Talk:Heathers/Archive 1

Archive 1

Winona Ryder's career?

The article currently says that the main character, Veronica, was "played by Winona Ryder in the role that broke her career." First off, is this saying "broke" as in "it was her breakthrough," or as in "it destroyed her career"? Neither seems to be supported by Winona's article, which states that Beetlejuice was probably her breakthrough role, and lists several films that she made after Heathers. --LostLeviathan 17:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that was weird. I got rid of that comment. --DoorFrame 09:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

That is so 1988

Didn't the whole "that's so last year/last century/last week" meme originate from a line in this film? Probably worth mentioning if so. --80.3.179.56 12:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Your close, instead of that is "so last year" one of the charecters says "god, bulemia..that is so 1987!", so I guess that the film started that pharse, so yeah I think I'll add it. 202.6.138.34 11:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Columbine

I thought this movie prefigured the Columbine massacre in many ways.--Rockero 20:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

umm, I doubt it...the Columbine massacre killers didn't go on the killing spree because they got the idea from Heathers..they shot all the people because they where sick of being bullied, not because of "Heathers" 202.6.138.34 11:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Why where the images all removed/deleted?

Why where all the images removed from the page, that's just silly. If it's a problem of too many, then however could have left 1 or 2! Or they could have explained why they removed them on the talk page, I'm adding a few back in!

They've all been deleted, can someone please add one or two new ones in, that would be great. Jfpearce 03:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Jawbreaker (film)

WHY does no one add the movie "Jawbreaker" as a movie linked to "heathers" it obviously, is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.229.8 (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Catcher in the Rye

In the 'Special Features' section on the DVD, the writer specifically mentions that he wanted to reference 'The Catcher in the Rye' rather than 'Moby Dick' because it would have been funnier. Why is there a "citation needed" tag there? I am removing it until someone can tell me why it shouldn't be there. 68.44.224.112 01:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)BadMojoDE

Heathers reference used in Eureka SciFi TV series

In Season 2 of Eureka, the episode of "Space Junk" refers to group of brainy Heather girls in such a way that you know they are refering a style of cruel girls like in the "Heathers" movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.116.163 (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Heathers.jpg

Image:Heathers.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sequel

I read online that there is a sequel in the works. CollisionCourse (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been denied by Michael Lehmann [1] magnius (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Category: American high school film

Someone removed this category, and I can't figure out why, especially since it is referred to in the lead as a high school film. Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Also, do people not consider this a black comedy? Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no source in the article for calling this a black comedy. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Reception

This article should have a "Reception" subsection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.39.8 (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I added a first draft for a Release section (box office and critical reception).Crackettt (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Similiar movies made earlier

I recall seeing a movie circa the late 60's early 70's that is extremely similiar. It features takes place in a college which is ruled by a clique of "beautiful" jocks who terrorize various other cliques through various means including physical intimidation. One of the jocks, the outsider of the group is injured in a handgliding accident that leaves him with a limp and as a result is cast out of the clique. He gets to know the "oppressed" cliques and develops a crush on a girl (who looks something like Winona Ryder). The outsider jock kills the other members of his clique by draining the pool (in an earlier scene it is established that they have a key to the pool and jump from the high dive at night after it is closed, when the lights are out, so the jocks do not realize that they are jumping do their death into an empty pool).

What follows is the realization that the "oppressed clicks" are no better at "ruling" the university that the jocks. In a series of increasingly short episode, the new ruling clique shows itself to be just as unenlightened, the new ruling clique at first attempts to co-opt and then is murdered by the outsider person.

In the climactic final scene, the outsider person is going to blow up the campus gym with a bomb placed in the boiler room during a dance, but because the girl whom he has a crush on (who is the only person who knows that the bomb is there) refuses to leave the gym, the outsider attempts to remove the bomb from the school, but because of his limp cannot both get the bomb out of the school and also get away and as a result is killed.

I don't remember what the movie's title.

you are thinking of the movie Massacre at Central High

Massacre_at_Central_High is an odd, really quite good B-movie that is just as filled with pointed political allegory as you remember. Clearly a low-budget affair but a skillfully made film. In a 2010 interview cast member Rex Sikes says that whoever owns the rights to the film has been refusing to rerelease or promote it.

there was a time when MACH was the number one rented video tape, and it played on HBO, Cinemax, TBS, TNT and cable TV all of the time. THEN for whatever reason it became a hard to find cult classic. Some say because of Colombine....

