Talk:The Village (2004 film)

message: The plot description contain numerous factual errors "death on the increase amongst the villagers", Ivy can "see vague lights and shapes", "elders agree to allow Ivy to pass through the forest"...ect. It is also full of suppositions not supported by the film such as "security team --- thinks they are protecting a habitat full of wild animals". I have corrected those and cleaned up the prose a little.(Halfblue 04:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  correction : Plot 

message: A $14 million dollar net is not exactly a hit... and it falls way short of Shyamalan’s other “hits”.. so “modest” seems to best describe it.
The term “raking in audiences” seems to be more fan hyperbole more than an accurate statement. A large, and universally considered deceptive, advertising campaign brought in the viewers the first weekend. And once they got there they apparently didn’t like what they saw since “The Village” had one of the biggest drop-offs in box office of any film that year.(Halfblue 04:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  correction : Reception 

message: One man breaks this covenant ---> One of the younger men fearlessly breaks this tradition
(there is no covenant, it is a tradition)
The creatures begin leaving increasingly horrific warnings -->the villagers begin to experience increasingly frightening warnings.
(untrue in it's previous form)Pedant 04:16, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate 

message: Is it now time to write a decent article here?  I'll write down the plot and spoiler – after all, The Sixth Sense has a full writeup.  I've removed the silly spoiler the village link, btw. violet/riga (t) 23:06, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler time? 

message: I thought the newspaper headline shown when he opened the trunk said he was a billionaire, not a millionaire? You wouldn't be able to finance that place on a million dollars. 69.243.41.28 07:08, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Confirmed via google.  (spoiler alert, of course.) 69.243.41.28 07:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Billionaire vs. millionaire

message: ((spoiler))
The statement that the film is set in 1976 seems to be incorrect.  The photograph removed from the "bad box" is clearly taken in the seventies (clothing & hair styles, more specifically year model of car), but that picture was taken before (even if immediately before) the start of the village.  Given that individuals such as Ivy Walker and Lucius Hunt have grown up exclusively in the village, and that they are at least in their 20's (possibly early 30's even), then the story is set in the 1990's or even the "present day."  (Note the Land Rover driven by the park ranger as further evidence of a later date.)
::Changed “began in 1976” to “some time in the 1970's”. The age of the village ranges from 30 years (given in some synopsis and backed up by a 1973 car in the “clinic scene” photo) to 20 years depending on how old you think Joaquin Phoenix’s character is (he is a baby in that very same photo). Given that it would take some time to establish the village before they move in, the date may fall somewhere around 1979 if Phoenix is a 25 year old or 1974 if he is a 30 year old.(Halfblue 04:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also changed “the film is set in a much more modern time than was implied.” to “the film is set in the present day" (a newspaper headline in one scene has the date July 30th 2004, the date of the film's release) (Halfblue 04:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time During Which Story Takes Place

message: I take issue with the section at the end... whoever added the parts about "definately stole" and whatnot is clearly not following NPOV, at least in my opinion.  Anyone care if I tag the section or remove the offending bits?--MUSpud2 05:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just take it out, citing NPOV in your edit summary. I've been meaning to do it myself, I just haven't gotten around to it. Microtonal...(Put your head on my shoulder) 07:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Not sure about buzzing, but the freaky sounds (howling) in the woods were made by windpipes the elders left hanging up in trees. They were shown in a deleted scene on the DVD. -- Banes 20:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: I have taken a cue from the Signs (film) article and added the section "Criticisms" to the article and moved one opinion based edit to it. I also changed "Reception" to "Box office" Halfblue 14:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added "Criticisms"

message: I disagree, there is too much information available about them to put it in this article. The Village (film) would go way off-topic if we added it all here. If we decided to put only a small part of the info from Those We Don't Speak Of here, then we'd be making sure that some of the information is lost. In conclusion; object.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 06:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest merging. Info lost may be info that is not needed. The description of Those We Don't Speak Of is nothing more than the observations derived from watching one fictional work of cinema--> The Village. I don't think portions of a work of fiction needs to be described in minute detail in an encyclopedia... people watching The Village have learned all they need to know about Those We Don't Speak Of. And people who have not watched The Village are going to find this article totaly irrelevant - Those We Don't Speak Of have no life outside the film. Describing them here adds nothing to what you can learn about the "character" or the film and can even be detrimental spoiler wise. If Those We Don't Speak Of were part of a larger canon or links to some real world mythological reference then it might add some "meat" to this article, but there seems to be none. Halfblue 05:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: merge outside of the context of the article on The Village this is not a notable topic.---Jackel 00:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Those We Don't Speak Of]]-merge

message: Moved below from Criticisms to TALK per wikipedia policy. If this has a scholarly citation please re-add with that citation. 69.72.7.65 23:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent add

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onibaba
Onibaba also features a climactic battle of wits involving a young woman fighting a masked "monster" and utilising a round pit in the ground. i saw it several years before i even saw the village and it instantly jumped back into my head when watching it. 
cyclomedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.108.42.194 (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Pit - Possible Reference / Trivia 

message: Some idiot vandaliced the page typing BEANSBEANSBEANSBEANS over and over and stating it's 'a creepy fucking movie from the worst director ever. all his movies suck balls.' Can someone work this out?201.196.64.142 21:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal 

message: Is it just me, or does this film bear a remarkable resemblance to the 1960's TV series The Prisoner? OK, so the setting is different, the psychological torture has been removed and the balloon has been substituted but the whole premise is similar - even the title seems linked...  Paul-b4 10:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inspiration? 

message: While integrating useful information from the trivia section into the article, two bullet points were removed entirely.  The bit about the Scary Movie 4 spoof was removed as irrelevant to the article.  The statement 
:"In several scenes, a boom mike can clearly be seen at the top of the screen."
was also removed for lack of a proper source.  If it is true, it should probably go back in the article, but I haven't found a good source for it.  Can anyone help? Sbacle 16:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia Cleanup

message: User '05gkerr' vandalized the plot by writing "This Film Is Shit, I Have Seen It Before, The Big Twist Is They Are All Living In The Future."
I would undo this but there is a notice about the plot being too long and I wouldn't want to revert it back to the plot being too long. Any help?
Delta27 (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandal

message: In the Clerks II article it says that Kevin Smith mocked Joel Siegel for giving this movie a good review without having actually seen it. If this is true it might be worthy of a mention in the reception section. WesUGAdawg (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siegel 

message: Where is this movie a "fantasy" movie? It would be if there wouldn't be explanations for the "mysterious" events. Genres as of IMDb: Drama, Mystery, Thriller --31.16.7.31 (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre "Fantasy"? 

message: Early in this article, we find this:
:: The movie was shot in a re-creation of a 19th-century village outside Detroit, Michigan, following Shyamalan's penchant for staging his films near Starme's hometown.
No attempt is made to tell us who Starme is.  Googling doesn't help.  The sentence should end after the word "Michigan" if we are to be kept in the dark about this. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Starme"? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on The Village (2004 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/lostinthevillage/ScriptReviews.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/robertrodent/views.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified