Talk:The Company of Wolves

message: link to the interview with Neil Jordan is broken, got a new one?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.185.70.158 (talk) time, 19:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Neil Jordan interview 

message: This really doesn't seem to be a 'stub' anymore; its more like a 'Start' article at least. Can one just change the ratings above? Or is it customary for a mod to do it? I'm not certain. -- Jayunderscorezero 22:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can change them (and anyone can change them back again...). Cop 633 16:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I just wanted to make sure. -- Jayunderscorezero 22:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm upgrading this to 'B' on both scales, as it now definitely bears more resemblance to the example page for 'B' than the example page for 'Start'. --Jayunderscorezero 12:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub or Start 

message: First of all, it is far too long, convoluted and over-written for a casual reader to come away with a good idea of what happens in the film. It needs to explain the plot in a far more transparent and cogent fashion. 
Secondly, and perhaps more seriously, it is awash with subjective and unsubstantiated interpretation. Such free-ranging conjecture is exactly what the No Original Research policy was designed to limit. The Company of Wolves is certainly a movie that lends itself (quite deliberately) to symbolic interpretation, yes. But you cannot just say 'this represents puberty' or whatever, and you certainly should not place that in the middle of a plot synopsis.
I think two things should be written:
:i) A new, cogent synopsis
:ii) A section alluding to the symbolic richness of the film and the possibilities of multifaceted interpretations, particularly those involving the rite-of-passage and puberty. NOT, however, an exhaustive list of every symbol or sign. Gunstar hero 17:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Welcome to Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that you can edit!! Seriously, if you think there are problems, why not fix them yourself? Or at least have a go, and let others perfect the job? Cop 663 01:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd certainly be willing to practice what I preach when I have a little more free time. I only thought it may be more appropriate to test the water here before going ahead and re-writing entire sections. I supppose with this being a relatively minor subject people should just go right ahead and edit, though! Gunstar hero 10:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've had a go at cutting down the synopsis, cutting out a lot of the 'analysis' and bits that go on about the symbolism (which is important, but obviously doesn't belong in the initial synopsis). It's now about 2/3 the length of what it was before. Still, it's a difficult synopsis to cut down considerably, as the film is made up of lots of small events and individual stories, so its hard to simply summarise the 'overall' plot succintly. Still, this should be a step in the right direction. --Jayunderscorezero 02:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it's noticeably clearer now. You're right: it is quite a difficult plot to summarise, mainly because of the framed narratives of Granny and Rosaleen's mother. I just find that in a lot of other cases on Wikipedia, particularly when I look at the article of a film I've never seen before but want to get a general idea of, the so-called 'synopsis' is no more than a listing of every scene in the film! I'd say that your latest version is of an acceptable length for a general reader.Gunstar hero 22:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the positive feedback. Something tells me that the synopsis could still be a little better, but I'm sure that's just my perfectionist streak bugging me. It seems more than acceptable for now. --Jayunderscorezero 04:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Synopsis Needs a Rewrite

message: This film was shown on BBC television on the 6th March 1987 (Images of the Zeebrugge ferry disaster followed straight after...)  The BBC described the film as suitable for 'family viewing', for which they got into trouble afterwards, with many complaints (on the BBC's 'Points of view'?).  I cannot find anything on the internet about this, so cannot 'verify'....   Licornenoire 20:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know this? Do you simply have a really good memory, or do you you have any of this on video, taped off of the TV? If you have it on video you should be able to simply cite the program in question and that would be acceptable. --Jayunderscorezero 23:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1987 

message: The plot synopsis is apparently still too long, so I propose this new version, which cuts things down considerably, but splits up the main plot and the separate stories. Is this format acceptable? To be honest, I'm probably going to alter the main page right now anyway, but please add any criticisms of/comments about this version here. --jayunderscorezero (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just checked back on this article Jay, and I think your idea of extricating the framed narratives from the 'main' story and listing them separately was the best way of going about things all along. The current synopsis makes perfect sense to someone unfamiliar with the film.Gunstar hero (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much. :) --jayunderscorezero (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New plot synopsis 

message: thumb|left|A young girl's dreams make up the setting for the film.
Set in modern times, the film takes place within the dreams of a young girl: Rosaleen (Sarah Patterson). Rosaleen dreams that she lives in a fairytale forest with her parents (Tusse Silberg and David Warner) and sister (Georgia Slowe), but one day her sister is killed by wolves. While her parents are mourning, Rosaleen goes to live with her grandmother (Angela Lansbury), who knits a bright red shawl for her granddaughter to wear. Rosaleen returns to the village where her parents live, but finds that she must deal with the advances of an amorous boy (Shane Johnstone). Rosaleen and the boy take a walk through the forest, but the boy discovers that the village's cattle have come under attack from a wolf. The villagers set out to hunt the wolf, but once caught and killed, the wolf's corpse transforms into that of a human being.
thumb|right|Rosaleen (Sarah Patterson) as she encounters the huntsman in the snow-covered forest.
Rosaleen later takes a basket of goods through the woods to her grandmother's cottage, but on her way she encounters an attractive huntsman (Micha Bergese). He challenges her, saying that he can find his way to her grandmother's house before she can, and the pair set off. The hunter arrives at Rosaleen's grandmother's house first, where he reveals his bestial nature and eats her. Rosaleen arrives later and discovers the carnage, but her desire to avenge her grandmother is complicated by her deisre for the hunter. Ultimately the villagers arrive at the house, looking for a werewolf within, only to disocver a transformed Rosaleen.
Back in the present day, Rosaleen wakes with a scream. 
The film ends with Perrault's moral from Le Petit Chaperon Rouge, which warns girls to beware of charming strangers.
thumb|The Devil (Terence Stamp) arrives in a Rolls-Royce.
Throughout the course of the film, several stories are interspersed into the main narrative as tales told by several of the characters:
*Granny's tale to Rosaleen: A young groom (Stephen Rea) is about to bed his new bride (Kathryn Pogson) when a 'call of nature' summons him outside. He completely disappears and his bride is terrified to see wolves howling outside. A search the following day yields a wolf paw print only. Years later, she remarries and has children, only to have her original husband finally return. Angered at her having had children with a new husband, the groom transforms into his werewolf form, but is slain when the new husband (Jim Carter) returns.
*Granny's second tale to Rosaleen: A young man is walking through the enchanted forest when he encounters the Devil (Terence Stamp; anachronistically arriving in a chauffered Rolls-Royce), who offers the boy a transformative potion, which ultimately monstrously transforms him against his will.
thumb|A Wolfgirl (Danielle Dax) appears in the village.
*Rosaleen's story to her mother: A woman (Dawn Archibald) 'done a terrible wrong' by a rich, young nobleman (Richard Morant) turns up at his wedding party, where she magically transforms the groom, the bride and the guests into wolves. They escape into the forest, but the sorceress commands that the wolves 'serenade' her and her child each night.
*Rosaleen's story to the hunstman/wolf: A she-wolf who arrives at a village. Despite meaning no harm, she is shot by a villager. She reveals herself in her human form (Danielle Dax) to an old priest (Graham Crowden), who bandages her wound. Ultimately she returns to 'hell' through the village well.
:: Just checked back on this article Jay, and I think your idea of extricating the framed narratives from the 'main' story and listing them separately was the best way of going about things all along. The current synopsis makes perfect sense to someone unfamiliar with the film.Gunstar hero (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much. :) --jayunderscorezero (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synopsis 

message: https://essayforum.com/writing/feminism-company-wolves-11639/ The incipit is "This is a paper for my English class.". I'd have a few doubts that it's enough of a source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.2.113 (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is a school paper a reliable source?