Talk:Lady in the Water

Clunky Intro

The intro states “The film features the starring cast of…” and then lists the actors. This is an odd and clunky sentence. No film FEATURES a starring cast. A film can feature an ensemble cast, but a starring role and a featured role (ie, supporting role) are mutually exclusive. This should be changed to, “The film stars Paul Giamatti and Bryce Dallas Howard, and features Bob Balaban, etc. in supporting roles. Someone please fix the intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.234.53 (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Book Version Clean-Up

I don't have time to properly format the Lady in the Water book section at the moment.

here's the book: Lady in the Water Book --LuminousSpecter 15:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Pre Screening Reveal

I've deleted the pre screening reveal as posted by Cigammagicwizard. I can't be sure but it looks like it has been lifted wholesale from the Ain't It Cool review that has since been removed. Even if it hasn't, reading previous edits from this user they have never edited before with anything like the ability shown here. Also there are some bits that don't actually make sense, e.g. Awakening back in his home, sitting across from him is the beautiful Bryce Dallas Howard. Figuring out that she climbed out of the water and brought him inside mysterious Kim Novak from drowning and she awakens to reveal nothing of herself, slowly drawing Stewart in to the mystery of her existence. (Pally01 10:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC))

I removed it again, as this user put it back on the page.--LuminousSpecter 04:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The post must be comparing Lady in the Water to Hitchcocks Virtigo, but that makes no sense.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandosulc (talk • contribs) 22:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You know...

When I initially saw the preview, thought it was simply going to be a drama about a man's entirely normal(though possibly dramatic) life, until near the very end of the preview.--Vercalos 08:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

In the trivia section, it reads that this film does not have a twist ending or some revelation. The movie has not come out and won't be out till July 21, so how is this trivia accurate? Is there a link to a valid source that has seen this movie and can confirm this (i.e. a verifiable film critic). Otherwise I think that it is speculatory and shouldn't be there. Bignole 18:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This information has been floating around for a month now on the internet. I included one source I trusted (Yahoo Movies) and linked to their Summer Preview Page that includes "no twist ending" as confirmed by Shyamalan himself. -HurricaneJeanne 14:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I just wanted to make sure that it was verified and not just someone's opinion, because I haven't heard anything about that before now. Also, what twist ending was there in Signs? Cause I don't recall a twist, which would make the part about this one being the "first" movie of his to not include one. Thanks. Bignole 14:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Signs bringing together of a variety of odd circumstances qualifies as a twist ending.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandosulc (talk • contribs) 01:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Since when does odd circumstances equal twist ending? There was nothing that made you think one thing but it turned out to be completely different. It wasn't like Sam Jackson turning out to be the one that caused all the havoc in search of a true hero; it wasn't like finding out that Willis had been dead since the beginning of the movie; it wasn't like finding out that The Village was actually set in modern time. It was simply a suspense movie about a family coming together. Bignole 01:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"The plot of the movie is based on a bedtime story M. Night Shyamalan wrote for his kids."

...and yet it has a PG-13 rating for frightening sequences. I'll leave it be, but I think a citation is needed. It's possible that during production, this somehow became a light horror film...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.245.47 (talk) 02:06, 08 July 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly being marketed as a horror film.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.154.34.137 (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It isn't being marketed as a horror film, that's a misconception because of the trailer. I don't know what citation you need, the rating can be found anywhere, and the trailers have stated the "based on a bedtime story.." line. It's fantasy. LOTR wasn't a light horror film and it had monsters and suspense. Frightening sequences is a broad term that isn't limited to horror films. Bignole 18:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Cast

Having the entire cast here is not necessary, especially people lIke "partgoer" and other non-notables.—Preceding unsigned comment added by BauerPower (talk • contribs) 02:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Added Reviews Section

Added a reviews section, beginning with the Variety advance review, which is a reputable and well-thought of source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.74.66.136 (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films

The above is helpful link for any film entry. Real quick, here is the order in which sections should go:

• 6.1 Lead
• 6.2 Plot
• 6.3 Background/Production
• 6.4 Cast
• 6.5 Reception
• 6.6 Notes and/or references
• 6.7 External links
• 7.1 Tagline (generally not included; only when of historical/cultural note, such as "In space, no one can here you scream")
• 7.2 Trivia

