# Talk:The Strangers (2008 film)

the previous version of the plot session was a description of events almost scene by scene. It was needing to be cleaned (and in fact, there is a banner calling for such). I replaced with a very simple plot summary. Add more information if needed. Kosmonauta (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
There is way too much info about the plot of this film.  We don't need every detail.  Someone please clean it up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.71.59.249 (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 

This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB.
Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 17:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  <

The real story:
The events actually happened in the Czech Republican area or Romania. A French movie was released in 2006 called "Them" which I'm guessing Bertino saw and decided to redo the movie as his own. You can find the movie at Hollywood video and it explains what happened.
Actually, this film has nothing to do with "ils" (the french film).  Bertino wrote this movie years ago (2004) (http://www.killermovies.com/s/strangers/articles/4623.html), and ils came out in 2006 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0465203/).  and also, the movie has been passed around since because they couldn't find a director.  eventually, rogue went back to bertino and asked him to do it(http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_12591.html).  the movie was supposed to come out last summer, but got postponed to fall 2007, and then again to this summer.  and according to the interview, he was inspired by manson's rampage.  And since the movie was written well-before february 11, 2005 and the credits explain that the events in the movie are fictional and any resemblances to any persons living or dead, etc, are completely coincidental, probably just took an actual event and altered it to make his movie.72.49.19.163 (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Since this movie is being promoted as "inspired by true events" I think information supporting this tagline should be included.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.81.105.101 (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 

agreed -- but I assume that since the movie claims to take place in 2005, the real events took place several years or more earlier? Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not finding any news coverage of any events involving "Kristen McKay" or "James Hoyt" and am editing the introduction to reflect that they are fictional characters.  If I'm incorrect, and they really did exist, please cite a source. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, it's possible any news coverage of the "true event" has been buried under movie buzz, but it's also possible that this is a marketing hoax. I'm not deleting the "true events" claim yet, but the claim is dubious and needs to be verified by a reliable source. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
In the production notes for "The Strangers," the film's writer-director Bryan Bertino explains just what "true events" the film is based on:
"That part of the story came to me from a childhood memory. As a kid, I lived in a house on a street in the middle of nowhere. One night, while our parents were out, somebody knocked on the front door and my little sister answered it. At the door were some people asking for somebody that didn't live there. We later found out that these people were knocking on doors in the area and, if no one was home, breaking into the houses. In 'The Strangers,' the fact that someone is at home does not deter the people who've knocked on the front door; it's the reverse." Jilliancolleen (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The space in the article where it says where it was filmed is a blank, a comma, and then "USA". Where was it filmed? Obviously somebody dropped the ball on this. Come on, people. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
i think in the credits, it said that it was filmed in south carolina.72.49.19.163 (talk) 05:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The credits do in fact say it was it was filmed in Florence, South Carolina

guys on the main page of the "the strangers" wiki page, there was info about the keddie cabin murders being the basis of the film's story. since the keddie cabin murders were about the "sharp's," i knew the names didn't match, as the movie's main characters were the "Hoyt's." I edited the page to correct this error, but my edit was deleted, probably to further promote the viral marketing campaign. They were working against me! as I had been unknowingly working against them. Well, it was all good and fun. Still, I might have known about this hoax earlier if I had just taken one more step and tried to make an account in the keddie cabin website and tried to post threads or whatever in the forum. alright thats about it, just had to express mah ingeniusness. yes.
edit : guys they changed it again to it being based on the keddie cabin murders  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.218.115 (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 

Should we ask for page protection? Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Protection sounds good until it can be confirmed with dead on sources that this film is based on actual events or that the makers are just jerking around. people would be all over this ti change it because of something they seen on a bogus website.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teledoc12 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 

From all that I've read, this movie is "based on" true events, the most commonly cited being the Keddie Cabin Murders. Given that all the media I've read on those murders reflects that they are still unsolved, "based on" doesn't mean that this is a faithful reflection of what happened in that specific event (especially given that none of the victims survived to tell the tale, and that the perpetrators are still at large), but simply that the writers were inspired by that story and did their own interpretation of what *might* have happened ... and then also changed the names of the characters to avoid anyone being confused into thinking this was intended to be an accurate portrayal of a specific event.  I've also seen sources that suggest the Sharon Tate murders by the Manson Family may have provided some inspiration as well, in that the police theory of the Keddie Cabin Murders is that is was drug related, whereas this movie reflects the perpetrators doing it for the thrill of the torment, a la the Manson Family. Unfortunately, I don't think there are any rules governing just how much material has to be drawn from specific real events for a movie or TV producer to be able to say the project is "based on" true events; they really can be this far removed and still technically be "based on". Nolefan32 (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
wait guys i thought the movie was based on february 11, 2005 murders. and the 1980's murders with the whole hoax website was like a whole different story but made as a viral marketing campaign. the 2005 murders happened, but the keddie cabin didnt. is this right?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.218.115 (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 

