Talk:The Cabin in the Woods/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Plot

Holy horrible write up Batman! Misspellings and atrocious grammar! I did lolololol at "marijuana addiction." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.91.117.74 (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we get a better plot? The wiki rules say that plots need to be complete..as in with an ending. Spoilers are pretty much mandatory. This is not an advertisement for the film, so a teaser is very inapropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.157.10 (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This can be a little difficult since the film has not been released yet. Check back in February 2010 and I'm sure a full plot summary will be available. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

dont do much wikipedia editing so ill post this and leave the editing to someone else. ill screw it up. kerasotes theaters has a release date for this film for october 23 2009 http://www.kerasotes.com/Movie.aspx?FilmID=2957 could be a mistake 71.67.150.52 (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the best plot EVER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.94.121 (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That plot summary is COMPLETELY wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.89.78 (talk) 05:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

SPOILERS AHOY==

The plot summary seems to belong more with The Movie Spoiler than on Wikipedia. Shouldn't be spoiling the movie for those who haven't seen it yet although I'm grateful that I'm going to avoid this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.216.7.5 (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I second the comment about the spoilers. I thought it was standard to start those kind of articles with a disclaimer like: "Diclaimer: The following reveals key points of the intrigue." Joël Fréchette-Ledoux 199.84.42.208 (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you don't want the plot spoiled, don't read the page, and it's often fun to read a detailed plot synopsis afterwards in case you've missed something. MissingMia (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly Wikipedia is meant to give a FULL Summary of a Film including any Spoilers or Plot Twists that the Film may have — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

H. P. Lovecraft reference

"The Ancient Ones" are obviously a reference to H. P. Lovecraft. Are there any sources on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.39.90.235 (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's Cthulhu_Mythos_anthology#The_Book_of_Cthulhu. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Comedy Horror

I would say that this film is more of a Comedy Horror since we know the source of what's going on for the entire film, they were very few points in the film were I really felt suspense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I have read in articles that it is meant to be a horror comedy, similar to Evil Dead II. Charlr6 (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• As always these things need sources, there are main genres and then other things. Scream for instance has some comedy elements to it but it would be wrong to describe it as a horror comedy. Evil Dead, at least the first one, seemed to be taking it a lot more seriously in terms of gore and horror. As for how much it scared you, that is entirely subjective. There are lots of horror films which aren't particularly scary, but it doesn't make them comedy films.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Well the Wikipedia page that lists "Comedy Horror" Films does have Scream listed, atlhough it also has the Scary Movie Films listed and I think that it is quite a stretch to even call them that. I think that what makes a film a "Comedy Horror" is that it is a Horror Film first but has significant elements of Comedy in it which normal Horror Films do not have (aside from 1 or 2 one liners which are typically used as tension releasers) which I believe The Cabin in the Woods has. But I think that we should use "Comedy Horror" rather than "Horror Comedy" since the later seems to imply that the film is a Comedy first and a Horror second and not the other way around. There are a number of reviews that list this film as a "Comedy Horror". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You would ideally put horror first because that defines the setting, the same way you would call something "science fiction action film" and not "action science fiction film".Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The Comedy Horror really needs to be changed to just Horror, since the film's whole marketing campaign was based on promoting it as a horror movie. The comedic element comes as a surprise and to have the article start out by listing it as a "Comedy Horror" is a MAJOR spoiler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.58.204 (talk) 02:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, becuase Wikipedia is meant to provide a Summary of a Film not to just be a Teaser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sigourney Weaver as "herself"?

I don't see any source for this, and as someone who has seen the film it doesn't make any sense to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.189.11 (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Monster Whiteboard

I added this from a few released stills. The whiteboard lists all of the monsters in "storage" - so it is fun

Spandox (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC).

Re-added after it was removed without discussion by a user without the discussion of what is "trivia" and what is encyclopedic. Spandox (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC).

The use of the list:

• Gives list of possible outcomes from the basement "trigger room"
• A selection of the creatures are shown in the elevator scene when characters learn that they choose their antagonist
• Each of the creatures show up later in the movie and allows unique naming
  • Merman (Bet on and then kills Hadley)
  • Werewolf (seen multiple times in "basement")
  • Unicorn (as killer)
  • Clowns (with knives)

