Talk:The Wicker Man (2006 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.
Low
This article has been rated as Low-importance 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] Too long

this is way too long

Not any more! :) Totnesmartin 21:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pruned some trivia

Got rid of the Raising Arizona trivia, per discussion below. Also nixed the unsourced, seemingly original research bit about police officers touching the trunks of cars they pull over.Jacobus 04:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

>no problem that you got rid of that part, it doesn't really have anything to do with the movie, but they do train police officers to touch the trunks of cars. as far as I can tell, to both test and make sure they're shut (so no one pops out or anyting), and also to leave a print (ie driver incapacitates the officer and runs off, when they catch up to the car it's just more evidence against the guy. Probably used more when they didn't have the dash cams) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viper13 (talk • contribs).

[edit] So the U.S. is comprised of sluts?

adult virgin in modern American society was too far-fetched Sounds about right.

-G

[edit] Overly negative

Edward Woodward, star of the original Wicker Man, has said that while he was offered a part in the remake and declined, he nevertheless was "surprisingly impressed by the quality of the script".

[edit] Trivial trivia

At the beginning of the movie when Nicholas Cage leans down and picks the doll up while he is riding a motorcycle is a reference to an earlier Nicholas Cage film, Raising Arizona in which his character leaned out of a car and picked up diapers. Also in the film the motorcycle riding bounty hunter Smalls reached down from a motorcycle and picks up Nathan Jr.

Uh, why is this here at all? These parallels are meaningless, minor and above all irrelevant.

>Yeah get rid of that.

[edit] Silly Disclaimer

What is this message doing beneath the plot summary of this film:

Note: This movie should not be taken as literal fact in the judgments of modern Pagan religious faiths and many would agree the film does not represent modern religious beliefs, regardless of any historical resemblance in past centuries.

This has no place in the plot summary--at all. I won't remove, as I don't feel that I have the authority to do so. But someone who edits this page on a regular basis should. 65.7.138.84 23:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)A Devoted Lurker

[edit] Atrocious remake

Ok I have to comment on this atroucious remake.... The whole point of the original film is that a Virgin is to be sacrificed in the "Wicker Man" effigy. The charater if made even more compeling when he observes the sexual pagan goings on around the village. The new charater has romatic involvment with the matriarch of the pagan society. They seem to have made a infirior copy of "The Secret of Harvest Home", a TV mini-series from the seventies. An I realy don't know what lazy screen write came up with the Bee thing. Why didn't he use fire ants or cockraches. They would have been just as stupid. Why do amrican audiences stand for this. Maybey they are lazy too and just want stupid remakes instead of the classic originals. I would be like taking a newly painted brightly colored stone instead of a 1000 year old diamond. And another thing to the lazy screen writer thnik that pagan societies were all run by women? Why make the pagan sociaty women? Maybe why are trying to attract men to see scantily clad women???(wew 8-15-2006)

Use four tildes (~) to leave a signature. And please don't use Wikipedia as your soapbox for this film. The talk page is for how to improve and contribute to the article, not to have commentary. That's what forums outside of Wikipedia are for. --Erik 22:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The miniseries The Dark Secret of Harvest Home was taken from a novel by Thomas Tryon called simply "Harvest Home." Just FYI.
Septegram 16:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

they sexist i ate my own head 01:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Differnt Movie, Different Message?

