# Talk:The Orphanage (2007 film)

Hi there. I heard on this weeks Filmspotting podcast that this was going to be re-made in English by New-Line. Does anyone know about this?
Thanks, Black_Mesa (t | e | c)  —Preceding comment was added at 17:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 

I've added this information to the article. It seems to have been bought for plans of a remake, but no other information has really appeared. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed the following from the plot summary:
"(This suggests that the boy in the sack mask was actually Simón, getting revenge on his mother for slapping him, earlier in the day.)"
This is original thought and not referenced - and if I remember correctly, Simon's mother moved the posts that accidetally locked the boy in the secret room before she was attacked in the bathroom, meaning that it couldn't have been Simon in the mask. JonStrines (talk) 08:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I dont think so, she was looking for him upstairs and in every room when the boy "attacked" her. It is only after this section of violence that she begins to franticly search for her child(Thus locking him into the room) fearing that whoever was in the mask may have or may plan to hurt him as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.33.101 (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC) 
The plot is too detailed. You dont have to tell all the story here. The viewers shouldnt be reading about all this. But the sequence of events and 'assumptions' are correct but still not neccessary.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.10.211.71 (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the unsigned entry above that too much of the plot is detailed here. For example, the Wiki entry states that Simon is the boy that attacks his mother in the bathroom. However, this is revealed only when ***SPOILER ALERT*** we learn near the end of the film that Simon is dead in the secret room and wearing the sack mask. At the time of the attack the viewer (and Wiki reader) should be left to wonder who is behind the sack mask? Less is more.--Parenthetical Guy (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The plot summary feels uneven. Too much detail in the beginning, not enough at the end. It needs to be more consistent. I favor an approach that is more consistently less detailed, but if consensus was that it should more detailed, then the ending needs to be filled out more. (Example: St. Anthony's medal being returned to Carlos is a real poetic moment that fufills her promise to him of returning it when she found Simon)--Parenthetical Guy (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I would disagree with the two entries above. The summary provided within the current wiki-entry already gives away major spoilers in that it describes the film from start to finish. Therefore anybody reading the page will already ***SPOILER*** learn of Simon's fate and Laura's subsequent suicide. Rather, I think a fuller synopsis would help explain to someone who may be confused after watching the film the events leading up to Simon's disappearance i.e. that it is implied that Simon and not a phantom 'Tomas' was the child who attacked Laura in the bathroom, that his disappearance was due to Laura unintentionally trapping him in the basement, and that the ominous crash that occurs later that night is in fact Simon falling to his death from the broken staircase. I think if wikipedia is going to provide details as to the ending of the film it should also include some of the 'answers' to the mysteries set up over the course of the movie, with proper spoiler warnings in place of course. On the otherhand, if we are concerned about giving away spoilers to naive wiki-viewers then the summary should only be in the form of a brief synopsis, setting out the theme of the movie but without given anything away in regards to the ending.
00:15, 2 May 2009 (Milvus99)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milvus99 (talk • contribs)  

