Talk:The Village (film)

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.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] correction : Plot

The plot description contain numerous factual errors "death on the increase amongst the villagers", Ivy can "see vague lights and shapes", "elders agree to allow Ivy to pass through the forest"...ect. It is also full of suppositions not supported by the film such as "security team --- thinks they are protecting a habitat full of wild animals". I have corrected those and cleaned up the prose a little.(Halfblue 04:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC))

The name "Kevin" appears without any explanation, as follows:

"(Kevin's superior, who can briefly be seen in a reflection as being Shyamalan himself, ...)". I think there should be a short explanation about - who is Kevin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.103.77 (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] correction : Reception

A $14 million dollar net is not exactly a hit... and it falls way short of Shyamalan’s other “hits”.. so “modest” seems to best describe it.

The term “raking in audiences” seems to be more fan hyperbole more than an accurate statement. A large, and universally considered deceptive, advertising campaign brought in the viewers the first weekend. And once they got there they apparently didn’t like what they saw since “The Village” had one of the biggest drop-offs in box office of any film that year.(Halfblue 04:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Genre

I saw this movie, and think it is less a horror film, more a dramatic thriller. Guppy

[edit] Reception

Why delete the reference to the good reviews? It is factual and supported by the link. Gaohoyt 03:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The addition seemed to be adding a positive spin to a film that garnered overwhelmingly bad reviews, and that seemed to be adding a biased statement NPOV. Also the linked source contradicted the edit: edit stated " effective use of actors" and linked text stated "Weaver's role amounts to little, and you feel pity for Brody, stuck in a part that hardly called for an Oscar winner" ... that was a misrepresentation of the source. 69.72.7.183 22:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, but Rotten Tomatoes has it at 42% which is mixed, not overwhelming. Agree that the young characters had better performances (and writing). I can support all the good things I said, and maybe I will someday. Thanks for your explanation, though. I thought Shyamalan botched the ending.Gaohoyt 02:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actualy it’s not a matter of supporting what you want to write. I think I can find a reviewer's statement that supports each point you had as well. It’s a matter of adding bias to a short encyclopedic article. And Wikipedia looks on adding an equal contrary statement to an article where the two sides are not equivalent as a form of bias (please see WP:NPOV). The bias in question seems to be Undue weight:
Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
According to Rotten Tomatoes 42% misses a "fresh" rating of 60% by almost 20 points and falls way short of their 75% "certified fresh". The "Tomatometer" usually scores a movie high since it’s a binary rating... see it/don't see it. A movie that passes most critics muster will score in the 70's pretty easy. A 42% is a pretty dismal movie as far as this rating system is concerned. I think Halfblue's addition of "Criticisms" seems to be fairly "weighted" and is a useful counterpoint to the recent edits made by fans of the movie who seem to just want to put forward their opinion, instead of making a balanced, neutral edit. 69.72.7.54 18:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In no way does a 42% favorable rating among the critics justify a 0% favorable description in Wikipedia. If there were 100 references in the article and 42 of them were favorable, would you delete the 42 on the grounds that they represented a non-neutral POV? This a not a paper-based medium where we have to deny the user information because there isn't room for it. Why deny him the knowledge that, for example, the movie's music, or Bryce Dallas Howard's performance, drew praise?

