, knives, etc, and torture themselves to death in front of a mirror. 64.180.14.34 07:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you know how warped in the head you are?! You must be a PETA member. Helltopay27 17:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree, the animals were slaughtered, not tortured. The pig was shot in the head for crying out loud - wow that's torture? Cannibal Feorx did much worse by cutting the limbs off a tortoise before killing it, and trying to make a python strangle their muskrat (the python wasn't hungry though so it didn't kill it). Incidentally, if you think that's torture then someone has to go and shoot all the predators of the wild like lions and tigers and bears, oh my! Because they'll all play with their prey before killing it - not to mention some animals will start to eat their prey before their prey is dead. In some cases it can take more than hour for predators to kill their prey. And what about crabs? have you ever enjoyed crab-meat? Do you realize the most humane way to kill a crab is to freeze it to death? 61.69.0.246 08:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bigger than E.T.? (In Japan, at least.)

On the back of a Cannibal Holocaust videocassette box it says that the movie was wildly popular in Japan, grossing as much (if not more) than E.T. Does anyone know if this is true? - 71.112.179.201 03:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes That Is True. Cannibal Holocaust Is One Of The Top 10 Grossing Films EVER In Japan. - 202.138.30.92 15:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
You are talking out of a part of your body usually reserved for depositing bodily waste. OF COURSE they will say this on the back of the VHS - it is a way to sell the movie. Can you PLEASE confirm two things:
1) Have you been to Japan? If so, then you would know that no one has heard of this movie and that it is not out there on DVD or VHS. A bit strange for one of the "top 10 grossing films" in the country's history, no?
2) Can you PLEASE provide some hard box office facts to back this ridiculous urban legend up? It is also a racist urban legend - indicating that some "other" (the Japanese) would like to watch animal cruelty and brutal rape scenes over "ET" and most other movies. It is an urban legend as racist as the actual film's contents.
Get a grip. 172.143.24.29 18:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Huh, yeah, it's been released on DVD in Japan. There's no possible argument against that. If you're so inclined, I'll provide links to prove it. In fact, there are two films by Bruno Mattei that were released as Cannibal Holocaust sequels in Japan as a marketing technique. Of course, for it to actually work, it would seem that people in Japan have heard of it, huh? To quote yourself, get a grip. 164.107.218.3 05:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
List of top ten grossing films in Japan is here: http://www.tqnyc.org/NYC040592/statistics/topteninjapan.html Can we please now remove this stupid "fact"? 172.143.116.85 23:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The movies on that list is quite new, with the oldest being from 1996. Maybe in the 1980s Cannibal Holocaust was in the top 10. /Jiiimbooh 18:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Unlikely, films in the 80s that broke the box office in Asia (including Japan) included Back to the Future, the Star Wars sequels, Who Framed Roger Rabbit and so on and so forth. Cannibal Holocaust was never a top grossing film in Japan - it's just an "urban legend" which no one has any evidence to back up (because it's false). 84.71.56.78 20:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's false, despite people who were in Japan saying so, plus this is coming from someone who hates this movie. Last I checked, Cannibal Holocaust made anywhere from $25-30 million in its release year in Japan. That's not too far off of that list, especially with most of those movies being newer films. Besides, who says that's a reliable source? Helltopay27 16:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's another list: http://www.tohokingdom.com/box_office/record_holders.htm I've been highly skeptical of that piece of trivia ever since I first read it on IMDb, probably three or more years ago. I'm glad it's finally been proven to be false. --75.136.202.14 08:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
New thought: the film wasn't released internationally until Deodato was able to get the courts to release the film. That means that it was likely released in Japan in 1983. E.T. was the highest grossing film in Japan in 1983. Perhaps we have been misinterpreting what Deodato said; he said it was second in Japan only to E.T. Maybe he means that in 1983 it was second to only E.T., i.e., it was the second highest grossing film of the year. I think this is a conclusion that all parties can agree is possible. Helltopay27 20:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
This makes sense, and the Japanese article seems to support it. Says it made a billion yen over there during release. Though on that note, is there not any information anywhere on how much this film made overall? Seems lacking for an FA.--SeizureDog 03:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Trust me, I've searched everywhere for a worldwide gross; there simply is no reliable source. Rumors of a $200,000,000 gross have been popping up thanks to a website that I can't locate at this moment. Anyway, the only reliable source regarding box office gross comes from Deodato: it made "what would be 5 million dollars today," approximately 1.9 million in 1980. He also is the source of the Japanese success story, but, as this discussion has highlighted, what he means is ambiguous. Helltopay27 20:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Found the rumor starting site: http://home.clara.net/raydav/paradisecinema_cannibal_holocaust.html Helltopay27 20:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red links / Tribes

What's up with the links to the names of the three "tribes"? Is someone expecting articles to be written on fiction groups in some 25 year old pseudo-film?
Also, could you people please sign your comments? Even if you don't have an account, it makes everyone's lives so much easier. Thank you. Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 13:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've signed and timestamped all the stray comments I found here. Hooray! Somebody really needs to get off of their buttocks(often called butt, buns, bum, ass or arse), and cook up some sort of bot to do this. - The Unsinkable Brother Dave Thompson 3:57, 23 April 2006 (PST)
The names of the tribes in the movie were named after real indigenous groups in South America, but I believe that none of them are actually cannibalistic (this is only what I've heard, so if you find counter evidence, enlighten me. I do know for a fact that there is an indigenous group called the Yanomami). Helltopay27 17:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Helltopay27. there is in fact a group called the Yanomami, wich was probably the inspiration for the name Yanomamo. But it is not the same, and the Yanomami do not look like that at all (different body painting, hairstyles, etc). BTW, cannibalism is extremely rare among the brazilian indians nowadays, perhaps fully disappeared. I am not sure whose name could be source of inspiration for the Shamitari and Yacumo. If anyone has any idea, they could tell me. Also, i'd like to know if the actors that performed the indians in the movie were actual amazonian natives. Anyone has any idea?--Rogeriobwp 16:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the Yacumo, but the Shamatari are another indigenous group who live in the same area as the Yanomamö (yes, they are indeed called the Yanomamö. Their language is Yanomami. The name was just "borrowed," I guess, for the movie. I cite the research book Yanomamö for all of this). Helltopay27 16:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
There is this musical production called Yanomamo floating around church basements and schools and so on giving a delightful depiction of the wonderful life of these lovely tree people among the animals which live in the rainforest. On the other hand, something I read the other month in a National Geographic or some such of equal reliability described them as among the most warlike people on Earth. I guess ya pays yer money and ya takes yer choice. Gzuckier 17:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The film was staged in a rural area of Columbia. The spot was a bit troubled with drugs, people making money with drugs and the usual problems in such economically underdeveloped areas. The nice ladies in the bathing scene came right out of the local brothel, etc. So far I read about the film somewhere. Perhaps delink the tribes as long as someone isn't willing to provide more articles on the film. Wandalstouring 01:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, i'm actually from Brasil. And i can tell you, all of these tribes use names from Amazonian indian tribes. But none of these are in fact cannibal. There are cannibal tribes, but these are extremly rare, hardly known and completly isolated from common society (not 100% of the Amazon rainforest has been explored yet.) But, i would like to ask is someobody could add a small blurb in the article citing that none of the tribes in the movie actually represents any Amazonian tribes on it's costumes and habits. that would be really great. And you can check the truthfullness of it by simply checking the Wikipedia article on those very same indian tribes. S: - Ricardo 00:24, 30, January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.0.158.10 (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interpretation section

The "interpretation" section looks to me a lot like original research, and I'd be inclined to remove all the nonfactual and/or unsourced info there (ie, most of it). If it was of the form "critic David Blah has said that...", it would be a lot better. Right now, I just get the impression this is a WP editor's interpretation, which seems kind of dubious. Agree? Disagree? --Mr Wind-Up Bird ✈ 17:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

All of it now has citations and names the reviewers who made the statements. Helltopay27 16:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

I think it must confirm in some way or clear it because, when cheking the main page of the CH movie (not Wikipedia) its seems the page has the material and quotes arranged to induct the people to think its was a real expedition, and the 3 groups of natives exists and do the canibalism acts. At the bottom of certain stuff (photos and videos) appear a legeng saying this is material from the Police local. So this is for real or its part of the publicity for these movie?

Thanks in advance Isamu at vf_v_oberon@yahoo.com 201.127.66.59 21:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Trust me, it's publicity. The guys at Grindhouse Releasing (who run the site) are very much aware that it's fictional. They constantly hold conventions, interviews with actors/crew, etc., so it would be hard to miss. It's common knowledge that this film isn't real nowadays, isn't it? Helltopay27 17:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To 68.55.35.214

Please stop reverting these edits, as the information that you persistently keep adding is irrelevant and not a trivia fact. --Crackerjackal 20:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal cruelty

I have changed the title of the section on the animals killed in the course of them film. The mere killing of animals does not amount to animal cruelty. Although the treatment of some of the animals may be classified as such, it is certainly not true in all cases (eg. killing a turtle for food by decapitation). Bobby1011 11:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know... animal cruelty is regarded as "unnecesarry harm to animals". Of course, the animals were eaten for food, but they weren't used for that purpose. It was scripted that they would die, so the intention to kill them was far before it was necessary to use them as food. Helltopay27 17:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I consider animal cruelty to be the torturing of animals. While I am not a hunter myself and would never kill an animal, I do not conisder hunting animal cruelty, even if it's only to use the head a decoration. I agree with the original poster. --YellowTapedR 03:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Come on people, focus, it's a movie we are talking about, when a movie uses a device such as killing animals in screen just to create a shock reaction, it should by all means be called animal cruelty. I seriously doubt the crew from Cannibal Holocaust needed to feed on the turtoise in order to survive. RodolfoWong (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Until we've come to a new agreement, keep it as the last mutually agreed upon heading. Since cruelty may be subjective to some, but deaths is a concrete fact, it may be better to keep deaths in the heading. Helltopay27 (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • So I guess it is pointless to say that "..unnecessary harm to animals.." is how animal cruelty may be defined. I mean, did the killing of this animals helped in anyway the movie or did it bring more problems since it's release? I think Deodatos' declarations that he regreted to introduce animals in the movie should be more than enough to consider "unnecessary harm to animals" as a tag to the animal killings. So if anyone agrees with me on this matter please make a comment. RodolfoWong (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • This was my original argument, but, like I said, "Animal deaths" isn't a subjective term, which means it would probably be a better choice. Helltopay27 (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, "In essence, silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community.", if no one has anything else to say, we might reach a consensus here to change the heading from 'Animal deaths' to 'Animal cruelty'. RodolfoWong (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I haven't seen any comment on this matter, so I might just as well change the heading. So if there's nobody interested in the topic I'll change it next week. RodolfoWong (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I changed the heading to 'Animal cruelty' since I've been posting comments on this issue and I haven't got any feedback so I figured out a consensus has been reached. RodolfoWong (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] language

The infobox says the film is in English/Spanish, but the article says it's in English with two Italian-speaking actors. So is the film in originally in English/Spanish or is it in English/Italian? If it really is in English+Spanish, the article should explain a little how it ended up as a Spanish-speaking film. --Gronky 12:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

  • The actors were "Italian-speaking" in that they were bilingual; they spoke both English and Italian. Italian was their native language, which was needed under the Italian free circulation clause. The article does a good job explaining this. The Spanish is one scene of Spanish dialogue between two Colombian soldiers. Helltopay27 19:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section headings

There are three sections in the article that have just one subsection in which one. I think it may be more appropriate to shuffle the content so that there is no single subsection or that there is more than one subsection. Is this possible to do? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  • There's nothing about this under Wikipedia's guidelines, so it's okay. Besides, the subject matter in those subsections are definitely seperated from the introductory text and need a subheading. Helltopay27 20:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cast

I'm wondering if a cast section is absolutely necessary. There are other featured film articles without a cast section, and most of the cast is already mentioned in the opening paragraph. To me, the cast section interrupted the flow of the article. Helltopay27 (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Cast section needs to be moved to the top of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.132.174 (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Status in Germany

The German article gives the status in Germany as "unrated and seized", i.e. effectively banned. This one says "18". Which is true? Please find out and fix. Given the rather strict German policies on all things "protection of youth". I'd doubt it was legal there. -- 212.63.43.180 (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So far, I've found a few things. Formerly in West Germany, the film was completely banned but the film is now 18+. If I get around to it, I'll do more research on it tomorrow. crassic![talk] 03:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The film has been given a Kein Jugendfreigabe ("no youth admitted" or FSK 18), which is pretty much 18+. crassic![talk] 04:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revolt!

i know such movie, live killings on human and in front of the camera. it acts as a purpose to show that there are barbaric tribe outside. the film making team is just as barbaric as them since they "educate" other people through the film, giving the message of bravely do killings. i just don't understand how they think, they are sick people and they are not fit to even be humans. breaking the image of human civilizations!
124.13.9.63 (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject; please limit comments to improvement of the article. Thank you. Nufy8 (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Local magistrate?

