Talk:The Wicker Man (1973 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Films     (Rated B-Class)   (Rated Mid importance) 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. 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 WikiProject Horror     (Rated B-Class) 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.

Contents 1 Prude 2 Song inspiration 3 Burning Man myth 4 Prude 5 Remake 6 Soundtrack merge suggestion 7 "Profane" explanation 8 The Wicker Man festival 9 Music 10 Author 11 POV Issues 12 Cleanup 13 New posters, new screen shots 14 Move to The Wicker Man (1973 film) ? 15 broken flow 16 That Deeley "one of the 10 worst films I've seen" quote 17 Locations 18 Off-topic banner on soundtrack section 19 Fair use rationale for Image:Wickermansoundtrack.jpg 20 Fair use rationale for Image:The Wicker Man US.jpg 21 Trivia Section too long, needs edit 22 Scariest 100 Scenes 23 Engaged? 24 Requested move 24.1 Survey 24.2 Discussion 25 Nothing But the Night

[edit] Prude

I put back in the bit about Howie being something of a prude...is there any doubt about that? Ellsworth 22:49, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Song inspiration

Iron Maiden and Judas Priest both made a song called "The Wicker Man" (I don't know who was covering who.)

Is this referencing this movie?

Don't know about the Judas Priest song, but the Maiden "Wicker Man" is certainly inspired by the film -- as usual for the band, the song is probably just suggested by the title of a movie or book they liked than a direct reference to the story. (Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner, Lord of the Flies, Prisoner, Quest for Fire, Out of the Silent Planet, Run Silent Run Deep, Phantom of the Opera, From Here to Eternity, are all other examples) Sandrough 23:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Burning Man myth

Dropped:

The burning of the wicker man at the end of the movie is cited to be a possible inspiration for the Burning Man festival based in Nevada.

Burning Man's founder debunks this here. Ellsworth 16:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prude

what exactly is a prude i may be somewhat misinformed -anon.

Prude - "A person who is or tries to be excessively proper, especially one who is easily offended by matters of a sexual nature." Ellsworth 01:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In the case of Howie, may I suggest the use of the word 'puritan' or 'puritanical'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomez2002 (talk • contribs)

I'm extremely reluctant to use the word 1) because it's bedly overused 2) because it's a crappy word in general, because the Puritans themselves were not puritanical. Anyway it looks like the consensus is to leave out any characterization of Howey's scruples in that regard. Ellsworth 15:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remake

I've removed this section because it looks like this project has been shelved:

"A remake is scheduled for released in 2006. The film will star Nicolas Cage and will be set in the USA."

The remake is being released on may 2006- Robert Fulton

[edit] Soundtrack merge suggestion

I've suggested a merge into this page of the soundtrack page: The Wicker Man (soundtrack). I discussed it in the talk page over there and was interested in people's opinion about moving that page into a section on this one. --Thetriangleguy 18:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a sensible merge to me. I've added the "mergefrom" template to this article's page to encourage discussion. KarlBunker 18:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Just went ahead with that merge. It seemed silly to me that an article on film which is essentially a musical, barely mentioned the music! --Thetriangleguy 20:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Good work. The article is much better for the change. KarlBunker 20:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Profane" explanation

I've reverted back a version after "profane" removal, which contained comment "how so?". The reason I originally included the word was to differentiate between the two versions as explained on the Sumer Is Icumen In entry. I felt that it was a relevant piece of information given the context of its use in the film. --Thetriangleguy 20:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact that article uses the term 'secular' to differentiate from the 'sacred' (ie Christian) version. --Nantonos 01:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Wicker Man festival

Should the article mention the Wicker Man Festival held in SW Scotland each year. The film is a definate inspirtaion for the music festival? --82.163.67.47 13:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Jamie

[edit] Music

Who's up for creating a section about bands who have been inspired (or covered "Willow's song"). We already list Iron Maiden twice!--Siokaos 06:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Author

I've read in several places that The Wicker Man was inspired by the novel "Ritual" by David Pinner. Does anyone know if this is true? The book is out of print now so I can't simply go out and buy a copy to see if there are similarities.

