Talk:Corpse Bride

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Why 174.68.170.27 (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "for whom the project was specially created" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Based on Folktale 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've taken it out. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Preceded By" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Eternal rest in Heaven 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Release section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Yes, it just comes off to self explanatory as it is. Koala15 (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid removal or Origins section 

message: 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)
thread_title: American Film Institute recognition

message: 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)
thread_title:  genre