In the lede of this article, it says the film was seized in Italy by "the local magistrate". They only have one? Applejuicefool (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably it means local to where the screening took place. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll make a slight change to make that more clear Applejuicefool (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I changed "the local magistrate" to "a local magistrate" for clarity purposes.71.175.28.121 (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Extras

I swear upon the first reading of this article a few months ago, there was a paragraph or so about natives used as extras in the movie. What happened to that paragraph? —Rob (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at the history. crassic![talk] 17:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
With the amount of traffic to and from this article recorded in the history, that is precisely the sort of thing I didn't want to do. :-) I was hoping a regular editor to this article could chip in. —Rob (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Haha. Well, I've only looked at this article once before it became an FA. So I have no clue. crassic![talk] 20:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 129.82.42.150 pls stop this guy

Can an admin pls stop this guy for repeatedly messing up the info box? Themindset (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedited lede paras

Several times the two lead paras have been reverted without explanation to older versions with usage and grammatical errors, e.g. "slain for the camera," "despite this notoriety," "it focuses on a team," and more. Reverting without explanation is not editing. While the later version certainly is not carved in tablets of marble, a wholesale reversion to an older version is not editing nor within the spirit of Wikipedia. If the users making these reversions have problems with the later version, that should be copyedited, not wholesale reverted to an earlier version. To simply revert -- and repeatedly -- is nothing short of edit warring. 71.175.28.121 (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone seems to have reverted to the older version once again, which also removes wikilinks within the prose. I have attempted a new rewrite, removing much of the passive language while returning the relevant wikilinks. Siberian Husky (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "from a screenplay" sound like he directed the film from a screenplay, as in a location. "Based on a screenplay" is not only better terminology, but many other featured film articles use the same language.
  • The movie doesn't follow the team, as has been changed many times. It focuses on them, yes, but it follows the trek of Harold Monroe and the viewing of their footage. To say "it focuses on" is not a prose issue. Besides, "the movie" sounds awkward, which is why "film" is used in most articles.
  • I see no issue in leaving the passive voice. In fact, in other users' copyediting, they inserted the passive tense, and improved on the flow and quality of the prose.
  • "After premiering in Italy" was the original text. However, it was changed to "After its premiere in Italy" for ambiguity reasons.
  • "because six animals were killed on camera" is not eloquent prose
  • Why you would change "Although many nations have revoked the ban" is beyond me. There are absolutely no prose issues with that statement.
  • Again, there is nothing wrong with "Despite this notoriety". Tell me why it is grammatical incorrect.
  • This is my personal opinion: semicolons are awkward. Since there's nothing in Wikipedia's guidelines against them, I'm not condemning it outright. It's just a suggestion.
  • "Notwithstanding" is a terrible word; it's choppy, interrupts flow, sounds bad, and there is no issue with "despite this notoriety".

There's my reasons. If you guys wanna destroy this article, go right ahead. Helltopay27 (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, when you make a basic grammatical error -- "there's my reasons" -- I think you've made clear you may not be the best judge of English prose. As well, the reasoning you supply is subjective: preferring the passive voice, "semicolons are awkward," "notwithstanding is a terrible word," "is not elegant prose," "you guys wanna destroy this article," and the like. I think you've made the right decision to leave the section alone and allow others to handle this task. 71.175.28.121 (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by me, sorry. Helltopay27 (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
just passing through, thought i'd stick my nose in; my worthless opinion, the most recent edits are overall a step in the wrong direction, although 1 or 2 are OK on an individual basis. Gzuckier (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Please read the policy no personal attacks and comment on article content, not about other editors. Rude comments about other editors acting in good faith have no place on Wikipedia. As well, as is stated on every edited page, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly…do not submit it." Siberian Husky (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Aight, cool, no personal attacks. Gotcha. I was just responding to personal attacks hiding under the guise of "constructive criticism". Also, as for not wanting you writing to be edited mercilessly, what are we sitting around arguing about then? I'm pretty sure that's what I was doing to you guys, too. Edit wars/that policy = contradiction in terms. Good times, good times. Helltopay27 (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
To Gzuckier: finally, someone agrees with me. Helltopay27 (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cannibal Holocaust is fiction - 67.183.166.91

67.183.166.91, you've repeatedly added the sentence 'Cannibal Holocaust is fiction' to the article and multiple editors have removed it. Would you explain why you think this is necessary? People are unlikely to stop reverting you if you provide no explanation. Olaf Davis | Talk 15:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Further, please read the policy WP:NPA and comment on article content, not on other editors. Rude accusations such as this [1], against editors acting in good faith, have no place on Wikipedia and will not help your case. Olaf Davis | Talk 18:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)