--69.22.254.111 13:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Scrunt

Sorry, but I was wondering: what is a "scrunt"? I'm not going to see the movie so I want to knowwhat it is. loulou 03:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

A scrunt is a monster out to get the narfs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.132.138.20 (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

From the blue tinge given to the poster, I assumed she was a smurf.—Wasabe3543 06:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you go see the movie, I thought it was very good. Scrunts are a wolf-like monster in the film. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.247.198.47 (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Redhead to Blonde

Story is a wavy-haired redhead in most of the movie, but when she is near death, she is straight-haired blonde. Only after Heep heals her wounds, does she turn back into a redhead. Since Story lives underwater, she is pale, which may be her natural complexion, but when she is recovering and still blonde her look is different enough that I had doubts she was the same person. Did anyone else have the same problem? --Ancheta Wis 11:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I was confused at first, too, until I realized that the only reason her hair was lighter was because it's the first time we see her hair dry in the movie. Hair gets darker when it's wet. That section in the "trivia" should be removed. --69.242.24.196 03:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The actual reason the hair changes color is because of the state she is in, like a cameleon changes colors in its state and mood. Klaus Baude 123 23:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wet hair does darken, but that wouldn't explain why her hair is red for the beginning of the movie. Blondes don't turn into redheads when they go swimming. My five year-old cousin suggested that they dyed it for the party. Jk of course— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.14.100 (talk) 00:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Story's hair turns blonde because when the scrunt scratched her it made her ill. Also, It is because of the state she's in. She is not used to it. Oh and whoever said that that's the first time we see her with dry hair is entirely wrong. When Mr. Heep woke up after she saved him,her hair was dry.Nosebutton (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Christianity references in movie

• • • If a viewer paid atention, the movie has references that relate closely to christianity.***

1) At the beginning, little drawings explain the story of the movie. Nerfs (ladies in water) were in close relationship with humans but humans strayed away from them. Nerf, sadly had to see the humans destroy themselves but they never stop trying to reach them and speak to them. >> This to me represents the relationship between God and us. We stray away from God and show our sinful nature but He never stops trying to reach us and bless us.

2) Story (main character) might represent Jesus. She was the chosen one ( Madame or Queen Nerf ) who, though made fun of before in her world, becomes the one who brings much hope and life to humans. Nerfs cannot be touched by the dog/scrunt but Story is special, Scrunt HAS to kill her no matter what. Story almost dies at the end, but is healed. This moment brings much bondage between the people while they try to bring her back to life. And at the end, she is taken away to where she belongs. >> Jesus was mocked and arrested, killed in this world but He is the one that at the end brings salvation to all. Jesus has power over evil but Satan tries to Kill Jesus. Jesus dies and resurrects fulfilling His mission and returns to the right hand of God.

3) "Everyone has a purpose". Yes it's true. God has sent everyone for a unique reason. The only way to know our purpose is to ask God and listen to his heart speak. We should use the abilities God has enabled us. Many characters have abilities that they use for a good cause. Those who don't will be devoured by evil.

4) Throughout the movie, Story is basically nude except for a shirt she borrows. I want to relate this with the fact that humans were made naked at the Creation of God, pure in his eyes.

5) God has called people from all the nations to become fore-runners in His Kingdom. In "Lady in the Water," this is expressed by the diversity of people who join forces to help Story go back home. ( age, race, belief, etc ).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lion storm (talk • contribs) 03:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Good points, but the strongest connection to Christianity in this film I would argue is the writer character, whose work will bring goodness to mankind, but he must die for in exchange. Consider the Cookbook as a Sermon on the Mount. Perhaps critics called the film "arrogant" for Shalayman's choice to play this Christ figure himself... although I'd argue that they're most upset with the critic character being well-portrayed as a snob. Mikeguy 04:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Either way, none of this can be put into the article, unless it is talked about by a reputable source, as it is almost the definition of original research. It's interesting, however, and if it gets mentioned by a critic it should go in. Madd4Max 20:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This moment brings much bondage between the people while they try to bring her back to life?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.25.124 (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ummm....I dont know how to say this without offending some people, but here goes. Whether or not the movie has references to Christianity is NOT a matter of analytical fact. (If Shyamalan said so himself, I'd believe him. But...) The post beginning this section may seem analytical, but can you really prove something like that with rational reasoning? (If Shyamalan said so, then yes, but again...) I see this a lot these days; People saying that movies are overflowing with Christian references simply because the creators of the movie are Christians? (Are ALL Christians really that devout?) They said it about Tolkien's books, but, from a rational thinker's standpoint, he was just trying to tell a good story. (Tolkien's world, Arda, was dreamed by Iluvatar, The One. That has been used by most arguers as proof that he was trying to convey a Christian message. One God, so what? Islam has one god, and Zoroastrianism theoretically originated the Monotheism thing and passed it to the Jews, who in turn passed it to the Christians. Plus, Iluvatar doesn't send his one son to save the world. But, I digress. Go read about it if you wanna know more.) And thats what I think too - Shyamalan was just trying to tell a good story. I'm going to be a writer in the future, so I sure don't hope MY stories don't get praised for having "references" to Christianity simply because the world they live on has One god. (In fact, they have many). I apologize if I offended anyone, but I was just trying to offer a different standpoint. -69.29.167.5—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arn7 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

strongly agreed. any story can have any subtext read into it if you really really want to, but that's no reason to think the meaning is supposed to be there. finding vague corrolations to christianity doesn't mean they are intended references to christianity (or to anything else, but this is the one that seems to crop up most often).--dan

22:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mikeguy! Mikeguy,are you a christian? Anyways, yes christians are very (I'm not sure that this word is right but..) yes we are "devout". Also we are "devout" because we choose to be. No one is forced to. I love christ and I did see a few christian references.

Nosebutton (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The only Christian connection that I saw was the fact that they use the word God during the healing part. I never really picked up on anything else you've said. (I think people (myself too) do have a tendency to see what they want to see) 1) Mankind being cruel to each other, while another race is incredibly peaceful and nature loving, that's been done several times before and it's often used to relate to life before or while North America was being first explored. 2) I don't remember it saying she was made fun of in her world, she wasn't supposed to talk about her world. You say she becomes the one who brings hope to humans, but isn't it Vick The Vessel who was going to change the human world? Of course Story played a huge part, but if your looking for a Christian connection here, I'd say Story more closely resembles Mary. Becuase Mary gave birth to Jesus, she brought him into this world, was responsible for his actions in a way. STory was the one who 'awakened' Vick. Death bringing people together is a very common thing (my own family fought alot until my grandfather got sick), Plus it doesn't really show them uniting, it does show them working together, but we don't know if the next day when they all got up they ignored each other. (although I think it is kinda implied) 3) Not everyone had a purpose, they got it wrong the first time. PLus it was a huge apartment building that had (at the very least) more then 20 apartments, with several tennatns in each. They didn't use the movie critic or the young girl (from the butterfly scene, I thought she was the true healer) 'The only way to know our purpose is to ask God' That is just your (and the church's) opinion and has nothing to do with the movie. Story never told them who was who, and what their purpose was. They had to figure it out on their own. 4) I think this one was a big stretch. BEcause she is not wearing pants, it reminds you of Eden (ha, insert sex joke here). You can't really relate every single act of nudity in our more then 2000 years of history and relate it ALL to the Garden of Eden. Does skinny dipping or bathing, nudists remind you of the fact that God created man nude. 5) Just because they are different doesn't mean much. We (North America, Philly specifically) is a pretty diverse community. That would be more reflective of the city of Philly then the Christian Church. It's hard to avoid diversity anywhere you go nowadays. I might of come off as a jerk a bit, but I'm just responding, If I offended you I'm not going to apoligize, but it certainly wasn't my intention to offend anyone. Tydamann (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed from Article

The actions of Shyamalan over the last year have led many people on both coasts to wonder, openly, about his mental health. According to a close friend, "Shyamalan has been acting more and more bizarre and we are all wondering if some type of substance abuse may be to blame." -This quote has no source and doesn't name the close friend. Until both are submitted I feel that it's slander.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.21.95.74 (talk) 06:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Another section removed: "Possible goofs"