Have a listen to the commentary on the DVD (the 99 min version). It seems that Robin Hardy is aware of the book Ritual but he appears to deny it had anything much to do with The Wicker Man. Instead, he says that the film was inspired by a shared interest of himself and Anthony Shaffer in the Hammer Horror films, but feeling they were formulaic and full of clichés about vampires/witches/satanism - ie, the Church's views on "evil" forces. They wanted to make a more mature and intelligent film, getting away from all that. -Neural 10:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• I was just a few minutes ago looking at a page in which it was reported that Lee, Snell, and Schaffer each pitched in £5000 each to purchase rights to the novel. After some development it was abandoned as a story source. I have a copy (boxed up) of a novelization that Hardy published after production of the film.[1][2]

Regarding the film's source material, British actor-cum-author David Pinner insists that his 1968 novel 'Ritual' formed the inspirational basis of The Wicker Man and stresses that he was paid around £15,000 for the film rights to his book about a policeman investigating the witchcraft-laden murder of a child in a remote Cornish village. The now sadly deceased Anthony Shaffer conceded that Pinner's book was optioned, but insisted that he had ultimately rejected it as being unworthy of adaptation, opting instead to start again from scratch. For Shaffer, there was little or no link between 'Ritual' and The Wicker Man, although Pinner points out that there are scenes in his thriller (such as that in which two people have hyper-sex through a wall) which are precisely mirrored in the film. Ironically, Pinner now asserts that the reason his name was dropped from the credits for The Wicker Man in the first place was that he felt that Shaffer's script had departed from his novel's satirical intentions, and therefore he wished to dissociate himself from the movie. Decide for yourself.

– Channel 4 article

The film was conceived by the consortium of writer Anthony Shaffer; producer Peter Snell of British Lion; and actor Christopher Lee, who wanted to break from the Hammer films that had typecast him in gothic horror parts. They bought the rights to David Pinner's 1967 novel Ritual, but chose instead to work on an original Shaffer script about a sexually repressed Christian police sergeant from the Scottish mainland who investigates the disappearance of a schoolgirl in a remote Hebridean village. Shaffer admitted to being influenced by Pinner's book, albeit unconsciously, when the author complained of plagiarism.[3]

– Village Voice article

IMDB lists the book as an uncredited source. Without that book in hand, I couldn't comment on "how much" was used. David Spalding ^ta!k y@wp/_Contribs 20:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Issues

I see two items in this page which strike me as somewhat POV, and I'm inclined to edit them to achieve a more neutral stance.

• In the Synopsis section, there is a reference to the song Sumer is Icumen In, where it is described as "profane. In this context, it's clearly being used as a piece of religious music, so I'm thinking the term "profane" should be dropped.

• Also in the Synopsis section, 63.228.102.234 just changed the phrasing from "neo-pagan religion" to "neo-pagan cult." While I realize there's a lot of overlap between the two terms among scholars, to the general public "cult" is a somewhat derogatory term, and I see no reason to prefer it over "religion." Absent a cogent argument favoring "cult" over "religion," I'm going to change it back.

Septegram 04:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue of the song being described as "profane" has been brought up above. The reason for it being included was to differentiate between the two versions mentioned on the Sumer Is Icumen In article but since that comment was made the article on the song has been reworded and the "profane" version is now described simply as "secular". I think the problem here is that the suggestion in the film would be that the characters would be aware of the fact that they are deliberately not singing the sacred version; i.e. they are singing the version with the contradictory words to be profane or sacrilegious and show their contempt for Howie's god. I don't know, maybe I'm completely wrong. I'll leave it up to someone else after all I just realised I've written about 100 words on the absolutely unimportant matter of a single word. (oh yeah and I agree that the "religion" to "cult" change is silly) --Thetriangleguy 15:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I added the cleanup tag. This article is a little disjointed and I think could use some cleanup; feel free to disagree. :) -Elizabennet 21:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New posters, new screen shots

I've uploaded some real posters, not the wooden Anchor Bay box art, which I'll update the page with. One is (so far's I know) the UK release poster, another the US re-release, another some hokie Warner Bros. one I'd never seen before. Any idea what it is?