Spandox (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to discuss uncontroversial things. Please explain how a list of generic monsters and who bet on their appearance in the plot, is at all encyclopedic or belongs here. It is trivia, pure and simple. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The list is not generic - it is specific and backed up with movie stills. It also aides to the understanding of the specific carnage later in the film. The list only contains monsters who appear in the film. Who bet on them, I agree, is not important to the understanding of the plot (except the Merman). Although the list would allow to verify/disprove if the departments were targeted by their bet-upon monster.Spandox (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say the list was generic, I said it's a list of generic monsters. You're not actually saying why it is encyclopedic and why it is not trivia. Which it is. It's a recreation of a whiteboard from a film. What purpose does it serve? How on Earth does a list that allows you to "verify" which departments were targeted by which monsters serve an encyclopedic purpose? At what point is it not just trivia? You're using it as a list of kills/deaths it seems in part? Yeah, that isn't acceptable on Wikipedia. Heck I'm not even sure it's trivia, its just something that exists and shouldn't. To aid you in this, feel free to go over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film and ask them their opinion on it. If they back you up on it I will apologise profusely. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I have added information to submit into the spreadsheet based on images I collected myself from attending this movie twice. I cannot publish the images because they are copyright protected. I will list the added information here:

• In the field next to "Zombies" please change "Chemical" to "Chem Dept"
• In the field next to "Clowns" please change "Electrics" to "Electrical"
• In the field next to "Witches" please change "illegible" to "Operations"
• In the field next to "Mummy" please change "Payroll" to "Psychology"
• In the field next to "Giant Snake" please change "Internal logics" to "Internal Logistics"
• In the field next to "The Bride" please change "Digital.....illegible" to "Digital Analysis"

Moonie143 (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The white board adds nothing to the concept of the movie. Its borderline in-universe. It should be taken down. Serious, adding something like this would lead to adding every list in every singl movie/tv show/book/play/etc. What's next, there was a grocery list shown in a movie we should put that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.87.36.78 (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I concur. This list needs to go. It is a fleeting in-movie detail that is non-central to the plot, is virtually meaningless out-of-context and does not warrant inclusion in the article. 67.233.244.115 (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe the whiteboard section is quite useful. Indeed, I wish it was expanded to include the encyclopedia of monsters represented in the film (drawing on credits, whiteboard image, and other screens). While it is in fact trivia, it is detailed information of great interest to those interested in this film, and which requires substantial effort to gather from other sources. Perhaps "Monsters in The Cabin in the Woods" could be a separate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.115.29 (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Good gosh, let's hope not. 67.233.243.138 (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I really do not see how it is useful, there isn't a lost of monsters in Underworld. Werewolves, Vampires. They're easily recognizable. To the person who said it isnt trivia, trying to tie a list of monsters to other film appearances (which is what this is) is trivia, like the bit of original research in the plot that says there is a sphere that looks like the Hellraiser puzzle box.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"To the person who said it isnt trivia ... (it)... is trivia" is an assertion, not an argument. The trivia guidance is linked below - it refers to shopping lists of miscellaneous unrelated facts, ie. random facts about the topic of the article - and even then the recommendation is to integrate the facts into that or other articles rather than delete them.

It's not useful. Seriously, half of them were made up: (batdragon, cybernetic scorpion, etc). There is no need for the board. It's just a fan boy's idea. This isn't about fanboy nonsense but what can be sourced, is noteworthy, and unbiased on the part of the editor. The board is biased because someone thinks it should be added when it gives no better understanding of the move. It isn't noteworthy because it appears for a few seconds in a movie that a majority of people will not see or care about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.87.36.78 (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"The board is biased because someone thinks it should be added when it gives no better understanding of the move." Er, well obviously it does increase understanding of the movie and and it's just as "biased" not to include it because you don't think it belongs. And most movies are not seen by "the majority of people". Does that mean that there should not be articles on them? Lots of film articles explain references to other movies which are not obvious to those who have not seen them (I've never seen "Hellraiser" for example).

It "obviously" doesn't add anything to because I'm not the only one who see's that it's useless. Adding to the understanding means, oh i don't know, greater depth to the story, point the film maker is advocating, character motivations, etc. All it is is something someone think looks cool. Wiki is not for fan boy nonsense — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.87.36.78 (talk) 07:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. This is why Wikipedia does not include nigh-endless lists of spells, weapons, armor, etc. in articles about games like World of Warcraft. Such lists, like this "whiteboard," would be nothing more than unwieldy "fancruft" (which I believe is the relevant term). 67.233.247.174 (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"Cruft" originally meant badly-written, unintelligible programming code. Actually the main reason why there aren't detailed, well-written articles about obscure details of "World of Warcraft" (which I have never played, but a lot of people have) is not because there is a law against it but because nobody has sat down and written them. There are quite a lot of topics which are esoteric per se or else have families of detailed articles of a level of detail beyond what non-enthusiasts would find interesting, e.g. games like poker (which I am learning to play at the moment - and the detailed articles are quite useful).