I just deleted the section "Possible goofs" (discussing Howard's changing hair color). In fact, the change is quite consistent (and was, I thought, one of the nice touches of the movie). Throughout the movie, when Howard's character (Story) is injured and/or feels the need to return to water, using first Heep's, then the Rans' shower for the purpose. In these scenes, the tips of her hair have lightened—it is as if the color and life are draining out of her. Thus, after her injuries toward the end of the movie, when her hair has gone completely blonde (almost white), this change is entirely consistent with previous scenes, and is, as the original paragraph noted, accompanied by a similar change in skin tone. —Ryan McDaniel 13:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

In the "Goofs" section it mentions the story as having a Korean origin and that it would almost impossible to pronouce "Narf" and "Scrunt" in Korean as they are. Where did this come from? No where did they say in the movie that it was a Korean origin. The fact that the old woman that relays the story to Cleveland is Korean has nothing to do with it's origin. I think this is someone's opinion and should be removed. Bignole 03:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree the reference to "Narf" and "Scrunt" not being possible to pronounce in Korean is irrelevant. Mrs. Choi, who was telling the story, never used those words; Young-Soon used them when translating the bedtime story from Korean to English, so I thought they were supposed to be the English versions of Korean words. I also believe the comment to be someone's opinion and it should be removed. Sotadragon 07:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why Shyamalan decided it was a Korean fairy tale. For some reason, grass dogs, mermaids, and evil tree monkeys doesn't have a Korean feel to me.67.176.14.100 16:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Featuring Missiles (a "reformed" vandal)

Jon Stewart quote in trivia section

Does anyone have the actual Jon Stewart quote? The word "fucking" was changed to "****ing", which seems almost unpronounceable to me. (One asterisk is hard enough...) Michael Slone (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Viewer Rating

It should be mentioned that the non-critic reviewers at rottentomatoes gave LitW a 74%, much higher than the ratings of the village.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.30.157 (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE---> Wikipedia views giving an "on the other hand" citation as biased opinion, based on the policy that edits should not have Undue weight WP:NPOV. I have made an edit pointing out that the source (Rottentomatoes "Viewer rating") is not a reliable reference since it is a biased statistical sample based on Self-selection. The Viewer Rating entry should probably be deleted on such grounds but I have left it in since it may, in it's current state, be informative. Fans may want to refrain from making such edits in the future. Halfblue 15:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Not only is Rottentomatoes "Viewer rating" not a reliable source, so is "IMdb User Rating" and "Yahoo! Users". They are all non-representative opinion polls since they are not a statistical sample of moviegoers; they are a popularity vote by moviegoers. The high number of "10" and "A+" votes seems to point out a spin campaign going on by Shyamalan fans to purposely skew the rating and support "their guy". 69.72.7.81 13:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? This is my first Shyamalan movie, and I liked it enough to give it a 10 on IMDB. I don't think I'm part of a spin campaign, it's just that this is the kind of movie that some people really like and others really hate. Borisblue 04:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The validity of your view is not in question--- the point is IMdb User Rating is not Scientific, i.e. it is not a random pole of individuals. A Scientific pole is random and blind. The "individuals" in the IMdb pole chose to vote and therefore skew the sample one way or the other. That is why WikiProject Films asks that you NOT use User Ratings--- since it does not meet the criteria for a valid source. 69.72.93.193 21:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Tartutic and Justice

Tartutics are described in the article as enforcing justice in this world, while the article in wikipedia focusing just on tartutics (see link at end of the article) says they enforce justice in the Blue world. Which is it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.1.162 (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

They said in the movie "Everyone who has seen the Tartutic has never survived", so why did`nt Reggie die?--Klaus Baude 123 23:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Reggie didn't die because he was the gaurdian.(Also maybe they were too busy with the scrunt!Ha HA)Nosebutton (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

An alternate interpretation and correction: the significance of Story's changing hair color signifies purity and strength. Story is on a quest to fulfill her destiny and can only accomplish this through the help of (human) others. As she prepares to return to her world as the Madam, her hair changes to pure gold, signifying her complete transformation.

