Talk:Heavenly Creatures

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): New Zealand cinema task force

	LGBT Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

See also angel, god.?

Can someone who has seen this more recently than I comment? I don't remember an angel in the film, or much play with religion, but I saw the film about 3 years ago and have seen hundreds since. I took the title to be ironic. Koyaanis Qatsi

Absolutely not relevant to the movies, and 'heavenly creatures' is not an expected entry point for those subjects.

I would just like to add some comments that I think might be pertinent and worthwhile. I would like also someone who could be bothered to comment critically on the comments I make. Perhaps even I would suggest that the person responsible for writing or editing the main article on the film might see fit or not as the case may be to add my points. I loved the euphemistic way that the writer of the article described the relationship of the two girls. The use of the term "close friends". Now while I must admit, that I havn't actually seen the film recently so I'm relying on my memory stores but I think my memory might be serving me well, when I say that by the use of the euphemistic terms "close friends" the author probably being as neutral as possible used these words rather than the word describing the relationship as lesbian. Now I don't think that euphemism is necessarily "neutral language"-it in fact could be construed as a form of propaganda coming under perhaps the field of omission. Saying "close friends" is not really accurate and indeed is actually misleading and degenerate and pejorative of the term friend. In my book and a lot of other people's books close friend except being "euphemistic" has no sexual content. Being euphemistic leaves the interpretation of the text open to possible misunderstanding and misrepresentation. This text could lead people to believe that the two girls were in fact good friends and not lovers. In truth they were. Is the truth important or is keeping up appearances under the cloak of "neutral " language acceptable, wanted, desirous, necessary? Why in this day and age where supposedly in the majority of Anglo-Saxon and Western countries where it is considered legal to be a lesbian is there this hesitancy resulting in euphemism probably trying to be neutral coming from? I also love the way the author continues to put together in the same vein and the same juxtaposed thought referencing, the fact of this relationship and the girls continually spiralling down into a world of fantasy. Now while in the film I must admit that they did live in and perpetuate and even egg each other on into more and more irreality (which is fantasy is it not?) I wonder whether this can be seen as more evidence of the mainstream heterosexuals who deem anything they don't understand or disagree with as being "not serious" "frivolous" and quite frankly from this text "of the fantastic (related to fantasy)".

Another point that I would like to make is that of all the 7 major types of plot you can ever have in a story this is essentially another take on the Romeo and Juliet level even if a bit obscure and "scratching for straws", as my detractors might say but I obviously don't because I bothered to mention it. The two girls were if not properly in love and who can judge but the subject because love is subjective and they were like in Romeo and Juliet prevented from seeing each other and this prevention like in R and J lead to death or a lot of death as in R and J.

I also don't quite know the protocol for submitting text. Do you have to put your name and can you remain anonymous?

I also agree with the comment possibly made by the person in charge of the site that said in response to the person above whose argument was I think that they thought there was enough "God, angel" stuff in the film, (obviously the title helped), to put a link to angels or God. I agree with the person in charge of the site that there is not enough evidence (cogent, pertinent, and relevant that is, to the subject) to link this film in any way to sites about angels, religion or god.

I'm very sick of hearing people refer to heterosexuals as "homophobes". I hate, absolutely HATE that term and wish it would go obsolete. "Heterosexuals deem anything they don't understand as 'not serious', frivolous'". What a misinformed thing to say! There may be some "intolerance" here, but I certainly can't see what is wrong with the right kind of relationship. Homosexuals deem anything that they don't understand or don't agree with as "intolerant" or "arrogant". A sexual relationship should be between a man and a woman, not between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Scorpionman 23:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Who suggested this? When? Where?

And yes, you are intolerant. It may be your view that there is a 'right' kind of relationship, but your failure to accept other relationships is, by definition, intolerant. I need waste no more time on this. -- Ec5618 01:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

There should be no other relationships. And you are intolerant of those who are intolerant of homosexuality, so you might as well not call anybody "intolerant" until you become tolerant yourself. And frankly, you might as well not waste any more time on this, because it's pointless. Scorpionman 01:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I never said I was intolerant of intolerance. I merely pointed out that you are intolerant. And technically, I don't think that even objecting to intolerance is intolerance in itself. Still, indeed, pointless. You're objecting to ficticious commentary. -- Ec5618 08:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures please?

Since I don't know how to add pictures to Wikipedia, could someone please find some screen caps from the film, that aren't copyright and post them on the page to imporve it. Thanks Movie-lover93 04:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redundancy

"The original 1994 American release was rated R for a chilling murder and some sexuality, while the 2002 Director's Cut was rated R for violence and sexual content." Is there anything functionally different about those two descriptions? Recommend revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.188.55 (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original Screenplay??? And where is Daughters of Heaven on Wiki?

"It received an Academy Award nomination for Best Original Screenplay" I thought it was based on the play 'Daughters of Heaven', which doesn't seem to have a single mention on Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.147.28 (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)