Bad argument (e.g. "it's obviously nonsense because I don't want it") aside, it would probably be better to find a citeable reviewer who referred to the numerous, clearly deliberate, references to other films and genres.171.159.33.4 (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Um, no. The reason there aren't list for WoW obscure details is because they are fancruft, which is defined by wiki as minor details which only a small percentage of fans are enthusiastic about, which is really of no importance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fancruft. This whiteboard fits the definition of that. Wiki is against fancruft. There is no reason to add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.87.36.78 (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Um, yes, and not for the first time you are relying on bad argument, assertion, eg. insisting that it’s “trivia” (when the trivia guidance is actually listed on this page and explains that trivia means lists of random unrelated facts which should be integrated into an article, not things that X thinks are unimportant) or giving us lectures about what – in your humble opinion - wiki is or is not “for”, or trying to look authoritative by quoting “policies” which you don’t actually appear to have read or understood. The policy does not say “wiki is against fancruft” – it defines it as a perjorative term which editors use in demanding something be removed. I quote:

“there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily because articles labeled as fancruft are often poorly written ... These issues may contribute to deletion ... Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion.”

The vast majority of articles are only of interest to “a small percentage” of people. Obscurity is not the same as lack of notability. Lots of minority topics have linked families of articles. I used the example of poker – but there are plenty of others: episode guides to Beavis and Butthead, families of articles about the Star Wars or Star Trek universes, list of characters in TV series or whatever. All of those I might find mildly interesting, but it also contains families of articles on stuff in which I have zero interest, eg. Pokemon – but that doesn’t mean I am going to go on a crusade to stop them from being written if they keep somebody out of mischief.

More importantly, lots of articles on classic films explain references to other classic films. In this case several reviewers did pick up on references to other films and genres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.159.33.4 (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but it IS fancruft. It IS trivia. It IS obscure. It IS original research. And it WAS poorly written. Perhaps -- and that is a very, very weak "perhaps" -- if there were notable reviews mentioning these references to other films and genres, that might warrant a brief mention in the article. Nothing justifies this, however. 67.233.240.113 (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Trivia Guidance

Wikipedia:Trivia_sections

I'm not sure it's strictly trivia, as trivia normally means a list of unconnected bits and pieces (e.g. "The Ancients" are based on H.P.Lovecraft, the jock guy played "Thor" in the film of that name, the cabin on the poster resembles a Rubik Cube, one of the two middle-aged guys was Chloe Moretz's older lover in "Let the Right One In"), which should be integrated into other sections and articles. But thanks for reminding me why I try not to get involved in film article disputes.

A list of the "horrors" taken from other films would certainly be useful and the sort of information which often appears in film articles - I recognised the 3 masked people who kill Liv Tyler and her husband in their home in "The Strangers", and the girl in the Kabuki mask who ties up then sticks needles in/pours acid on the popular kids at her school, though I can't remember what that movie was called. Some reviewers claimed to have spotted something from "The Shining" but I didn't spot an axe-wielding maniac or two spooky little girls.MissingMia (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It still amounts to nothing more than original research. 67.233.240.113 (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, and certainly not if it is sourced to reviews.MissingMia (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 April 2012

Plot section states, in 4th paragraph, 3rd sentence: "(it is later stated that his use of marijuana, treated with additional mind-altering chemicals by the technicians, has made him resilient to the drugs being used to guide the students' actions)"

The text ", treated with additional mind-altering chemicals by the technicians," is in error and should be removed.

In the film the "chem dept lady" explains that (paraphrase): "we missed one of his stashes, so his stuff is clean".

99.163.121.47 (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

References

There appear to be several references to horror that takes place in the form of other genres, such as a Boomer zombie from the video game series Left 4 Dead appearing in the elevator sequence, the Cthulu mythos in the form of the Old Gods as mentioned elsewhere, and the resemblance of Marty to Shaggy from Scooby-Doo. Would this merit another section in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.184.42 (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Precisely - it's the references to other films which are worthy of comment and explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.64.199 (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but those things are all original research. 67.233.240.113 (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, they're original research without a source. And we shouldn't be adding material without a source anyhow, right? Riiiight? Therefor any properly sourced material along these lines would not be original research. Human.v2.0 (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Precisely - they are not OR if sourced. Although, that said, the concept of OR isn't very meaningful if applied to a film plot - the source is the film. The purpose of the prohibition is to stop people writing any old rubbish in serious articles, not to stop people explaining film plots.MissingMia (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Quite true. "Ted picked up the orange" is something covered by the original material. "Ted picked up the orange because in his mind it reminded him of his mother" is OR without a source stating something not explicitly covered in the original material. People seem to get confused on this matter.