I was wondering if there was any immensely compelling reason to suddenly rename the article from The Orphanage (film) to El Orfanato (film)
As I have observed, articles of notable non-English films are in English. Examples are The Devil's Backbone (El espinazo del diablo), Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (卧虎藏龙), Pan's Labyrinth (El laberinto del fauno) and Spirited Away (千と千尋の神隠し)
If there is no absolute need, I propose that the article be renamed back to The Orphanage (film). Salamangkero (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a short paragraph stating that there are very strong visual and plot similarities between The Orphanage and earlier Survival Horror Game Rule of Rose, which has been noticed by literally anyone who has seen both. This paragraph keeps being removed by contributor Salamangkero, stating that I have no veritable citation for this. There are lots of discussion boards where people have picked up the obvious similarity, if Salamangkero perhaps saw the game he/she would see that these visual and plot elements are so similar as to suggest coincidence in itself would seem heretical. The similarities are fact which can be proven by comparing the film and the game, how can I prove what fans are saying without referencing a discussion board? There is no article on the matter, and if there was it would only be written by one person, and be the opinion of the one person in the eyes of readers? Leemoz (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a publisher of opinions, thus, it must avoid anything which is, so far, nothing more than opinions. As per WP:Verifiability, "articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." A weblog is hardly a reliable source, more so when the issue in question is the product of original research. While it is true that there may be many discussion boards talking about the similarities between the film and the game, remember that there could easily be just as many forum threads discussing the romantic relationship between Naruto and Sasuke, along with just about any other yaoi pairing imaginable.
For your benefit, I have Googled for the similarities between the two and, while I must say that it does seem to be similar, without proper references, my personal opinion, along with those of other fans/players of the game, has no place in Wikipedia. Something as subjective as "similarity" cannot be "proven" by mere comparison. For example, I am quite positive I am not the only person who sees similarities between the Snoopy and Dilbert comics, however you won't find those "similarities" in Wikipedia. In fan sites, forum threads and online boards, perhaps, but not in an online encyclopedia.
Which is not to say there are no articles dealing with these kinds of comparisons. For example, the Walt Disney film Enchanted pays homage (or parodies) several other Disney films. This has a reference in reputable sources such as New York Times and USA Today.
Ultimately, there still is the question whether this tidbit of "information" adds anything of value to the article. If there was any way to prove that the "similarities" are intentional, then it would have been worthy of inclusion in the article. However, as it is, this bit of "information" only shows the opinion of that small fraction of the human population that happened to see both the movie and the game. In other words, these similarities are not the "fact" you claim them to be. Salamangkero (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for you explanation, I do appreciate your points. I just wondered though - if the game cannot be cited as an influence unless proven does that mean that you cannot cite influences to an artist or band, however obvious or probable, unless the artist themself has stated the influence in an interview or article? The point you make about the similarity being the opinion of a small fraction of the human population - one could makie the point that only a small fraction of the population has an opinion on any art that is outside the realms of global mainstream popular culture.
I must admit, The Orphanage is a much better film than it would have been had it been a straight tie-in with the game.
I am a huge fan of the game, which has a story, characters and soundtrack (not too mention atmosphere) that would put most films to shame. I think the fact that a film might be influenced by a video game is at least an interesting point, it is a shame it cannot be 'proven.'Leemoz (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As this is an online encyclopedia, we try to include no speculation at all. As examples, the article on Anime cites references for the inspiration of Osamu Tezuka's works. In the Avatar article, there also are references to the inspiration behind the design of Appa. The article on Spirited Away, on the other hand, has inline citations on where Hayao Miyazaki drew inpiration for the film.
No matter how obvious the similarities might be, if it is not confirmed, then it is most certainly not advisable to include such descriptions in the article. It can be, at best, seen as truth (despite being only speculation) but it could also be, at worst, interpreted as an implicit declaration of plagiarism on the side of the artist/producer. It would be an even greater shame for an encyclopedia to damage the reputation of any person or organization with something merely speculative. Salamangkero (talk) 04:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Salamangkero. Maybe the truth will come out in the wash at some point.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.236.189 (talk) 09:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC) 

The film was written in 1996 so I find this pretty unlikely. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

After seeing the movie I concluded that Simon's cause of death was falling from the staircase leading into the hidden room.  I remember there being a "crashing" flashback and it was revealed that the railing was broken in the place where he had fallen.  The wikipedia article say's that the cause of his death was becoming trapped in the room because of piping that fell onto the door and trapped him. I'm not sure if this is right.  
maybe I'm wrong, can somebody fill me in ;)
1sttomars (talk) 05:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the DVD of this so I can't check. But I should really shorten the entire plot section, as the reason how he died is debatable. I'm going to clean-up that section again soon before someon gets going on the GA review for this article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Beats me... maybe it's both.  Maybe Simon became locked, and after pounding on the door for a few minutes, went down the staircase and fell through, which would explain why the mask was still on.  I'm unclear too. -Rolypolyman (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I saw the movie just now - y'day night. I too felt the staircase was broken just above the spot where the simone is found. So i thought he fell from the staircase and got injured bad enough to die ? [has not moved around etc]. The mother definitely moved the bars on the door to sort of lock it but that is just to give the sounds of the rods falling, [ to be repeated that she keeps hearing the same noise again & again ]. comments?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.131.155.20 (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC) 

This is a spanish film, from SPAIN! not a spanish mexican film! who wrote this, it is ridiculous  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.210.2 (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC) 

Where the fudning comes from indicates what is the country of origin. This film had both Spanish and Mexican funding, so it becomes both countries. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but where are the Mexican funds? In link number 1 http://infoicaa.mecd.es/CatalogoICAA/Caratulas/53606/58/P53606.pdf we can read that the production is for 2 companies. RODAR Y RODAR CINE, S.L. and TELECINCO CINEMA S.A.U. both spanish companies. Where are the Warner Bros. Pictures México founds? There really are no data that it's a Mexican production.
I can't find any Mexican company collaborating on this film. I could be wrong, but I really can't find the real Mexican participation. 77.229.113.114 (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Current evidence about the Mexican side of the production is certainly limited. A finding in the database "The-Numbers.com" (a box-office page) doesn't look like an authoritative on this matter. According to theatrical poster the film is a Rodar y Rodar and Telecinco Cinema production (according to cited ICAA a 50%-50% one) with the participation of Warner Bros. Pictures España. Credited producers are "Mar Targarona", "Joaquín Padró" and "Álvaro Augustin" (with Mexican Guillermo del Toro serving as executive producer and Belén Atienza and Elena Manrique as managing producers). ICAA does not report the film as an international co-production, while it adds Televisió de Catalunya and Canal+ as (non-producing) pre-sales backers. It's true that neither of the former precludes a Mexican funding of the co-production, but that funding needs to be substantiated on something stronger than "The-Numbers-com", which should not be considered a reliable source vis-à-vis production techcnicalities. I am thus going to demand a better source.--Asqueladd (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Orphanage (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060426195934/http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg to http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1%3A389195%7ET4
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)