Talk:Sleepy Hollow (film)

message: It reads: "Although he was a fan of the genre, Burton was surprised that he had yet to do that type of a film," the genre being horror.  I believe it's saying that Burton was surprised that he himself had never done a horror film, which seems odd, as the man would know whether or not he had.  Unless the "he" refers to someone else, and in that case, whom?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.202.97 (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd wording

message: The article refers to Crane's Wiccan mother. Wicca is a neopagan religion, which did not exist in 1799 (as Wikipedia's own article states). It would be correct to describe Crane's mother as Pagan, or even better as a Witch (a child of nature, using Crane's own words)
68.221.252.131 (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Wicca

message: Please review this article, and if you seek improvements, contact me so it can be promoted to GA status. Go to Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Film and cinema. Wildroot (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is when listing Awards and Nominations. But I do agree with other stuff such as trivia, user score, etc. Wildroot 20:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can edit it, so it's not really at all reliable and surely reliable sources can be used. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You don't want to do that. That's stupid. When discussing film article you do it as a means to tell the entire thing in chronological order. Wildroot 20:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I copy edited the Development section to give it more of an encyclopedia vibe, formatting dates, lowercase for words etc, diff is here will be back soon. M3tal H3ad (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Another copyedit i changed the title from Desine to design, which i presume is what you meant. M3tal H3ad (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Following improvements i am passing this as a Good Article, good work. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article nominee

message: * Sleepy Hollow would be released with box office success and critical acclaim. Expand on this slightly, BO international total, Rotten tomatoes % , although keep it simple
* A proponent of new, eh?
* Taking a room at the home - reword
* Please re-upload the images to be less than 300x300 px to qualify as fair use
* Don't link Entertainment Weekly every mention in the references, add italics for EW in references also
* IMDB is not reliable
: It is when listing Awards and Nominations. But I do agree with other stuff such as trivia, user score, etc. Wildroot 20:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can edit it, so it's not really at all reliable and surely reliable sources can be used. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You don't want to do that. That's stupid. When discussing film article you do it as a means to tell the entire thing in chronological order. Wildroot 20:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I copy edited the Development section to give it more of an encyclopedia vibe, formatting dates, lowercase for words etc, diff is here will be back soon. M3tal H3ad (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Another copyedit i changed the title from Desine to design, which i presume is what you meant. M3tal H3ad (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Following improvements i am passing this as a Good Article, good work. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ga review

message: Why on earth is half the plot is missing, abruptly ended with the note "Will be continued ASAP"? It should have all been written at once; judging by the current length, it would have also needed reducing once finished. Have added a warning tag: If I hadn't lent my DVD i'd have added the rest of the plot myself. JaffaCakeLover (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think someone tried to redo the plot summary.  Since this is a Good Article, I suspected that a complete plot summary already existed previously.  I found the proper revision and returned the original summary to the current article.  Feel free to work with that writeup! Erik (talk | contribs) 19:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing plot

message: A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

message: A new user changed the budget in the infobox from $65 million (which is sourced to the Box Office Mojo page) to $100 million (sourced to the IMDb page).  There is a considerable difference between 65 and 100, so we have to wonder which of those figures is accurate.  I restored the older number, but we should determine if this is accurate. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 17:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take Box Office Mojo's numbers over IMDB's any day of the week; that said, their page for the movie is currently display 100 million. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and IMDB is saying 65 million now. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would lean toward BOM's numbers, as well, and the fact that IMDb's number has since been changed makes me all the more loathe to accept their figures as accurate. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 22:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budget 

message: I did not see the movie but the last sentence of the plot ends with (...) just in time for the new century. Since the movie starts in 1799 I assume the "new century" is 1800? If so, it is not yet the new century, the next century will start on January 1st, 1801. Wsw70 (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the new century under discussion is the 19th century. And yes, WSW70, you're right according to the numbers, but obviously that's just not how people see it -- and more to the point, that's not how the characters see it. In fact, at one point, Ichabod Crane ridiculously claims that they're approaching "a new millennium" -- in 1799! 65.51.145.131 (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New century? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Sleepy Hollow (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 http://www.webcitation.org/6SLhxiSA1?url=http://www.horroraward.org/prevrec.html to http://www.horroraward.org/prevrec.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120719182252/http://www.youngartistawards.org/noms21.htm to http://www.youngartistawards.org/noms21.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807135603/http://connect.afi.com/site/DocServer/handv400.pdf?docID=245 to http://connect.afi.com/site/DocServer/handv400.pdf?docID=245
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sleepy Hollow (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/20160325202106/http://www.adg.org/?art=1999_award to http://www.adg.org/?art=1999_award
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100330032148/http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/3995 to http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/3995
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sleepy Hollow (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/20011222074842/http://www.awn.com/asifa-sf/1999/0999.html to http://www.awn.com/asifa-sf/1999/0999.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160325051207/http://superforty.com/the-santa-fe-film-critics-circle-awards/ to http://superforty.com/the-santa-fe-film-critics-circle-awards/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please do not add unsourced genres to categories or the articles. Per WP:OR, WP:SUBJECTIVE and WP:RS, we need reliable sources backing up genres. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre

message: Greetings and Happy New Year:
Wikipedia's movie articles seem to rarely include information on costuming. This is frustrating as I have seen numerous actors state in interviews that they really start getting into a character when they first get into costume. It is especially odd not to mention it here in this movie where the costume designer had so many award nominations and some outright wins. Will someone with access to film or costuming journals please add this type of information?
Thank you for your help, Wordreader (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Costumes. 

message: I came thisclose to simply removing the "reboot" claim myself, but the previous editor did correctly cite a source, so I'll refrain. Still . . . words are supposed to mean something, a fact that the cited source gleefully ignores in favor of throwing in a popular buzzword. There is a difference between an adaptation and a reboot, and any possible reinterpretation of The Legend of Sleepy Hollow cannot possibly be a reboot if you look at what the word actually means, even by Wikipedia's own definition. The concept of a reboot requires a pre-existing franchise or series with an ongoing continuity that is rebooted. That simply doesn't apply here. Every adaptation of Washington Irving's story is not a "reboot" just like every actor appearing on stage in Hamlet is not "rebooting the continuity." 65.51.145.131 (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reboot"?