Talk:The Stepford Wives (2004 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Stub
This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article. Feel free to add your name to the participants list and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Neutrality

The changing of the ending definitely shows POV using weasel words like "gross". Personally, I thought it was a decent movie. Then again, I think Nicole Kidman is to acting what milk is to Corn Flakes, so I might be a little biased. I agree, the article needs cleaning up to reflect a more neutral POV. DonMEGÄ‚|60645 12:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed the following blurbs, they appear to be nothing more than the opinion of the author:

This film is a departure from other versions of The Stepford Wives in that it is a comedy although the feminist themes are still present. The only real moral to be gleaned from this film is perhaps that both gynoid superfeminism and old-fashioned male chauvinism are inappropriate extremes. [citation needed]

The movie was mostly criticized for departing too far from the underlying feminist message of Ira Levin's original novel and the 1975 adaptation. [citation needed]

Bantosh 21:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is Not a Movie Review

This "article" hardly reads like an encyclopedia entry! Rather, it sounds like someone's personal opinion. As a movie review it's fine; but wikipedia is not a soapbox to present your opinions. The following sentences strongly smell of POV and Film Review to me:

  • "Motivated by what they surely hoped would strike audiences as a witty twist, this movie's abandonment of the original film's feminism leaves it without a clear message"
  • "the end ... is preachy, politically correct, and unsatisfying to those who have read the novel or seen the 1975 film"
  • "the entire message of Levin's work is lost due to the Disney-fying of the ending"
  • "This tenor is a full pendulum-swing away from the original message of Levin's novel, and is an overcompensating bow to political correctness and the sensitive-man movement"

This article needs a big cleanup to establish neutral POV. Remember: we're here to write an encyclopedia, not to preach opinions or warn audiences about box office bombs. Keep it neutral. 66.17.118.207 15:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot Inaccuracy?

The plot synopsis says the real women were trapped underground, but in the movie I saw (and I am currently watching it on cable as I type this), that never happens. Matthew Broderick deactivates the computer chips and all the people at the party begin acting normally again, as if they were never robots, just being controlled. (oh no they don't - e.g. they crush the remotes with their bare hands. Robots with brain-program implanted and modified maybe - there should be a link to the brain-in-a-vat category of philiosophical conundrums, cause it all leads to those)

This has led many critics to dislike the movie because it's not certain whether they are robots or not.

Okay I just read the rest of the synopsis, and it says Glen Close's character dies at the end - but that never happened either? WTF? Did whoever write this even watch the movie?!? 24.196.83.29 23:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)rglong

[edit] Expand

As some of the posts above indicate, this article reads like a film review and is lacking a general synopsis of what the film is. I would expand it myself but I have not viewed the movie. -Rolypolyman 22:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Plot synopsis has been expanded. Hope it is satisfactory. Zhukora (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Type of movie

Perhaps Dark Comedy would be a better description of the type. Afterall, The topic would be horrific (people replaced by robots) if it wasn't made light of so much. Jon 04:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

Am I the only one seeing errors in the page's formating with Clean up and straying boxes bleeding into the sidebar with the information on the film? Dragonranger 20:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I see it too, the formatting is horribly effed up. I don't have the skills to fix it, though. Hopefully someone who does will stumble upon it and tweak it. Captain Infinity 02:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Sw02.jpg

Image:Sw02.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)