I think it's worth mentioning in the article that unlike the original this seems to be purely a horror movie, lacking the commentary on religion of the original. Trailers and publicity seem to indicate this, especially the use of the word 'Evil' to decribe the pagans, which frankly misses the whole point of the orginal movie, that both the policeman and the pagans believe themselves to be the embodiment of goodness and righteousness, and are doing the right thing by their differing gods. The end scene of the original showcases the rediculous nature of their beliefs, when both sides can do little, or in Howie's case absolutly nothing, except sing at each other. But I suppose the Hollywood execs are opposed to any criticism of religeon that might alienate their audience, not to mention Cage's obvious hostility towards non-believers indicated by his recent ill-informed comments regarding athiests while being interviewed in regard to Oliver Stone's recent 9.11 movie. A great shame in my opinion, since a remake might have found a unique social relevence in today's world, but now seems destined to be another cut-rate scare movie, whose highest aspiration will be to make a few million bucks and maybe spawn a few awful straight-to-DVD sequals that will serve only to make this first movie look a little better. Lauriet 02:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless there is discussion about this movie's commentary (or lack thereof) in the media in comparison to the original, it's not up to us to make up content to include in this film article. From a personal standpoint, what you said makes sense. However, it's not encyclopedic, unless there are a number of reviewers that have expressed this disappointment about the remake. If there isn't anything in the media about what you're talking about, then there's nothing to cite and include. --Erik 05:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I wrote a skeptical preview of the remake here. Can anyone (who has seen the film, obviously) tell me whether my pessimistic predictions were valid? I was particularly concerned about it being a Christian propaganda film to demonize neo-pagans. Even though I like Nicholas Cage, I intend to wait until the DVD comes out before watching this. -Neural 16:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Anyone??
Btw - what were these anti-atheist remarks Cage made? I think I might swiftly go off him if he turns out to be some rabid crusader for Jesus. -Neural 12:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia's own wickerman article describing Caesar's account of Druid festivals infers that the Druids never did this at all, and the legend comes from Caesar's need for a "reason to war" causus belli. Anyone and everyone should really treat this and every movie as a work of fiction and fantasy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.22.36 (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor note...

Having just seen the movie earlier today, there's no indication the bees on the island are africanized or killer bees. Cage's character is just allergic to bee stings.

That's fine. I originally wrote "killer bees" based on this article, but if the movie didn't actually identify them as killer bees, I can accept that. They're probably killer bees to the protagonist, anyway. :) --Erik 23:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neil LaBute

I did some cinema-hopping after a film I had paid for, and slipped into the beginning of this movie. I wondered what it was about, read that it was filmed by Neil LaBute, and therefore stayed for another couple of minutes - until I really had to go because it became THAT stupid and the same time boring that I had to leave. I wonder what got Neil LaBute into that project? I only knew him as an interesting theatre playwright. You never know. Probably money... Solobratscher 06:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)--

[edit] No adult virgins in America today?

"In addition, Cage's character is not a virgin, like the protagonist from the original film, as it was thought that the idea of an adult virgin in modern American society was too far-fetched." Is this intended to be a joke, or perhaps somebody's speculation about the producer's motives, or is this an actual cited reason? It seems preposterous to suggest that adult virgins don't exist in modern American society. If I had to guess, I would assume that it's a matter of Hollywood trying to market to their perceived audience, as in "Like, Cage's character can't be a virgin, man. That'd be like totally lame. Everybody would think he was a total dork", or some such. Of course, encyclopedias aren't a place for speculation. A citation might help here.--220.29.92.4 16:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hadn't they heard of "True Love Waits"? Totnesmartin 21:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I haven't. --Das654 08:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot "summary"

While I respect the amount of time that appears to have been put into the plot summary section, it is detailed to a ridiculous extent and uses some decidedly unencylopedic language. It also has a large number of shifts in tense and aspect. It could well use some serious pruning by someone familiar with guidelines behind producing a reasonably-sized summary. 207.7.163.116 18:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Anybody think this movie had a touch of misandry about it?

Sorry I don't really know how to make a new section. This bit should fit. The plot summary doesn't appear to make sense. There seem to be important parts missing and as someone who hasn't seen the film some parts are bewildering. Particularly the part at the end with Rowan.

[edit] Copyedit

This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in June 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
  • Copyeditor(s): Gprince007 13:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Proofreader: ukexpat 17:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Wicker-man-poster.jpg

Image:Wicker-man-poster.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)