Talk:Practical Magic

Changes I'd like to make

These are some edits that I'd like to make in order to make the plot summary more concise and accurate and give a bit more description to the cast members. Please comment!

PLOT 1) The girls move in with the aunts. The townspeople treat the family as outsiders for they fear that they are witches. 2) The Craft has been passed down through generations to the Owens women. 3) Sally becomes lonely without Gillian. 4) Sally swears off magic because the magical curses have ruined her life. 5) The spell works but Sally must kill him again when he tried to kill Gillian. 6) The sisters bury his body in the Owens home garden and his spirit begins to haunt them. The aunts realize Sally and Gillian did something terrible so they leave town, claiming the girls must clean their own mess. 7) Sally's daughters notice that Gary fulfills a number of conditions of Sally's true love spell. 8) Sally and Gary develop feelings for each other. Sally confesses that she killed Jimmy, and that she cast a spell to summon Gary to her. Gary has an encounter with Jimmy's ghost and decides to leave town without arresting Sally. 9) Jimmy possesses Gillian and the aunts return; they decide that in order to dispel Jimmy, a coven needs to be formed. Sally asks the aid of townswomen who had feared and excluded her. The women come out of curiosity and a desire to help. Jimmy's spirit is dispelled and the 300-year-old curse of the Owens women is ended when Sally repeats the spell that was mentioned as Gillian first left while clasping their hands to mix each other's blood once more. The spell is lifted and Gillian returns. CAST 1) Sandra Bullock as Sally Owens, a witch who becomes widowed after the Owens’ curse kills her husband 2) Stockard Channing as Aunt Frances Owens, aunt of Sally and Gillian, tends to be more tenderhearted and quiet 3) Dianne Wiest as Aunt Bridget 'Jet' Owens, aunt of Sally and Gillian, tends to be more aloof and fun-loving 4) Nicole Kidman as Gillian Owens, sister of Sally Owens who grows bored with small-town life and becomes the victim of an abusive relationship 5) Goran Visnjic as James 'Jimmy' Angelov, intense boyfriend of Gillian that becomes abusive and kidnaps the sisters 6) Aidan Quinn as Gary Hallet, officer who investigates Sally and Gillian in the murder of Jimmy and eventually falls in love with Sally

RECEPTION -Box Office Total US Gross $46,850,558 International Gross $21,486,439

Worldwide Gross $68,336,997

Info from http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/1998/PRACT.php -Awards

In 1999 the movie won the Blockbuster Entertainment Award for Favorite Supporting Actress-Comedy/Romance (Stockard Channing was the recipient). That same year it was also nominated for numerous other awards, including American Comedy Award and Young Artist Award. Info from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120791/

Hnpolloc (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Hnpolloc[reply]

refinement of genre categorization

Until Wikipedia makes it so that general users cannot edit the pages within reason, I don't see why small edits need to be discussed on the talk page and 'approved' - I thought Wikipedia was largely peer built, community created, and democratic in nature, not hierarchal.

I changed the genre for the sake or more accurate categorization. I held this reason to be self-evident. It's not really an obscure or complex thing, especially as I also mentioned the reason for my edit as required when I made it.

If some feel the need to be petitioned and have me submit a lengthy public justification to stop this becoming an edit war (this isn't like a page on Israel or something truly contentious), then here it is: Practical Magic clearly fits all the criteria for a 'chick flick' - it's is primarily and fundamentally a movie marketed towards women. Not families, not men - women. The fantasy elements are significant, but secondary window dressing. This movie has more in common with the majority of 'chick flicks' than it does with other movies of the fantasy genre, such as 'Lord of the Rings' or 'Legend'. While such movies are very much fantasy with some romantic elements, this movie is primarily concerned with romance and containing fantasy elements, which exist mainly to move along the romantic plot. I mean really, if you've actually seen the movie, this is pretty obvious stuff. It's not denigrating the movie, it's just how it was conceived and marketed. As 'chick flick fantasy' was rather unwieldy, I truncated the term as 'women's fantasy' - with linkages to both the 'chick flick' page and the 'fantasy film' page.

Perhaps it can be argued by some whether or not it's more a 'chick flick', or more of a fantasy, but as it previously stood, there was no indication whatsoever that this was a movie conceived and marketed as a film primary for women - yet this movie is obviously very different from a typical fantasy movie. At most, it's a hybrid. The way I've worded it, both aspects are covered.

Next time you reflexively go to roll back an edit, please take a harder look at whether or not the edit makes sense. Don't undo it simply because you didn't feel properly petitioned. Wikipedia is by the people, for the people. Yes, it relies on volunteers to keep it running smoothly, but apply yourself where it is truly needed, not micromanaging unnecessarily, as this makes it difficult for the casual user to contribute to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.226.181 (talk • contribs)

Hello, there. Your contributions are greatly appreciated, and while I agree with your changes, we unfortunately want to keep the genres in the lead simple and straight to the point without going into over detail. According to Allmovie, the main genre of the film is classified as "fantasy", while the subgenres are classified as "fantasy comedy" and "romantic comedy." However, I believe that "chick flick" is not necessarily a significant genre to be listed in the lead of the article and one of Wikipedia's fundamental policies, WP:V, states that "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Also, per this section of the Film WikiProject's Manual of Style, "At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the major genre(s) under which it is normally classified." Since the major genres of the film are fantasy and romantic comedy per Allmovie, I think we should simply use "fantasy romantic comedy film" in the lead, while keeping the film mentioned in the chick flick article. Also, you may want to show some respect and assume good faith towards your fellow editors and the reasons for doing so, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and no one is ignoring you or saying that you could not improve the article, the main concern is keeping the genres in the lead simple without going into too much detail. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A "chick flick" isn't actually a genre anyway. Allmovie describes it primarily as a romantic comedy in the fantasy genre, the American Film Institute consider it a romantic comedy drama, so "romantic comedy" is probably the most apt description. Betty Logan (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response summary

Metacritic lists "mixed or average reviews", according to their website. Meanwhile, the Fox News and Vox sources say the film opened to negative reviews. That said, should we summarize the reviews in the opening sentence of the critical response section or just remove them? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to correct this old weblink?

In the section "Reception", there’s a reference note for Roger Ebert’s review, and it contains a dead link to his (now gone) Sunday Times section and an Internet Archive link for that page. However, all Roger Ebert’s reviews have been moved to a different website (years ago, actually) so I could simply replace that whole story by the (currently) working weblink:

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/practical-magic-1998

Is that the right way to go?