The film has been attempted to be resurrected but those plans are always stifled by the producers or whomever owns the rights. Why? I have no clue. It would seem the film could see a life in new release with the added bangs and whistles of a cast assembly "remembrance" but there are some forces thwarting that. interview-with-rex-sikes-massacre-at.html

So it's obscure, but it's not off the map. Sourcing it's relationship with Heathers without running afoul of "original research" is another question. The mentions that I find of this IMHO obvious fact are in reader comments posted after articles about Heathers or write-ups on B-movie blog/review sites. The plot and premise share so many central, and quite unusual, elements with Heathers, however, that it's absurd to suggest the scriptwriter wasn't influenced. --Praghmatic (talk) 09:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. for all you sleuths out there, here's an interview with a different MACH actor who gives a different perspective on the same story http://www.terrortrap.com/interviews/derrelmaury/02/ --Praghmatic (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

@DynaGirl: There are indeed many reviewers who have noted Heathers' resemblance to Massacre at Central High. Winona Ryder's 1997 biographers the Siegels actually state that Heathers screenwriter Daniel Waters "purposely spoofed" the earlier film, although Waters himself seems to be using the old cryptomnesia excuse. I've added some published sources to the article about this. Muzilon (talk) 06:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Massacre at Central High

@Muzilon: please adhere to WP:NPOV & WP:BLP for this recently added content. I haven’t seen Massacre at Central High, so I have no idea how similar they are, but I disagree these sources constitute “smoking guns” as you say in your edit summary, and I think we should strive to present this more neutrally. Also, it doesn’t seem reasonable to use Winona Ryder’s biographer to "affirm” Waters “purposely spoofed” Massacre at Central HIgh, when Waters says otherwise. How would someone writing a book about someone who happened to star in Water’s film possibly know what was going on in his mind earlier when he wrote it. I changed:

A number of reviewers noted similarities between Heathers and a low-budget 1976 film, Massacre at Central High,[16][17][18] and Winona Ryder's biographers affirmed that Heathers screenwriter Daniel Waters had "purposely spoofed" the earlier film.[19] However, Waters has maintained that any borrowing was "subconscious".[20]

to: Some reviewers noted similarities between Heathers and Massacre at Central High, a low-budget 1976 film.[16][17][18][19] Heathers screenwriter Daniel Waters says he had not seen Massacre at Central High at the time he wrote Heathers, but that he had read a review of it in the book Cult Movies by Danny Peary, saying that the earlier film may have been "rattling around somewhere in my subconscious".[20]]

--DynaGirl (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@DynaGirl: you initially disputed that many reviewers had pointed out the resemblance between the two films. You also said you "didn't see" that J.R. Bowie's book directly quotes Waters attributing the similarities to "subconscious influence". I trust you are now satisfied on those two points at least. The references I added were not intended to "call Waters a liar": the published sources merely serve to highlight the fact that the similarities are such that many writers (including Ryder's biographer) believed that Waters was intentionally parodying Massacre. (Incidentally, Massacre is on YouTube if you're really curious.) Best regards, Muzilon (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a confusing response. I only disputed "many reviewers" when you wrote that but only included one reference to one reviewer: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heathers&diff=738734292&oldid=738727193. I just want this presented neutrally. (Add: but thanks for the head up about Massacre being available on Youtube. I'll check it out). --DynaGirl (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

When there is a conflict in the published sources it is reasonable to "present neutrally" both versions of events and let readers draw their own conclusions, and such happens all the time on Wikipedia. In this case Ryder's biographers (the Siegels) affirm that Waters "purposely spoofed" Massacre. Waters on the other hand says he did not. Are you suggesting that the Siegels should not be quoted because you consider them an ? Muzilon (talk) 03:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the current version is neutral- .https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heathers&oldid=742000601 Writing it was "affirmed" that the other film was "purposefully spoofed" is not in compliance with WP:NPOV or WP:BLP when you're attributing this to a third hand account from someone who would not be in a position to even know this.--DynaGirl (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The Siegels affirmed (i.e. "declared" or "asserted") that Waters spoofed Massacre. They did not confirm it (i.e. demonstrate or prove it to be true), which is what you appear to think I was suggesting. (Wikipedia readers can judge for themselves if Waters is right and the Siegels are wrong.) Muzilon (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Please Google the word "affirm". The first definition to pop up is "to state as a fact; assert strongly and publicly", but this vague thirdhand account, with no direct knowledge of the screenwriting, cannot "affirm" that Daniel Waters "purposely spoofed" the earlier low-budget film. We seem to be getting into wp:weasel words territory here. The current version is neutral: Some reviewers noted similarities between Heathers and Massacre at Central High, a low-budget 1976 film.[16][17][18][19] Heathers screenwriter Daniel Waters has stated that he had not seen Massacre at Central High at the time he wrote Heathers, but that he had read a review of it in the book Cult Movies by Danny Peary, and that the earlier film may have been "rattling around somewhere in my subconscious".[20]. This provides readers with the relevant encyclopedic information on the topic without veering into BLP issues. --DynaGirl (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been following the edits to this article closely, and I only skimmed over this talk page discussion, but loaded words like "affirmed" should be avoided per MOS:WTW. Instead, use "said" or "wrote". Also "noted" should not be used for the same reason. Reviewers can "describe", but they don't "note" themes in a film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I changed "have noted similarities" to "have discussed similarities". It seems the current sources discuss that Massacre and Heathers are similar in that they are both dark teen movies, but I don't see too much detail in describing the specific similarities beyond that. I agree that we should avoid "affirm". --DynaGirl (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, I added two references (Kane and Siegel) describing specific similarities to address the suggestion that the only resemblance between the two films is that "both are dark teenage movies." I then bundled the previous references as per WP:CITEBUNDLE and WP:CITECLUTTER. @TheOldJacobite: What is the issue with bundling the other references? Muzilon (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheOldJacobite: OK, I have requested a WP:THIRDOPINION. Muzilon (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