If this is the editor's interpretation then it is POV. If it is something else (like a direct quote from the writer in an interview) then it should have a reference citing that specific source. Trivia entrees (and almost any addition to Wikipedia for that matter) need a source. Wikipedia is not the place to post opinion or original research (WP:NOT). 69.72.7.19 21:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Can We Have a More Balanced Reception Section?

When you read the "reception" section, it talks about how the movie was panned by critics who didn't like Shyamalan's rejection of the standard union-mandated way of doing things in Hollywood. It talks about how the critics hated his jokes about critics, hated that he didn't use a statistically viable focus group, and hated that he cast himself in the movie. Anyone who thinks outside of the industry box is likely to read that and say "What? Who cares about any of those things?" So, I suggest, that we put in something about what the audience thought about the movie (not just how many tickets sold)--there are people above who don't want a imdb user vote--whatever, find something else then. And, if the critics were the only reason this movie lost money, then it counts as a legit blackballing (akin to Gilliam's Brazil in 1985), and said soft-campaign should be mentioned also. --Mrcolj 01:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You can do that somewhere (like a fan site), but it is very hard to do on Wikipedia. When you say Shyamalan was panned for "thinking outside the box" and rejecting "the standard union-mandated way of doing things in Hollywood" and "critics were the only reason this movie lost money", you are putting some kind of interpretation on what went wrong with this movie. Interpreting it that way violates Wikipediada's NPOV. What would be your source of "what the audience thought about the movie"? Citing fan poles like IMdb and Yahoo Movies is considered an invalid source re: Wikipedia:WikiProject Films guidelines. Wikipedia is not the place for people’s interpretations or for supporting your favorite director. If you think there is some part of that section that is not balanced and you can site a Wikipedia guideline or source that meet's Wikipedia's guidelines to fix it, go right ahead. 69.72.2.72 23:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

My request for balance is inherently NPOV. The only question is how to present the movie and its reception more accurately without violating the bureaucracy of "NPOV." I still recommend someone attempt it, because it is a major thing the movie is memorable for. Just find a review from someone other than me saying the movie was blackballed, or something academic questioning why the audience review didn't translate into dollars, etc. --Mrcolj 03:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Philadelphia?

One has to wonder about the film's setting being Philadelphia. The direct evidence is that an animal control officer explicitly states they are in Philly, but several other aspects of the film seem to contradict this:

• Heep tells Farber that Young-Soon Choi is a "student at the university", as though this were a small town with just one university, rather than dozens of colleges and universities. Even if the apartment building were close to one particular university, it would not nessesarily follow that an out-of-towner like Farber would know which university was meant.
• Farber tells Heep that he has been hired to be "the local film and book critic for the paper", as though this were a small town with one newspaper. Philly does indeed have just one paper that is larger and more notable than the others, The Philadelphia Inquirer, but its very notability seems to make the notion that Farber is both book and film critic somewhat silly, as major papers hire critics who specialize in one or the other.
• The entire setting doesn't look like any apartment building you would find in Philly. The building looks like an overly tall motel like one might see down at the shore in New Jersey somewhere...or perhaps like somewhere in southern California. The whole atmosphere is very "beach-like", including how people like Reggie and the "smoking guild" dress.
• With regards to being more Californian than Philadelphian, I would also point out that the Torres sisters are more clearly Mexican than either Puerto Rican or caribbean.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.144.161 (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"The Great Eaglon" is spelled wrong

All the subtitles in the movie use the spelling "Eatlon". So does the soundtrack title listed in the article.--131.107.0.73 15:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Named one of the best of the year

Believe it or not, the film was named one of the year's best by Cahiers du Cinema. I shit you not, fucking Cahiers du Cinema. No. 6 in a 3-way tie {at http://www.cahiersducinema.com/article959.html} 24.24.211.239 (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey hey hey! Why do you have to use those words. There is absolutley no reason to use those discracful assortments of diplorable rubbish!!!! Please do not use those words here or anywhere else on wikipedia! Nosebutton (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ladybedtime.jpg

Image:Ladybedtime.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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Eerily prophetic?

"A boy in the Midwest of this land will grow up in a home where your book will be on the shelf and spoken of often. He will grow up with these ideas in his head. He will grow into a great orator. He will speak and his words will be heard throughout this land and throughout the world. This boy will become leader of this country and begin a movement of great change. He will speak of you and your words. Your book will be the seeds of many of his great thoughts. It will be the seeds of change..."