I'm going to upload some screenshots, too, but only add maybe one or two to the synopsis. If you search on my contributions today, you ought to see all the images. David Spalding ^ta!k y@wp/_Contribs 20:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to The Wicker Man (1973 film) ?

Since there is a The Wicker Man disambiguation page, and a The Wicker Man (2006 film) page, suggest moving this page to The Wicker Man (1973 film) for consistency. Please comment here so we can reach a consensus. TIA. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 14:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur. This seems sensible to me. Are they currently identical?

Septegram 17:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. May I suggest that the article be moved to The Wicker Man (1973 film) and The Wicker Man becomes the disambig page? The current disambig page could then be deleted. Mallanox 23:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. This is the same situation as The Italian Job and Get Carter and The Ladykillers (also Cat People, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre) etc.. all cult films with bad remakes. The remake is not as important. Jooler 00:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jooler. After looking at those other films I suggest replacing the {{otheruses |nested=yes}} with:

This article is about the 1973 movie. For the 2006 remake, see The Wicker Man (2006 film). For other uses, see The Wicker Man (disambiguation).

--Thetriangleguy 01:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point, and I think there's a template for such a case. I'll take a look in a little bit. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

Got it. This template is not for the faint of heart ...

{{Two other uses|the [[1973 in film|1973]] film|the 2006 remake|The Wicker Man (2006 film)|other uses|The Wicker Man (disambiguation) |nested=yes}}

You'll love it. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 03:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC) _{Corrected the template 03:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)}

I agree with Jooler and Thetriangleguy. This is the "real" Wicker Man. It shouldn't be necessary to rename an entry for a legendary film every time someone produces a second-rate remake of it. Rodparkes 03:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Regardless of our personal feelings in the matter, the guideline here pretty clearly states that film articles should incorporate the year:

{{quotation|Often, films share the same name as other films, books or terms. When disambiguating a film from something else, use (film) in the title when only one film had that name, and (YEAR film) in the title when there is more than one film by that name (example: Titanic (1997 film)).|Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)|[[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28films%29] |nested=yes}} {{quotation|If a film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, use (YEAR film) in the title: Film Title (YEAR film). Rename the already existing article's title and change it to Film Title (YEAR film) also. (emphasis added)|WikiProject Films/Style guidelines|[[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style] |nested=yes}}

Also note that if I/we create an article about Robin Hardy's novelization of the film, it could also be called The Wicker Man, though the proper naming convention would be The Wicker Man (novel). Now that there are, dammit, two films with this name, the MOS recommends using the (YEAR film) suffix. I know we all love this film, but that doesn't let us flaunt WP style conventions in this one case. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 04:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines are where feelings come into it. Guideline are just that, guidelines. They are specifically not rules. If there are reasons not to adhere to them then it is perfectly fine to do so. And the guidelines can be updated or changed very easily. Generally we put books at the title and films and other derivitives of the same name use disambiguation. In this case, this film is the original piece of art and other film the novelisation and the Iron Maiden song are all derivitives. Jooler 08:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember, Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. If we label one film "legendary" and another "a crappy remake", we're not being fair and impartial. IMDB is where you can vote for screen legends, here we should be working on the assumption that all films were created equal. Mallanox 09:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It is perfectly NPOV to to give the original work of art the priviledge of primary topic disambiguation. Or do you think that Mona Lisa should be at Mona Lisa (painting)? What about The African Queen? - If there was a porno film of the same name, should this be moved? Jooler 09:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Much as I see the point about meeting those Wikiprojectfilm guidelines (which completely contradict Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic) a quick look down this list of film remakes seems to indicate that there are quite a lot of examples of a lesser remake with an identical title where the original takes precedence (a few examples: Dawn of the Dead, The Fog, Alfie, Attack of the 50 Foot Woman, Night of the Living Dead, Breathless, House on Haunted Hill). I presume whoever changes this one will go through and change all the others! --Thetriangleguy 19:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you, that's the answer we're looking for. Apparently someone already created the "unambiguous" page The Wicker Man (1973 film) in August which redirects to this page, which is a "main topic page." As per the disambiguation page guideline, that's perfectly acceptable where "The Wicker Man" predominately refers to the Shaffer/Hardy 1973 film. The disambiguation page now links to the unambiguous page (as per the guideline). (There's a The Wicker Man (1978 film) page as well, though I don't see a need. The Abraxas re-release was in 1979.) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 03:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That page was created after someone else tried to move the page. The 1978 redirect should be put up on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion -- Jooler 13:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That this has previously been a subject of discussion/action was pertinent, why didnt anyone mention it? Aaaanyway, feel free to list that that on RfD for us, eh? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 14:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It was moved without discussion and swiftly moved back. Jooler 23:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't heard anything about the remake for probably a year or so until now. I've at least seen the original and while I wasn't crazy about it, it is considered a cult classic where the new one looks to be considered a disaster. That makes the 2006 film severely less notable than the original and there is absolutely no reason to move anything--I don't think there would be even if the new one were a blockbuster. I encourage everyone to go about their business. Doctor Sunshine 02:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's much reason not to leave things as they are for the moment. Perhaps it would be good to review the matter a year after the remake has been released, as it will be easier to decide the matter away from the subjectivity of a press release campaign. I believe that the original probably is the more important one myself, but on the other hand, disambiguation is nothing to be ashamed of, especially when it helps distinguish between two of the same things using the name - ie films. Girolamo Savonarola 17:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] broken flow

