Talk:The Company of Wolves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Company of Wolves article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is part of the ITC Entertainment Distributions WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive, detailed and structured guide to ITC Distributions 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.

	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

	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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

link to the interview with Neil Jordan is broken, got a new one?

This really doesn't seem to be a 'stub' anymore; its more like a 'Start' article at least. Can one just change the ratings above? Or is it customary for a mod to do it? I'm not certain. -- Jayunderscorezero 22:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can change them (and anyone can change them back again...). Cop 633 16:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wanted to make sure. -- Jayunderscorezero 22:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm upgrading this to 'B' on both scales, as it now definitely bears more resemblance to the example page for 'B' than the example page for 'Start'. --Jayunderscorezero 12:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synopsis Needs a Rewrite

First of all, it is far too long, convoluted and over-written for a casual reader to come away with a good idea of what happens in the film. It needs to explain the plot in a far more transparent and cogent fashion.

Secondly, and perhaps more seriously, it is awash with subjective and unsubstantiated interpretation. Such free-ranging conjecture is exactly what the No Original Research policy was designed to limit. The Company of Wolves is certainly a movie that lends itself (quite deliberately) to symbolic interpretation, yes. But you cannot just say 'this represents puberty' or whatever, and you certainly should not place that in the middle of a plot synopsis.

I think two things should be written:

i) A new, cogent synopsis

ii) A section alluding to the symbolic richness of the film and the possibilities of multifaceted interpretations, particularly those involving the rite-of-passage and puberty. NOT, however, an exhaustive list of every symbol or sign. Gunstar hero 17:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that you can edit!! Seriously, if you think there are problems, why not fix them yourself? Or at least have a go, and let others perfect the job? Cop 663 01:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd certainly be willing to practice what I preach when I have a little more free time. I only thought it may be more appropriate to test the water here before going ahead and re-writing entire sections. I supppose with this being a relatively minor subject people should just go right ahead and edit, though! Gunstar hero 10:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go at cutting down the synopsis, cutting out a lot of the 'analysis' and bits that go on about the symbolism (which is important, but obviously doesn't belong in the initial synopsis). It's now about 2/3 the length of what it was before. Still, it's a difficult synopsis to cut down considerably, as the film is made up of lots of small events and individual stories, so its hard to simply summarise the 'overall' plot succintly. Still, this should be a step in the right direction. --Jayunderscorezero 02:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's noticeably clearer now. You're right: it is quite a difficult plot to summarise, mainly because of the framed narratives of Granny and Rosaleen's mother. I just find that in a lot of other cases on Wikipedia, particularly when I look at the article of a film I've never seen before but want to get a general idea of, the so-called 'synopsis' is no more than a listing of every scene in the film! I'd say that your latest version is of an acceptable length for a general reader.Gunstar hero 22:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback. Something tells me that the synopsis could still be a little better, but I'm sure that's just my perfectionist streak bugging me. It seems more than acceptable for now. --Jayunderscorezero 04:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1987

This film was shown on BBC television on the 6th March 1987 (Images of the Zeebrugge ferry disaster followed straight after...) The BBC described the film as suitable for 'family viewing', for which they got into trouble afterwards, with many complaints (on the BBC's 'Points of view'?). I cannot find anything on the internet about this, so cannot 'verify'.... Licornenoire 20:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you know this? Do you simply have a really good memory, or do you you have any of this on video, taped off of the TV? If you have it on video you should be able to simply cite the program in question and that would be acceptable. --Jayunderscorezero 23:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)