The "Tomatometer" is not a rating of how many critics liked the movie--- it is a rating of how many critics said "don't go see it". A critic can dislike parts of a movie and still say it's worth seeing. Having that many critics say flat out “Don’t see it” is a much higher sanction than just how much they like it. Rotten Tomatoes has another rating, "average rating", which for this movie is 5.5. That equals about a 2 star movie (on a scale of 4). 2 stars would be the mean between 1 stars and 3 stars or 33% said it was an OK film, 33% said it was a mediocre film, and 33% said it was an awful film. The description of the movie in the article should reflect that "Weight". The section on "Criticisms" seems pretty "weighted" i.e. it gives the reader a "feel" for the reception the movie got. I'm not saying good things can't be said. I for one would love to see the addition "This film was noted for Bryce Dallas Howard's exceptional debut performance" (not sure if it is her "debut"... research required) 69.72.93.159 01:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I just finished watching this movie. And I was MAJOR disapointed. I was expecting a triller. The story was supposed to be about the villagers and their long-standing truce with the "creatures" that live in the woods. I was expecting the creatures to be real. That was what (IMHO) would have made a good film. Reality. Nope -- it was "all farce." These were a group of people who all had blinders on to the world! Dumb. Totally and completly dumb. And the movie cheats, by opening with a statement that the time is in the late 19th century -- a lie. That was the whole story of the film -- a lie. Disapointing. -- Jason Palpatine 07:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I would assume that the reason why this movie has received such mixed reactions, is the very fact that it is so difficult to place in a specific category. People go to see it expecting a classic style horror movie, and are disappointed when they realize that it is a different ballgame alltogether. This is not surprising, as the marketing of the movie was indeed somewhat misleading. Personally, I was not bothered by this; I found it to be a very good and interesting film throughout. Consolamentum

[edit] Spoiler

If you wish to see (or reveal the entire plot of this movie) see: Spoiler_The_Village Template:Spoiler

I've seen the movie...the article doesn't tell the entire story. Is that for spoiler purposes? Mike H 19:30, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

I think they deleted the spoiler portion. There used to be one...

There's nothing wrong with a spoilers section so long as it doesn't give away everything. I mean, come on, this movie has only been out three days! Besides, the spoiler section I deleted had a LOT of incorrect info. RickK 23:02, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

That is true. Too bad "the movie sucked" was a violation of NPOV. I'd surely put it. Mike H 23:03, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate: 19th century

Template:Spoiler I am removing "19th century", replacing with "small agrarian" in mentioning the village.Pedant 11:06, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why is the setting listed as an 1897 colony? I don't recall that date ever appearing, and once the ending is revealed, it is clearly not 1897.
In the beginning of the film, the headstone of the villager who died recently (sorry, can't remember his name) lists the year of death as 1897. Mr.Gruntor 11:00, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)


There is an intoductory blurb at the start of the movie that states that the setting is Pennsylvainia in the yaer 1897. -- Jason Palpatine 07:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Changed “small agrarian village” to “small village in 1897”… the tombstone in the beginning clearly has the data “1897” as the child’s death date.(Halfblue 04:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC))
Although the tombstone and the period pieces would indicate that the dating is in the late 19th-century, the group counseling picture of the Elders (discovered in one of the locked boxes) suggest that their counseling sessions took place sometime in the 1970s, which would make the actual date much more current. Also, the security jeep and the security station (including the interior props, such as the refrigerator, antibiotics, etc.) would indicate a more modern time frame. Thus it appears that the dates listed at the beginning of the film, including the one on the tombstone, is set to initially throw off viewers. - Cybjorg 12:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate

Template:Spoiler One man breaks this covenant ---> One of the younger men fearlessly breaks this tradition (there is no covenant, it is a tradition)

The creatures begin leaving increasingly horrific warnings -->the villagers begin to experience increasingly frightening warnings. (untrue in it's previous form)Pedant 04:16, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] reversion : spoiler vandalism

anonymous user revert to 04:12, 6 Aug 2004

[edit] Spoiler time?

Is it now time to write a decent article here? I'll write down the plot and spoiler – after all, The Sixth Sense has a full writeup. I've removed the silly spoiler the village link, btw. violet/riga (t) 23:06, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Billionaire vs. millionaire

Template:Spoiler I thought the newspaper headline shown when he opened the trunk said he was a billionaire, not a millionaire? You wouldn't be able to finance that place on a million dollars. 69.243.41.28 07:08, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Confirmed via google. [1] (spoiler alert, of course.) 69.243.41.28 07:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Time During Which Story Takes Place

((spoiler)) The statement that the film is set in 1976 seems to be incorrect. The photograph removed from the "bad box" is clearly taken in the seventies (clothing & hair styles, more specifically year model of car), but that picture was taken before (even if immediately before) the start of the village. Given that individuals such as Ivy Walker and Lucius Hunt have grown up exclusively in the village, and that they are at least in their 20's (possibly early 30's even), then the story is set in the 1990's or even the "present day." (Note the Land Rover driven by the park ranger as further evidence of a later date.)

Changed “began in 1976” to “some time in the 1970's”. The age of the village ranges from 30 years (given in some synopsis and backed up by a 1973 car in the “clinic scene” photo) to 20 years depending on how old you think Joaquin Phoenix’s character is (he is a baby in that very same photo). Given that it would take some time to establish the village before they move in, the date may fall somewhere around 1979 if Phoenix is a 25 year old or 1974 if he is a 30 year old.(Halfblue 04:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC))
I also changed “the film is set in a much more modern time than was implied.” to “the film is set in the present day" (a newspaper headline in one scene has the date July 30th 2004, the date of the film's release) (Halfblue 04:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Trivia

I take issue with the section at the end... whoever added the parts about "definately stole" and whatnot is clearly not following NPOV, at least in my opinion. Anyone care if I tag the section or remove the offending bits?--MUSpud2 05:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Just take it out, citing NPOV in your edit summary. I've been meaning to do it myself, I just haven't gotten around to it. Microtonal...(Put your head on my shoulder) 07:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


This is something that came to me the other day and I wanted to know if anybody could confirm this: Is the "Buzzing" sound that the Villagers hear from the woods actually airplanes flying nearby (and out of sight as mentioned in the movie). I ask this since I live rather close to a small airport and I hear similar sounds to that of the movie. Darwin's Bulldog 02:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • SPOILER*


Not sure about buzzing, but the freaky sounds (howling) in the woods were made by windpipes the elders left hanging up in trees. They were shown in a deleted scene on the DVD. -- Banes 20:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added "Criticisms"

I have taken a cue from the Signs (film) article and added the section "Criticisms" to the article and moved one opinion based edit to it. I also changed "Reception" to "Box office" Halfblue 14:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Those We Don't Speak Of-merge

I disagree, there is too much information available about them to put it in this article. The Village (film) would go way off-topic if we added it all here. If we decided to put only a small part of the info from Those We Don't Speak Of here, then we'd be making sure that some of the information is lost. In conclusion; object.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 06:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest merging. Info lost may be info that is not needed. The description of Those We Don't Speak Of is nothing more than the observations derived from watching one fictional work of cinema--> The Village. I don't think portions of a work of fiction needs to be described in minute detail in an encyclopedia... people watching The Village have learned all they need to know about Those We Don't Speak Of. And people who have not watched The Village are going to find this article totaly irrelevant - Those We Don't Speak Of have no life outside the film. Describing them here adds nothing to what you can learn about the "character" or the film and can even be detrimental spoiler wise. If Those We Don't Speak Of were part of a larger canon or links to some real world mythological reference then it might add some "meat" to this article, but there seems to be none. Halfblue 05:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the merging. This is a fine article, but Those We Don't Speak of simply don't warrant an article on their own for all of the reasons Halfblue mentions. Some of this information is pertinent, but much of it is a retread of what's on the movie's artivle. BoosterBronze 16:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

merge outside of the context of the article on The Village this is not a notable topic.---Jackel 00:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - all information can be worked into the plot synopsis of the movie article if written properly, as that is the only source of information. Mcr29 21:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] external links

I've added a link to the synopsis for The Village at moviecheat.com. This is my site, it's pure content; I've checked the rules and it shouldn't be a problem to add this link as long as it's relevant and informative. I think it absolutely is; anyone who wants a more detailed look at this movie will find it useful. But if anyone truly has a problem, feel free to revert.Rasi2290

[edit] Recent add

Moved below from Criticisms to TALK per wikipedia policy. If this has a scholarly citation please re-add with that citation. 69.72.7.65 23:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