The synopsis is now in the middle of the bit that described it's production and problematic release. This breaks the flow horribly. Jooler 01:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I based that structure (Production - Synopsis - Reaction - blah blah blah) based on a couple of other film pages. If you can point to a WP:MOS page about film pages, we can conform to it. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Found what I was lookin' for. I'll make the structure more in keeping with the Wikiproject Films style guide. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 04:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That Deeley "one of the 10 worst films I've seen" quote

I removed that due to the following statement in the referenced Kermode article.

First up, let's get one thing straight. The recutting of The Wicker Man from its original assembly to supporting feature length was not commissioned as an act of malice by evil studio heads attempting to destroy a masterpiece. Despite having been roundly demonised for years by Christopher Lee, incoming British Lion Head Michael Deeley (who inherited the picture from producer Peter Snell) did not claim that the film was one of the 10 worst he had ever seen. ("I've made worse films than The Wicker Man" says Deeley now, who's point of view was notably absent from most previous accounts before 'Burnt Offering' put the record straight).

– Mark Kermode, http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/feature.jsp?id=111049

Since this page needs cleanup, phrases like "is always going on about" or "said somewhere" are going to need to be replaced with verifiable references. If you find something on the commentary, give me a time-code location for it, I'll confirm and back you up on it (I have teh Anchor Bay 2-disc set). David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you disputing? If you want a cite for Lee saying that Deeley said it was one of the worst 10 films see http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20011221/ai_n14440775 IF you are disputing the no fee - this is reported extensively on the web too and I've heard Lee say it in numerous interviews. You think the IMDB link is not sufficient? Jooler 08:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oy, vey. The article you just linked to (also by Kermode, in 2001) also states that Deeley denies he ever said that. The passage I removed said, I recall, "At a private screening, he described the film as one of the worst 10 films he'd ever seen," which was inaccurate and misleading, as it's hearsay. Now, if there's a published interview in which Lee repeats his claim, you could include both sides. (Remember, this is an encyclopedic article, not a fan piece, so impartiality is required.) Frankly, I think it's irrelevant -- thirteen minutes were cut from the film prior to release in 1973. -- As far as the "no pay" issue, it's in there, in fact I corrected the formatting of your citation, so we needn't argue 'bout it. BTW, if you want to review the policy I'm measuring against, here's one, here's another. IMDb is IMHO questionable as their fact-checking is barely in evidence, i.e. anyone can submit incorrect data (and I've caught some of these over the last 8 years), but it's cited extensively here so the WP community accepts it.  ;) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 14:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not Hearsay. It's Lee's rececollection of events which is just as much evidence as any narrative of event could be. The article I linked to above specifically says Lee's grievances against Michael Deeley, incoming managing director at British Lion who, Lee insists, declared The Wicker Man to be "one of the 10 worst movies I have ever seen" - so I think it's undeniable that Lee has said this as Kermode is reporting it here. Deeley denies it, fair enough. So instead of removing it, why not change the text to include Lee's recollection (which he has been repeating for the last 30+ years) and report Deeleys denial. Jooler 16:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Locations