If they are references, they should be quoted in the text. This is just a listing of books added for no apparent reason. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

As can be seen from the edit history and the discussion on this Talk page, when I first added information to the article about the resemblance between Heathers and Massacre at Central High, my sources (Maury and Bowie) were initally dismissed as WP:FRINGE or worse. When I added references to several professional film critics and the director of Massacre, DynaGirl made a partial concession but said these sources did not describe "specific similarities" between the two films. I therefore added quotes from Kane and Siegel pointing out the specific similarities. To avoid WP:CITECLUTTER I thought it best to BUNDLE the references I had added earlier (Hoberman, Lyons, Newman, and Spitz). I would suggest that the bundled references do "offer a range of beneficial information" as per WP:CITEMERGE, and should therefore be retained. Muzilon (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Third opinion

So, it seems that some critics have discussed similarities between the two films. I think, rather than a "X said yes, Y said no" style, it might be more beneficial to give some summary as to why those individuals found the two similar. However, since the claim is in dispute, those should be presented as the opinions of those individuals, not as facts, and properly attributed to their source. "Affirm" is too fuzzy a word in that case and may make it seem it's being presented as a fact; "X claims" or "X states" is much better. So far as the citation bundling, as long as the references are there and it is easily determined which reference supports what claim, the style of them is very much a minor and secondary consideration. If, however, the bundling makes it less clear what reference supports exactly what article text, it shouldn't be done. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade:, I'm having trouble following the current dispute, but it appears that it is not about how to present the similarities/differences between the two films. The current edit war between Muzilon and TheOldJacobite seems to involve disagreement regarding the format of references and whether or not the references should be bundled. --DynaGirl (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I addressed that too. Use whatever style makes the most clear which exact reference supports exactly what article text. If bundling (or not bundling) would impair a reader from saying "I should look at this reference to see the support for that text", it shouldn't be done. If it doesn't harm their ability to do that, it's just a stylistic decision and doesn't particularly matter. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

DynaGirl's assessment is correct: I am satisfied with the current wording of the relevant paragraph in the main body of the article. However, I do not agree with TheOldJacobite's decision to remove several of the sources on the grounds that they are "just a listing of books added for no apparent reason." What I am now proposing is that that all relevant sources supporting the sentence in question should be bundled under a single footnote. See my Sandbox for my suggested format. --Muzilon (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Cast

Is there a reason why people are left out of the cast list @TheOldJacobite keeps undoing my work. The actors I have been trying to add are listed in the credits at the end of the movie.

MissTofATX (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX MissTofATX (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Nancy Marchand?

Cannot find source for Nancy being the teacher who was "Impressed by the word Myriad in Heather's suicide note." Cr8tiv

The role of Mrs. Pope ("I was impressed by Heather's proper use of the word myriad") was played by Betty Ramey, not Nancy Marchand. (per IMDB & Heathers end credits) Kinkyturnip (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Ostensibly

"ostensibly" means seemingly, superficially, or apparently. It does not mean secretly or quietly, which is the intended meaning here. Rskurat (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Near miss

A "near miss" means collision. Please fix that wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.5.196 (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It does not: "a miss which was nearly a hit or collision," per wiktionary Rskurat (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

"Films based on urban legends"

Heathers is included in the category "Films based on urban legends." Upon what urban legend is this film allegedly based? Roland Deschain 09:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That you can push over sleeping cows. Maikel (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Kubrick, for real?

Quote: Waters wrote Heathers as a spec script and originally wanted Stanley Kubrick to direct the film, out of admiration for Kubrick’s own black comedy film Dr. Strangelove. Waters intended for Heathers to contrast the more optimistic teen movies of the era (particularly those written by John Hughes) by presenting a realistic depiction of high school imbued with dark satire.[7]

I don't understand how it's relevant to an encyclopedia that a first-time screen writer likens his script to classic movies and would have wanted the greatest director ever to have filmed his script. I mean, it speaks to his youthful hubris for sure, but it's just not relevant or even original. Maikel (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Plot too long?

Plot also unreferenced, but that often seen in movie articles. Would this be improved if cut to half length? David notMD (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)