Out of various "references" in the movie, the only one that I've seen mentioned in other sources (and I havn't actually been looking) would be a likely reference to Evil Dead with the first appearance of the actual cabin.Human.v2.0 (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Plot: Redneck Torture Zombies

Are they ever actually called "redneck torture zombies" in the film? If so, I propose we use quotation marks around the term. If not, I think it's stylistically excessive and suggest we rewrite the sentence.

In either case, I removed the unnecessary capitalization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.252.241 (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen the film? Read about it online? Seen images of "the board"? I'm not wishing to be too rude, but you really should have some kind of familiarity with a subject before editing it, regardless of what the wiki's topic is.

At any rate, they are specifically named as "zombie redneck torture family."Human.v2.0 (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Likewise, the film CLEARLY states that this is the name of said characters. --His Lordship,The Count of Tuscany (you wish to address his honor?) 04:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"Australian Release Controversy"

So a petition with a 1000 signatures and a disgruntled tumblr user called "J.J" is a controversy? 2.96.75.185 (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Plot correct or not?

is the plot correct?

it says they need 5 sacrifices killed in order by monsters.

but one died in a motorcycle accident by that big shield that organisation that monitors them set up. and sigorney tried killing him herself.

so you dont need monsters? you can just kill them in order if someone find them randomly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.103.210 (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say that they need to be killed by monsters? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

GA push

Excellent work to everyone for their efforts in improving this article. This article is really coming together. I am thinking about getting this article up to GA status, as I am trying to help get the article to the best that it possibly can. However, there are a couple of things we may need to do here:

• Lead section - looks good, but may need to be expanded on with pre-production, development and post-production.
• Plot section - looks good, but needs to be trimmed to between 400 and 700 words (see WP:FILMPLOT), this plot section is 755 words.
• Reception section - I am expanding this with more reviews and box office updates (via Box Office Mojo and other sources), since it seems to be too short at the present and tagged appropriately.
• Production section - needs to add pre-production, development and post-production information, and also expand the lead section with pre-production, development and post production as well.
• Music section - I am quite surprised there is no music section here, so a music section may need to be added.
• Copyedit- this article needs to undergo a thorough copyediting.

All are welcome to assist in this process. Any other suggestions or ideas would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The plot is, quite appropriately, 666 words. Worth preserving it just for that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have already trimmed down the plot section earlier and added a note about the plot summary, so hopefully, we'll try and keep it that way. This should stop many new users from expanding the plot. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stop following me. Again. --Niemti (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to get into a confrontation as no hostility towards anyone was necessary and I did not intend to follow anyone's edits. I was only trying to help improve the article so we can get it up to GA status, and I did not have any intention to harass anyone here and wikihounding was absolutely unintended on my part if I have done so. If I did something to upset anyone, then I am terribly sorry, as it was not my intention to hurt or upset anyone. I have been correcting multiple problems on the article, and I have already asked a few users of the project, namely Darkwarriorblake, Bbb23 and Betty Logan, to help work on the article as well and already announced it on the WikiProjects's talk page. Hopefully, everyone involved will help get the article up to GA status. And as a rule abiding editor, I am a fairly civil person by nature. The truth is, I have been trying to expand the article as a good faith effort and I am a competent editor who can make the right decisions and I am willing to do what I know is constructive and what is best to get it up to GA or FA status. As Wikipedia is not about winning nor it is a battleground, it's about teamwork and building a marvelous, accurate encyclopedia. Also, there's simply no need to be rude or hostile towards anyone, period. :-) Hope that helps. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

And yet you're still following me, obsessively. This and Disney's Snow White, these are 2 examples of unlikely articles that you had never edited before but then "somehow" began editing practically immediately after I did, recently.[1][2][3][4] Even after you were told to stop doing it and seemingly agreed to it. I told you repeatedly, and I say it again, STOP FOLLOWING ME from now on. I'm not your friend and you're not my friend, and we both know that so you can stop pretending. There's a myriad of other ways for you to find some articles to improve, not least the "Recent changes" and "Random article" links on the left. --Niemti (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion break

Since this discussion is getting out of hand fast, I think the best option is to simply move forward and get back on track on how to improve the article to satisfy the GA criteria, as I am trying to make this so the discussion does not get convoluted that no one intends to chime in anymore. I have already requested input from a few other users from the film WikiProject to help edit the article, and we just need to be patient and wait for others to respond. While we got the reception section expanded, we still need to address some of the concerns as stated in my above rationale in order to help get it to GA status. I am especially concerned about the production section, as noted in my above rationale. We need to have subsections on pre-production, development, casting and post-production as well. The cast section is still bare. I am trying to find sources as best as I can and we should maintain a consistent date format with the references. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes that production info isn't always available, something to bear in mind. That said I think you've already done a strong job building up the article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm always willing to help out the best as I can. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)