The Keddie Cabin Murders (1980s) did happen. Or at least there are news stories about them in realiable sources like The San Francisco Gate that predate this movie (one that has been referenced from 2001). Whether this movie did or did not use that event as a template, that's not been solidified - but reports of those murders that clearly predate this movie show that they were not created as a means of promoting this film. Nolefan32 (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
okay so some random wikipedia editor(s) accidentally put up false info that the movie was based off of the keddie cabin murders, when it actually wasn't? where did they even get the basis that the movie was based off the keddie murders? the keddie were the "sharp's" and in the movie were the "Hoyt's." wait, didn't we prove the keddie murders were fake? someone said that the forum was rigged, and other info...
at first i thought the movie was based off of some 2005 murders(where did i get that? wikipedia only?). but then it was revealed the movie is actually about the director's memories and some "Charles Manson" murders. in any case, wikipedia might not have correct info at all. that being said, can't we just leave it that  the director's experiences made up the film, and not all these keddie murders?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.218.115 (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC) 

The Keddie Murders And yes, the film is based on the murders, as well as the director's childhood experience with the burglars knocking on doors. --24.20.160.178 (talk) 04:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Another song that appeared in the movie was "Mama Tried" by Merle Haggard.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DimitriX (talk • contribs) 22:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC) 
It's by Merle Haggard & The Strangers Williamu (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)williamu
Can someone fix the first song in the Music section?  It's supposed to be Richard Buckner... there's an extra "k" in his name.
Thanks! (Rtrosino (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC))

Why are the boys in the plot description referred to as Mormon?  Is there some significance to this?
I haven't watched it, and it just looks odd in the description.
Also, it doesn't say why the boy is even there.  It's like the plot description is missing large chunks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Corgi (talk • contribs) 07:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC) 
In the movie the boys are from a Christian academy handing out papers to sinners. Someone should really correct it. The are NOT Mormon they are Christian.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.141.11 (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC) 

they ARE Mormon...official credits list them as such.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvsax27 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 

Look at the leaflets they are carrying with them in the scene where the killers leave the cabin. It clearly says Christian on them.
according to the movie credits and imdb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482606/) the boys are mormon.  the boys are there because mormon boys dedicate two years of their lives to go around the country, during this time, the boys are 100% completely dedicated to spreading their ideals.  They go house to house, preaching and giving out pamphlets (like the ones they give to gemma ward) (http://mormon.wikia.com/wiki/Mormon_missionaries).72.49.19.163 (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of whether they are Mormon or not, they are not mentioned until the end of the plot summary.  It throws the plot summary off and makes it look entirely unprofessional. The entire plot summary is written as though it assumes that everyone has seen the movie.  --Mr. Corgi (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Mormons are Christians, by the way.69.208.86.231 (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter one bit whether or not Mormons are Christians (and this is not the proper place for that discussion). The only thing that matters is that the two boys are officially credited as "Mormon Boys" - Please see IMDB. Wilhelm meis (talk) 03:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you guys know, Mormons are a branch of Christians. They just have stricter rules.
The boys are who call the police the next morning reporting the murders.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickidebottom (talk • contribs) 02:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 
Actually, Mormon and Christian are quite different.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.218.115 (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 
Usually Mormons do not call themselves christian, whether or not Mormonism is a branch of Christianity. 66.139.106.157 (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

They can feel free to have preferences, but they are Christian. If I say to you that I prefer not to be called a human, it doesn't make me non-human. Gregory.currie (talk) 07:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
They are not Mormons regadless of what the credits say. If it was the intent of the film makers that they be Mormons they did a lousy job.  First, they are way too young to be Mormon missionaries who are mostly high school graduates who do their two year missionary stint before college. Secondly, Mormons do not talk about or ask people "are you a sinner?" in the way these two did.  They are from some local fundamentalist church.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.242.174 (talk) 07:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC) 

can someone please take down that crap about the killers being a family, that's just something some moron on IMDb said and only like 4 people agreed with him.  There is no evidence to support it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvsax27 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 
Actually, there is evidence to support that it was a family. They found prints when they arrived. 3 sets of prints. There are ways to tell from prints approximately how old the person was, and if they were male or female.
They found two sets of female finger prints. One set was said to be from a girl around the age of 16. The other was from a woman around her 30's. The other set found was an older [40's or 50's] man.
You can tell the sex by the wideness of the prints, and the age by how developed the prints are. You don't fully develope your prints in your teens.
It would make sense that it would be a family then, because you don't just find to random people of different ages on the steet and say "Hey, let's kill someone tonight!"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickidebottom (talk • contribs) 02:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC) 
I believe they may be a family, but there is no real clues point either direction.
66.139.106.157 (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This is my first time adding to wikipedia so I'm hoping that I'm doing this correctly.  If not, apologies all around.
Found an interview with Bertino written by Jeremy Smith from Chud.com.  In the interview, Bertino talks about (among other things) some of his inspirations for the film, including an incident from his childhood.  Here is the link:
http://chud.com/articles/articles/14888/1/EXCLUSIVE-INTERVIEW-BRYAN-BERTINO-THE-STRANGERS/Page1.html
Here is a quote:
"Once, me and my sister were left alone, and a group of men walked down the street and knocked on each door; anybody who wasn't home, they broke into their house. My little sister answered the door when they knocked, and we didn't find out until the next day - when cops were out in the neighborhood - what had happened. So I thought about the idea: what if Carrie hadn't gone to the door?"
In general, he talks a bit about all of the things that added up to inspiring the film.
The quote from the wikipedia article about the incident from his childhood is misleading but has some truth to it.  It should be reworded so that it reflects the passage above.
Kmanganello (talk) 06:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone else notice that James's tie tends to move around a lot? For instance, James bandages Kristen's hand in one scene, yet in the very next he's seen striding outside with his tie flapping in the wind around his neck, only to disappear again when he's inside the car. This probably isn't encyclopedia-relevant, but it's interesting nonetheless.
Falquaddoomi (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
You're right, it's totally unencyclopedic, but you're welcome to log onto IMDB and talk about it. Wilhelm meis (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
After James kills his friend and he is on the ground the girl walks by the friend and you can see one of his fingers twitch  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.74.102 (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC) 
Quick-change artist?  When the Man drags Kristen off by the ankles, she's wearing jeans and a flannel shirt over some pretty heavy-duty underwear.  When next seen bound next to James in a living room chair, she's fetchingly arrayed in her sexy nightie. Surely the Man didn't...  Or, did he?  Flidoc06 (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Not really a big deal, but in the Soundtrack section, it credits "Richard Bucknker" for "Ariel Ramirez" which is a typo of "Richard Buckner". I can't change it, so i thought i'd point it out. Jenna4Ever (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the heads up. --Silver Edge (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I wen to to see the film in a Korean cinema and at the end of the film as the credits were rolling the Korean subtitles were providing some sort of an epilogue. I can't read Korean but a Korean friend translated for me saying that they said something along the lines of how Kristen was found alive and she is now in a mental institute. Does anyone else have anymore information on this?
--Dharbinson (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
That's very interesting. The movie left a lot to be desired in the way of any sort of explanation for the last 70 painstaking minutes building up to nothing. 86.16.139.140 (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The story is "inspired" key word inspired. It does not say "based" like many movies that talk about real life. You must also note it says "inspired by true events" meaning more than one event. The common assumption is to think it is about a true story, as in one story, but when he states inspired, which many newspapers have written, he took several different true stories and combined them to make a movie. So technically he used true stories and the movie itself was inspired by these events. In addition, take the key where it talks about FBI home invasions, here he was trying to state that bad things can happen to you at home. As for a James Hoyt, the only real James Hoyt is Ryan James Hoyt who was guilty of helping out in a 15 year old killing in California.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inspire and http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/based--220.127.51.66 (talk) 13:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of whether it was "inspired" or "based" on actual events doesn't it seem odd that the end of the credits contain this oft seen disclaimer,

                                           THE CHARACTERS AND EVENTS DEPICTED IN 
                                               THIS PHOTOPLAY ARE FICTITIOUS.
                                             ANY SIMILARITY TO ACTUAL PERSONS,
                                            LIVING OR DEAD, IS PURELY COINCIDENTAL 

If it were even loosely inspired by several events, could it truthfully say "PURELY FICTIONAL"? Any one have any thoughts?

No, it's not odd at all. That's a standard disclaimer that almost all movies run at the end even if the film was inspired by true events. If something is inspired by actual events, it's not what actually happened hence the disclaimer. Also, the word "oddly" is POV. Odd is a relative term which is why I reverted the addition in the first place aside from it being completely unsourced. If you have a reliable source that points out this oddity, it belongs in the article, otherwise, it's just POV/OR. Pinkadelica Say it... 07:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I've seen this movie again. I totally disagree with your comments.  I still think it odd that "any similarity" is mentioned.  I did mention that it was "loosely inspired" not strictly based on a specific event. May I ask what is your source for the idea that the disclaimer must be in every movie? I may reincorporate my comments back into the article without the "Oddly".  Besides your comments were about sourcing a POV unusual since you can't source one's POV.  Its like sourcing an opinion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.242.174 (talk) 08:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC) 

What's different in the unrated version?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.51.198 (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC) 

About 2 minutes of footage.  What footage, I can't say. --17:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The only difference in the unrated version is towards the end, before the boys walk into the house. Kristen wakes up, barely alive, to hear dead friend Mike's cell phone ring. She then tries to crawl down the hallway to grab the phone and call for help. Just as she reaches it, the Masked Man takes it out of her hand, taunts her with it, and leaves. Then she kind of passes out again, the boys walk in, she screams and it's over.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.164.29 (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC) 

Okay so yeah, why aren't the Keddie Murders mentioned as an inspiration for the film? They were an inspiration for the film. I thought producers had even mentioned this. --24.20.160.178 (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Wondering the same thing. --RThompson82 (talk) 03:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The plot summary, as-is, doesn't make any sense.  It needs to be rewritten from scratch.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.219.139 (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 

Is this properly categorized as a horror film? There are no supernatural or other characteristics of horror. Isn't it simply a thriller?Royalcourtier (talk) 05:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Strangers (2008 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: PanagiotisZois (talk · contribs) 15:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Drown Soda:, I will be reviewing this article. I just wanted to let you know that it might take me a few days before I start the review. PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


### Lead section
Describe a little what the Tate murders are in the lead section.
"Produced on a $9 million budget"
"Its release date was postponed until spring and it..."


### Production
#### Sceenplay
"Bryan Bertino, who wrote the film's script, had originally titled it The Faces.


#### Casting
", from the beginning Bertino wanted Tyler for the role of Kristen."


#### Filming
"however, after Mark Romanek, who was attached as director dropped out, he decided to take over directing duties."


#### Promotion
You need to remove the link to the YouTube trailer. Wikipedia only allows for links to YouTube videos (like music videos) if the were uploaded by a verified account / whoever has the right to upload the video. In this case, the copyright holders would be Rogue Pictures.


### Other
Place the "Musical score" section beneath the "Production" section.
Place the "Home media" section as a sub-section to "Release" and make "Reception" into its own section.
Once you've done that, place both "Reception" and "Critical analysis" as sub-sections with each other.
@PanagiotisZois:, I think I've addressed each of these points and done some re-phrasing and also re-organized the layout. Let me know if you spot anything else. --Drown Soda (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
The page's layout looks far better now. I will move on to an in-depth look of the page. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The lead section and "Plot" section seem to be in order. I still think you need to make the necessary changes in the "Production" section which I've listed above. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
In the "Musical score' section, provide a source for Zach Freeman's comment. In the "Reception" section, instead of moving back and forth between the positive-negative reviews, include the negative ones first and then the positive ones. Keep the final paragraph as it is. In the "Sequel" section rewrite the first sentence: "According to Tyler, Part was set for release in 2014 but that didn't occur." Also "but IT was taken off schedule". Othen than that, the article looks pretty good. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@PanagiotisZois:, copy that. I re-worded a few things and added a citation to the Freeman quote (unsure if this was originally there, as I don't remember it before). I believe I addressed your earlier comments concerning the production and made some slight edits to phrases you pointed out. Let me know if there's something specific that still needs attention. --Drown Soda (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Drown Soda: I made a few changes to the layout in three different edits: making the music its own sections as the information there does qualify for that, moving the marketing to the "Release" section and switching the reception so that it goes from negative to positive instead of switching back and forth. PanagiotisZois (talk) 07:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
1. Well written?:

Prose quality: 
Manual of Style compliance:  - The style did have a few problems at first but now it's fixed.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: 
Citations to reliable sources, where required: 
No original research: 
3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects: 
Focused: 
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:  - Maintains neutral point of view.
5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA): 
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  Both images used have appropriate copyrights.
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  - First image is the poster; the second is from the film's ComicCon panel.

Overall: 

Pass or Fail:  - Great work on the article. Overall I'd say you did a pretty good job by the time you nominated it. There were very few g&s mistakes and the layout needed some changing but besides that it was in good shape. PanagiotisZois (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Please check recent edits by User:86.187.49.32, as I cannot tell if they are constructive or not. —Formal Dude (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Please consider paraphrasing the text in that quote box, or rendering it as a blockquote; I don't believe Template:Quote box says that is should it be used for decorative purposes like what this article does. (Its colour yellow has led me to think of it that way). Slightlymad 07:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)