Who does that remind you of? A great orator from the Midwest who becomes the leader of the US and begins a movement of great change? When Shyamalan wrote this, Barack Obama was a mere blip on the horizon.

Has Mr. Shyamalan commented at all on this? Maybe he believes he can channel messages from the future; maybe he can. Miguelj 72.207.68.27 (talk) 05:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama did not grow up in the Midwest. And he was fairly well known in 2006, at least in circles where the 2008 Presidential race was being discussed. He was fairly well known in such circles since his speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion Re: Plot Summary

I'm opening up a talk page section so that Eusebeus and I can discuss the plot summary. My position is that this plot summary is long strictly because Shymalan's plots are deeply intricate, necessitating a lot of explanation. I realize that Wikipedia tends more towards favoring brevity over length, but in some cases, overabbreviation can lead to disservice to the subject. I think that would be the case here.

But regardless of the length, the "restored" plot summary was significantly insufficient for the subject -- that's why I replaced it.

I also don't want to make this personal, but this is a little bit hit-and-run. I believe that the existing plot summary is of much greater quality than what was once there.

But.

If someone believes that a summary is overlong, then you don't hit-and-run revert, you edit it yourself to reduce its length. That's a much more cooperative process than utterly blowing out all work done on the summary in one swift click while glibly deciding "too long."

One is easy -- hitting the appropriate link -- and one is much more difficult. But one is truer to the original intent of wikis. MikeHarris (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't WP:OWN this plot summary, and while I agree with everything said in the comment above, I'll also take the point that the essay needs trimming. I'm working on that now. MikeHarris (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Quite literally managed to reduce the plot summary by half. MikeHarris (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The plot summary now reads as mostly nonesense. I never saw this film, nor did I read the book, but the text of the plot section seems a garble of ungrammatical English to me as casual article reader. This is irrespective of the title's specific jargon (which, naturally, have to be used) - Pomax, 6 July 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.82.18 (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Plot summary very unclear. Revision should be considered.

This must be how an English teacher feels when grading a paper. I don't claim to be an English expert by any stretch, but after coming away from reading this summary feeling like I know less about this movie than before I read it, I have to be a little bit critical.

The plot summary seems written more for people who know the story than for those who do not. There are numerous omissions that negatively impact the clarity. There are also multiple instances where the writer seems to assume that the reader will know what's being referenced without having actually referred to that plot point. I haven't seen the movie and this summary was totally lost on me, and it's not as though I have any reading comprehension problems.

This is a sampling of potential clarity problems, but they may not be limited to these passages, nor am I suggesting that they all necessarily need changed. But at least some things need to be clarified before this summary will be useful and practical.

"Story is here to find a specific writer whose book will better humanity's future." Why? Detail isn't needed, a few words would suffice. Does she have a vested interest in the fate of the human race? Will the changes in this world also impact hers? Is it because she thinks he's sexy? Whatever it is, it would help to know.

"Ran meeting Story eliminates his fear and sharpens his inner voice, but he learns he will be assassinated due to the controversial nature of his ideas." Does this happen magically? Does she tell him this? How and why does he suddenly know this? Why is it important for him to find out? Why is Story here to find him? What's going on here? I would suggest something like "Ran meets Story and she tells him blank because blank which results in blank," or "Ran meets Story and he has a vision which is important because blank." Again, it doesn't have to be wordy, merely clear.

"The Tartutic — a deeply evil simian trio that serve as the Blue World's peacekeepers — have forbidden that Story be attacked while returning home." Deeply evil? Everything they do, according to this summary, is good and benefits Story. What did they do that makes them evil? If they're up to no good, it's never mentioned in this article.

"The Scrunt nonetheless does just that, as Story is destined to be a great leader as well." Why's the Scrunt after her? What does her destiny have to do with this attack? Very confusing.

"To return safely, she will now need the help of a Symbolist, Guardian, Guild, and Healer." What does this have to do with anything? How does the viewer suddenly know this? Who said this in the movie and under what influence? This doesn't have any context, I have no idea how this came about or why.

