Talk:Stardust (2007 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stardust (2007 film) article.
Article policies
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.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Move page

This page should be moved to Stardust (2007 film) as there is a film with the same name made in 1974. --Nehrams2020 19:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Differences between mediums

May I suggest the removal of the section "Differences from the print version"? The content constitutes original research in providing your own analysis of two separate sources. It would be more encyclopedic to have a Writing subsection under the Production section in which all the major changes are pointed out by independent, secondary sources, and explained if possible. In the adaptation from one medium to another, there will obviously be differences in the process. It is best to identify only the changes that have real-world context, since the information is encyclopedic. I would suggest taking a look at Road to Perdition#Writing and The Dark Is Rising (film)#Writing for how this has been implemented. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you make some good points. But for the sake of fairly considering all alternatives approach, I'd like to offer my view. I found Differences_between_book_and_film_versions_of_Charlie_and_the_Chocolate_Factory very helpful. Lists of discrepancies are much more factual and less expository (or argumentative) than the suggestions you cite, and thus provide better reference material. I cannot speak for the previous list on this page, but such lists are not necessarily "original research," since they needn't derive independent conclusions, but merely restate items directly from each work. Traditional encyclopedias do chain themselves to prose for explanations, and that's usually a good idea. But in certain situations, a list is more helpful to the researcher. In those rare situations, wikipedia should not strive to be encyclopedic, but "wikipedic!" Anxious to hear more thoughts here. --Thomas B 19:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User6985 (talk • contribs).
It wasn't necessarily encyclopaedic in nature, but here is the list I typed up when I was originally expanding the article. I believe it is necessary for film adaptations to note where differences were made as these represent the view of the director/writer as opposed to the original author/creator. I just hadn't gotten back to this as my attention went elsewhere.
  • Secundus is alive for a portion of the film. In the novel he is already dead before the three surviving brothers - Primus, Tertias, Septimus - appear at their father's death bed.
  • Tristan Thorn's adoptive mother and half-sister are not in the film.
  • Tristan does not have a furry pointy ear.
  • The talking tree does not appear in the film.
  • The role of Captain Shakespeare (Robert DeNiro) is greatly expanded and changed from the novel.
  • The death of Tertius is different from that in the novel. (He dies by poisoned wine, but the wine is given to him by his brother, not a servant girl.)
  • Tristan becomes a star at the end of the movie, instead of passing of old age.
  • The method of the death of the unicorn at the Inn is different.
  • The spell holding Tristan's mother (named Una in the film, unnamed in the print version) is dependent upon the death of Ditchwater Sal as opposed to a convergence of fate (Until the Moon loses her daughter and two Thorns become one.)
  • The action sequence at the end of the film does not appear in the novel.
  • Lamia's two sisters are left to die of old age in the novel instead of dying in combat.
  • Victoria marries Humphrey as opposed to the much older shopkeeper Mr. Monday.
  • The time span of the film is one week while the print version takes several weeks.
  • Tristan's burned hand becomes a testament to his love in the print version while it hardly appears burned in the film - aside from a wince shortly after the burn, it does not appear again.
  • Ferdy the Fence is a new character.
  • The Market on the Faerie (Stormhold in the film) side of the Wall occurs rarely, while in the film the Market is always present.

Pejorative.majeure 00:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, the way the Babylon candle worked was different. In the novel, one walked while the candle was lite and could walk very far doing so. Instead of lighting the candle with Tristan's father, he gets past the wall, meets a dwarf and then learns how to use the candle. Tristan has the special magical power to know where anything in 'magic' land is. This was part of the evidence that he was not born in Wall. The witches were not killed because their time had not come. But after their final encounter, the acorn that would sprout the tree, which would be used to make a cradle for the boy who would slay them, was planted.Subanark 20:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs a spoiler tag!

Just noticed it needed a spoiler tag. 97.82.212.40 20:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry — Wikipedia contains spoilers. Encyclopedic coverage of a subject includes coverage of endings, so spoiler warnings are deprecated. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


There should be a spoiler. I've added one back. The plot section for a movie, especially a new one, should have a spoiler warning. That's what they're for. -Pyke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.35.141 (talk) 04:53, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry. The plot section will contain spoilers for the plot, no matter what you do. Annie D 04:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The plot section is a review of the whole plot and not a short synopsis or summary. 211.29.246.56 07:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are describing what happens in the movie, with specific references, you are, by nature, spoiling the story. You can provide a general context of the plot without providing specific spoilers. The two are not the same thing. For example, the plot in the Little Red Riding Hood would be a story about a girl and a wolf, disguised as her grandmother. If you are describing the entire story, then there should be spoilers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyke 64.230.35.141 (talk) 05:03, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

That's true. That's why the opening paragraph of the article should contain a one-line introduction to the story without spoilers. I see the article doesn't have one yet, maybe you can add it? But the plot section itself will contain spoilers, that's unavoidable. There was a discussion about the usage of spoiler tags, and the consensus was that it is redundant to use them in "Plot" section. Their use is now restricted to other sections where it is not immediately clear that there would be spoilers, such as the "Production", "Background", so on so forth. Annie D 05:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


I am not entirely familiar with the discussion, I did not participate in it. That said, an encyclopedia by definition, organizes and stores information for consumption. This is its purpose. If the standards of organization make sense only to those who create, and not those who use, it loses value. As I tried to explain previously, there's an implicit belief that one is reading a plot, they are reading an overview of what happens, in a *general* context. As this article enters into specific details, to a layman like myself, a spoiler warning seems reasonable. I am unsure if this fits the convention of the creators of such articles or not, but I would venture a guess it would be the best manner to organize said information, at least until the section is organized to not be so specific and/or warn users that it divulges the entire tale. -Pyke

For now. I've replaced the spoiler tag (which is not required in plot sections) with a general {{current fiction}} tag over the whole article. This can be removed when the film has had wide exposure. --Tony Sidaway 16:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I really think this needs a spoiler tag too, IT REALLY DOES!!!! This was user:crazyfrengy I just didn't bother to log in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.1.55 (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please shorten!

Too long, Clanky, tooooooo long! Please shorten the synopsis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.4.51.150 (talk • contribs) 14:55, August 13, 2007

It's also terribly written. Most noticeable is the tense changing all over the place. Gemfyre 00:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reduced the section to a rewrite of the official synopsis found at the movie site. The previous version was far too long per #2 of WP:IINFO. If someone can rewrite the plot to conform to the guidelines at WP:MOSFILMS#Plot, they are welcome to do so. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is the UK opening so late?

Considering the film is based on a British author's story, set in "England", and mostly filmed in the UK, it's pretty annoying. We very rarely have to put up with such massive delays these days, so is there an official reason for the huge gap in opening dates between North America and Britain? 86.132.137.224 03:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that the number of prints produced for a film is much lower than the total number of cinemas it gets shown in world wide due to their cost. It is quite common for the prints to be shipped between countries (hence the staggered release dates). So the print shown in a UK cinema may have been to the USA and Australia previously. This practice will likely continue until digital cinema brings the cost of duplication down to the reasonable levels (although it'll probably be a while before they have comparable quality). --James 11:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Late opening maybe - but over two months is unusual, and is ridiculous. The gap for "Sweeney Todd" is one month or so, and for "The Golden Compass" the releases were nearly simultaneous. Two months is simply not fair for a film like "Stardust", full stop. I didn't go to see it at all partly out of protest, though I know it will make no difference unless thousands do likewise. 86.132.141.14 (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headlines

[edit] Part 1

[edit] Part 2

[edit] Part 3

[edit] Part 4

[edit] Part 5

[edit] Part 6

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)