For some, the most interesting surprise was the film's unexpected hero(ine). From the trailer, many viewers expected the main protagonist to be Lucius, as Joaquin Phoenix was gaining significant attention as an "up and comer" in movie media. When the main protagonist turns out to be a blind teenage girl, we witness a clear departure from traditional gender scripts. Ivy is a multi-dimensional character who provides emotional support for her sister, befriends the community's weakest member, courageously sets out to find medicine for Lucius, makes her way through the woods without the gift of sight, and cleverly disposes of the "monster" along the way. It is her bravery that saves Lucius (or so we imagine) in the end.

[edit] Noah skinning the animals?

The plot synopsis states it is implied that Noah skinned the animals left around the village. I don't think that's true, it was done by the elders to scare anyone from venturing into the woods again as Lucius had done. Noah simply found a costume and put it on the one time. Mcr29 22:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are the indications that it was Noah skinning the animals:
  • Skinned animals were found before Lucius went into the woods so this wasn't an "elder reaction".
  • The only "elder reaction" consisted of leaving red paint on the doors.... not skinning animals.
  • Edward told Ivy the animal skinnings were not part of the "elder monster raids" fear campaign (although since he did not know who did it he thought it must be a renegade elder becuase they were wearing a monster suit, he did not at that time know Noah stole a suit.)
  • Noah is giggling at the creatures screaming in the woods at the beginning of the movie probably to indicate he already knew they were fake.
  • Noah stole his father’s suit pointing to the fact he may have found out about that suit a long time ago.
  • Noah wore the costume more than one time. During the wedding Noah is not seen on screen and (someone) wearing a monster costume skinned the animals that night. A good interpretation of that scene where Edward is confused at the wedding interrogating the boys who saw a "creature" skinning the animals and running away is Edward knows no elder did this (they were all at the wedding and no raid was planed).
  • When Noah’s mom finds out Noah has found and been using the suit she says "Oh the animals!"
  • There is an external clue is in the original script [2]. (and in scenes later replaced) where the creature costume is more of a humped back affair (explaining all the "feathers" around the hole in the floor... they are used for stuffing the hump). The sceen where Ivy encounters the monster in that version describs the monster as "larger and hairier" than the Elders costume. The scene where Noah's parents find him missing does not have "Oh the animals" and the “oh he stole a suit” lines in it... instead is shows the chicken feathers used for stuffing and bits of fur that have been knitted together.... implying that Noah had been skinning the animals to make his own suit, and he made it in the "quiet room" during all his time spent in there.
69.72.2.72 15:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Pit - Possible Reference / Trivia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onibaba

Onibaba also features a climactic battle of wits involving a young woman fighting a masked "monster" and utilising a round pit in the ground. i saw it several years before i even saw the village and it instantly jumped back into my head when watching it.

cyclomedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.108.42.194 (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Vandal

Some idiot vandaliced the page typing BEANSBEANSBEANSBEANS over and over and stating it's 'a creepy fucking movie from the worst director ever. all his movies suck balls.' Can someone work this out?201.196.64.142 21:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't logged in.Axe995 21:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inspiration?

Is it just me, or does this film bear a remarkable resemblance to the 1960's TV series The Prisoner? OK, so the setting is different, the psychological torture has been removed and the balloon has been substituted but the whole premise is similar - even the title seems linked... Paul-b4 10:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's totally a rip-off of the book Running out of Time. M. Night Shyamalan is a horrible director and needs to work on being a little more original.

[edit] Trivia Cleanup

While integrating useful information from the trivia section into the article, two bullet points were removed entirely. The bit about the Scary Movie 4 spoof was removed as irrelevant to the article. The statement

"In several scenes, a boom mike can clearly be seen at the top of the screen."

was also removed for lack of a proper source. If it is true, it should probably go back in the article, but I haven't found a good source for it. Can anyone help? Sbacle 16:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)