I would like to add a locations section for this film, would that be appropriate?Belbo Casaubon 19:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Off-topic banner on soundtrack section

Why is there an "off topic" banner on the soundtrack section? The film is essentially a musical after all and the section is no more off topic than the trivia section. I didn't delete it just yet in case there is a good reason for it. --Thetriangleguy 19:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe I added it as the section is overlong. The template states that the section "strays from the topic," and in that I was thinking of the fact that it discusses the soundtrack, then starts to explicitly talk about releases of the soundtrack, then if that weren't enough provides track listings for the releases. I think the track listings can go, I think the discussion of the releases can be condensed. I disagree that the film "is a musical," as neither Sgt. Howie or Lord Summerisle break into song, but the music was integral to the film ("Gently, Johnny" and "Please Come," and the various May Day musical pieces, being examples), and so some discussion is fine, where it relates to the film. I hope that makes it clearer ... I can make a proposed edit, if that would get the ball rolling. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 19:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"neither Sgt. Howie or Lord Summerisle break into song" Actually Lord Summerisle does. "The Tinker Of Rye" and I suppose "Sumer Is A-Cumen In" to a certain extent. (Is there not a bit where Sgt. Howie sings as well? Part of the prayer? though admittedly that wouldn't really count). Certainly I agree that the section could be cut back (For a start "For example, Lesley Mackie, who plays the character of Daisy in the film, sings the opening song, and various others in the CD Soundtrack" seems pretty redundant) but the parts about the style and the influence seem to be more significant than about half the stuff in the trivia section--Thetriangleguy 20:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I was being flippant, yes, there is singing, but I don't class THE WICKER MAN with musicals SINGIN' IN THE RAIN or SEVEN BRIDES FOR SEVEN BROTHERS or WEST SIDE STORY. Those topics you list are fine, and very pertinent (YES, the trivia section is huge), but the detailed facts on CDs.... Please do take a stab at condensing the system. I've used all my edit tokens on this page, it's someone else's turn. ;) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 22:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Howie sings at the end of the film. He sings "The Lord's my Shephard" whilst the villagers are singing "Summer is a comen' in". The two make a very interesting juxtaposition. The film is sui generis, in the sense that it is both a musical and a thriller/who-done-it (though not a horror, as it was billed). TharkunColl 23:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I give up. :) Everyone sings at the end. Were it not for Howie burned alive in the flaming statue, the ending could be mistaken for the finale of a Charlie Brown television special. I concede that the soundtrack section is relevant, but I would argue for it being cogent, and a discussion of the soundtrack in the film. If it must include details of all releases, and track listings, it ought to be split off into a separate article like "Vehicles and gadgets" in Bond film articles, etc. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 19:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

One possible solution that has benefitted certain other articles (see Dawn of the Dead) is to move the soundtrack to its own page. That way the important info is left in without detracting from the film itself. Desdinova 16:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't use Dawn of the Dead as an example as the section is nothing but a link to another. Try Goldfinger (film)#Soundtrack, Blade Runner#Soundtrack (ooh, that's an excellent model to follow!); bad examples IMHO, The Insider (film)#Soundtrack, Miami Vice (film)#Music, which just have lists in violation of WP:NOT. That's what I'm trying to deprecate in this article. - David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

The section used to be a separate article but the problem, as I remember it, was that despite the fact that music is an important part of the film it wasn't (and if you take out the section, still isn't) mentioned in the main article at all. Perhaps what would be better would be to take out all the information about the cd releases and split that, relabeling what is left as "Music" rather than "soundtrack"--Thetriangleguy 17:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably should also add here that the difference to, for example, the DOTD section is that the soundtrack on that film was included in the article for a completely different reason. In this case, the film contains characters who break into song; in DOTD, the section was included because the soundtrack receives a lot of attention from sources external to the film (references in popculture and record collectors going out of their way for library releases[4][5]), i.e. it is not directly important to the film but still in some way notable.--Thetriangleguy 17:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC).

