# Talk:Corpse Bride

Why is there no section on reception? Queen Padmé Amidala (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does it say this, but have no backing facts for it? It's not entirely unheard of to go into depth about statements like these. It's an eyesore without any further information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.191.230 (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC) 

Why 174.68.170.27 (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
It does mention the film was dedicated to Joe Ranft. Supporting evidence for this can be found in the following references   . CharlotteResearch (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's an article that deals with the origins of the story. See the first two paragraphs in particular.
https://jewishjournal.com/culture/arts/11891/
81.99.193.239 (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The story in "The Finger" is not an exact retelling of the original found in Shivkhey HoAri. Original says nothing about the bride collapsing etc. I put a gist of the original story with the reference on the main page. Bahaltener, April 19, 2010.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahaltener (talk • contribs) 05:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I am Russian, I have studied lots of my native folklore and I find that the claim about 'a Russian folktale' is stupid. There is no such tale in Russian folklore, and Burton's story is definitely unlike any genuine Russian folktale. Burton must have borrowed it from some 19th-century Romantic ballad.37.145.54.84 (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Fishmongery, doesn´t ring a bell? The script is based on a song, Molly Malone.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD7:EDD0:0:C083:3266:4C88:7616 (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

This movie says it was preceded by "The Nightmare Before Christmas", which isn't true. That makes it sound like a sequel, which it is not. Does anybody know of a good reason for it to stay there? 98.164.212.239 (talk) 08:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I've taken it out. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Plot section makes mention of Emily transforming into butterflies and "presumably finding her eternal rest in Heaven." There is nothing in the film that would make the case for presuming this. Emily transforms without comment from anyone, there is no reference to heaven throughout the movie, and the transformation scene contains no images traditionally associated with heaven (angels, gates, beam of light, etc.) The butterflies simply fly into the sky. Given that, I'm removing the phrase in question. Mrquizzical (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The information about the financial success is not supported. Also, the sentence "It was also met with positive reviews from critics." seems to be an opinion rather than a fact. It should probably be removed and just leave the critics response noted further on in the paragraph speak for itself. CharlotteResearch (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Corpse Bride/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Aha, I'll take up this review! Sorry Koala, I'm not stalking you or anything it's just that I've been reviewing a lot of films lately! I'll leave some initial comments tomorrow at the latest. At a first glance this article is looking pretty good though. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
It is well referenced.
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Initial comments
#### Lead
The lead itself complies per WP:LEAD.
"The plot is set in a fictional Victorian era village in Europe." - this is what I don't get, if it's the Victorian Era then it's referring to British history. Some parts of Europe are very different, is this film set in 19th century Britain? Don't worry this point doesn't have to be addressed to if there is no information on it.
"It was dedicated to Joe Ranft who died during production." - what role did Joe Ranft have during production?


#### Production
"In early 2003, the production unit wasn't interested in digital capture for stop motion" - wasn't -> was not
"was deemed viable by WB senior vice president of physical production" - this should be Warner Brother (WB)
"The production then went digital" - how about became?
"Animation took place at 3 Mills Studio in East London" - East London should probably be linked to a specific place
"The film's images were stored on a 1GB image card that was capable of holding about 100 frames of animation" - sounds a bit rough, how about approximately?


#### Soundtrack
"The soundtrack was written by Danny Elfman" - as he both wrote it and composed it, how about 'produced'?


#### Release
"Justin Chang of Variety gave the film a positive review" - this doesn't say that Variety is a magazine...
Since this section is made up of mostly quotes, I can't find any other copyediting issues.


### On hold
I said I would do the review tomorrow but I ended up doing it straight away. This article is nearly flawless - well done on building one up to almost-GA standard! All of the references are in check, the lead complies per WP:LEAD, the prose flows nicely into each sentence and the rest of the article definitely complies per the GA criteria. I'll put this on hold for seven days and once those minor copyediting issues have been addressed I will be happy to grant this its deserved GA status! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

First off, thanks for reviewing so fast! And i believe i fixed everything you mentioned. Koala15 (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


### Close - promoted
I knew that this one would be wrapped up very quickly. The whole article now complies per the GA criteria, its prose is excellent despite a lot of the article coming from quotes, references are in check and the lead is fine. Really there is nothing wrong with this and there's very little to say! All of those issues have been addressed to. Well done on building another film GA! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

User Koala15 (talk) removed Origins section twice already without giving any proper reason. It's clear vandalism and forbidden as per WP:VANDAL. Bahaltener (talk) 07:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No i'm not vandalizing the page i brought it to GA status, and that section just didn't add anything to the article. It's sources are not reliable or about the film. Koala15 (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
They add origins of the story to the article (that's more than "something"). And the source is reliable (from the publishers of the film see: http://web.archive.org/web/20120305091834/http://corpsebridemovie.warnerbros.com/dvd.html). What do you base you unreliable claim on? Bahaltener (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
It basically just explains the folklore and says nothing else about it, or how it pertains to the film. I'm not sure if HebrewBooks or JewishJournal is reliable either. Koala15 (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The fact that you don't know about the related folklore doesn't make the source which claims it unreliable. Unreliable means that the source isn't trustworthy or has no clear connection to the matter. This source is the publisher of the film, and is related to its production (see WP:SOURCE about the publisher). It's sufficient therefore. If you don't understand the connection it doesn't make the source unreliable. HebrewBooks brings the original story which has obvious parallels which support what the source is claiming and as such is the primary source. So your statement that it's not reliable isn't correct either. So I don't see your argument about unreliability to be valid. Bahaltener (talk) 06:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
To me "One version of the legend is included in the Shivkhey HoAri, the biographical collection of mystical stories about a renowned kabbalist, Rabbi Yitzchak Luria Ashkenazi. There, someone jokingly put a ring on a finger sticking from the ground and pronounced the formal betrothal phrase, thus unwillingly becoming married to a woman from the underworld who subsequently came to claim him as a husband. The case was brought in front of the Arizal, who ruled that since the man did not willingly perform the betrothal he was not bound by the marriage, but to be sure that the woman should remain free to marry one of her kind, the man had to give her a formal divorce according to the Jewish law." comes of a little self explanatory. If you can add a better lead in to the explanation of the story add it back. Koala15 (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Can you elaborate a bit please? Do you want me to explain the connection between the original story and the story in the film in more detail? -- Bahaltener (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it just comes off to self explanatory as it is. Koala15 (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The reference of the infomation about AFI's 10 Top 10 nomination is not valid yet. Please, allow me to change it to this link: .

Dr.saze (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

This film is not British. It was produced at companies that were all in America.
--97.113.114.127 (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Evan Kalani Opedal

I know this is an older post, but several sources list the UK as a source. Per standards for recognizing the nationality of a film, it's generally not as simple as spotting the production companies to qualify what is a the nationality of a film. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2025 (UTC)