"Story believes Heep to be her Guardian; Heep asks Farber, a West Coast émigré turned film critic, to help him figure out the others' identities. Working off movie tropes, Farber misadvises Heep..." Why, why, and why? Who these people are is a mystery to be solved? It was not so stated. This summary repeatedly moves forward with no explanation about important points like this, it's just suddenly being talked about that the characters have to find these various labeled people. How did this search, which appears to be the central story, begin?

"Heep asks Story how to practice for the confrontation but nearly dies in the process, convincing him he's not the Guardian." What confrontation? No specific future confrontation is mentioned before this statement, only that Story needs help to get home safely. And in what process? In the process of practicing, or of asking about practicing? What nearly kills Heep?

"The next night, Farber's bad advice leads to their plan's immediate failure. In the confusion, Story is mortally wounded by the Scrunt." Plan? The plan is barely mentioned before it goes wrong in this summary. The reader didn't know there was a plan beyond finding some mysterious people with mysterious labels to help Story. And what confusion? Failure of the plan could be caused by any number of things. Why is it confusing? Is there a chaotic battle? Why does this cause the Scrunt to be able to hurt Story? And I still don't know why it's out to get her.

"Dury suddenly realizes his son Joey (Gray-Cabey) is the Symbolist." How did this realization occur? A sentence structure like "Dury realizes his son Joey is the Symbolist when blank" would be helpful. This makes it sound like Dury comes to this conclusion for no reason.

"Interpreting the information on cereal boxes..." Excuse me?

"Joey deduces the true Guild is composed of seven sisters, that two new men must be present, and that the Healer is male, soon revealed to be Heep." Seven sisters, two new men, and the Healer is Heep? How did they find all these people/find this out before Story tries to return to the Blue World again? I don't know, but that seems like a significant chunk of story with no summary.

"Each tenant watches as she is ferried into the storm." The storm? What storm? Would a storm be more appropriate, or is this storm that the reader didn't know was happening somehow significant?

Obviously detail isn't generally important in a summary, and I'm not asking for the color of characters' socks. But there needs to be enough detail about what's happening and the motivations behind those activities to understand the plot, and important plot points can't be alluded to out of the blue with no previous reference. So much is left out of (skimmed over, ignored, assumed) in this plot summation, it's not fully comprehensible. It's confusing, opaque, and the hardest to understand I've yet encountered on Wikipedia. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings, but if someone would clean this up, I think it's very much merited.

Also, the actors are referred to only by their last names. The cast is listed below the plot. Usually in an article, people are listed by only their surname after their full name has been listed. You have to scroll down to see who these people actually are. Verminjerky (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I just added a detailed critique of the plot summary currently up. I'm not sure who wrote it, but the fact is that, from my perspective as someone who has not seen the movie, it's a total disaster. I feel strongly that it's much too short because it's insanely confusing to someone who has not seen the movie. An incredible amount of information necessary to understand the story is totally omitted. I sometimes read plot summaries for movies I've not seen because I want to understand something a friend has talked about, or a reference in pop culture, or whatever. This current plot summary lacks so much detail that it renders it useless to me. I just don't get the movie at all. Given the less than stellar reviews, I didn't really want to see the movie. Now I'm tempted to slap it on my Netflix list just so I won't be confused anymore. I don't know what changed or how this argument started, but I have a strong feeling the longer version was more useful. Verminjerky (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I just want to point out how amusing it is to read this criticism because, having seen the film, most of the questions you ask would be perfectly valid questions to ask during/after the movie. They're not explained better in the movie, for the most part.

The Tartutics – a deeply evil simian trio that serve as the Blue World's peacekeepers

I don't remember them being called evil, deeply or not. They seemed to be protectors. Was the evil thing mentioned in the movie or did someone just put that in there since they were in the dark? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.85.58 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I just added a serious business critique of the plot summary and I could not agree more with this. I have not seen the movie, and this line in the summary left me wondering what made them evil, particularly since everything they did seems to benefit Story, who, unless I'm seriously mistaken, appears to be the heroine. Verminjerky (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The movie says they were so evil that they killed their parents when they were born. I just watched the thing, and yeah, that did seem like something weird to say, since they are protectors, but that's what the movie says. --69.180.37.163 (talk) 06:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)