Fair point. How about a brief summary saying why the music is important to the film, and a link to the soundtrack as a seperate article for the things that have been decided as not relevant on this page ("For example, Lesley Mackie, who plays the character of Daisy in the film, sings the opening song, and various others in the CD Soundtrack")? Desdinova 18:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"How about a brief summary saying why the music is important to the film,...." Spot on! Thanks for brainstorming on my suggestion. Be bold. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 19:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Gave it a go, very preliminary at the moment, but at least it's a start! Desdinova 20:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Image:Wickermansoundtrack.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The Wicker Man US.jpg

Image:The Wicker Man US.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia Section too long, needs edit

Some people want to axe trivia sections in wikipedia. I disagree. See Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections, but I think that the section here is too long.

• Cultural References: First of all, I don't know what general wiki feelings are about cultural references sections, but it seems to me that the cultural references could be pulled out and and seperated from other trivia. It seems like there are an awful lot of those here (too many, I think), so THESE SHOULD BE CULLED, BUT NOT CUT OUT ENTIRELY. The Wickerman music Festival should be kept. Not all of the references to songs need to be kept.
• Location of shooting: MOVE TO MAIN ARTICLE Charred stumps of Wickerman remain, visited by fans: DELETE OR KEEP IN TRIVIA SECTION
• Nude body doulble used for Eckland (without her knowledge): KEEP IN TRIVIA BUT MAKE MORE CONCISE
• Places in script which draw from Walt Whitman and Sir Walter Raleigh: KEEP IN TRIVIA SECTION, DEFINITELY WORTHWHILE
• etc etc

Pigkeeper 21:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scariest 100 Scenes

The first paragraph says that the film is featured in Bravo's top 100 scariest movie scenes, but doesn't specify which scene took the prize (I'm guessing the scene with the, um, wicker man) - I think we should say which one it is: thoughts? -Elizabennet | talk 01:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I just watched part of the Bravo's Scariest Movie Moments show last night. (It's one of those multi-parters where C-list celebs just riff.) The title is misleading...they seldom singled out specific moments in the movies on the list. I suspect they titled it that way because "Scariest Movies" would've been misleading too -- they had some un-scary entries like "Wizard of Oz" (for its flying monkeys) and "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" (for trippy scenes and Oompa-Loompas). 147.136.155.193 12:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Engaged?

I admit I haven't watched the extended version in a few months, but I don't remember any indications that Sgt. Howie was engaged. It definitely doesn't come up in the theatrical cut (he doesn't even mention a fiance when he turns Willow down). Also: this article seems to suggest that it's important for Howie to be a virgin because that'll make him more like Punch, even though nothing like that is ever stated in the film (it's just assumed that, well, OBVIOUSLY you want a virgin for your sacrifice). So I'm a-gonna fix that. Feel free to revert, I won't be offended. 71.197.236.254 07:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I also changed two other things. The article had described Howie as "both wise and a fool," but I don't think the villagers at any point indicated that they thought Howie was wise or that wisdom was an important quality to them. Also I took away some scare-quotes. The article had said that if this sacrifice didn't work, the villagers would have to '"sacrifice" their "king"' -- Lord Summerisle isn't technically a king, but the sacrifice Howie was talking about was extremely literal. 07:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Nothing But the Night

Is there any connection between The Wicker Man and a film called Nothing But the Night? They were both filmed around the same time (1972), in a similar or identical location (remote Scottish island), both were about a missing girl, and both starred Christopher Lee (but the latter also had a Peter Cushing cameo and the girl who grew up to be Cassandra in Only Fools and Horses). TharkunColl (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)