Talk:The Watcher in the Woods (1980 film)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film: British / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Disney Low‑importance

	Disney portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed split

I don't see why the "Source novel and screenplay" subheading should be used to create an entirely new article on the book. What's here is only what's relevant to the film and screenplay (and wouldn't be relevant to an article on the source book). Also, the title of the book is A Watcher in the Woods, so renaming this article to "The Watcher in the Woods (film)" is not necessary. Guermantes 19:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This information should not be removed from the article, but someone should start a new article for the book. -Ben 136.142.96.55 15:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already there: A Watcher in the Woods. Her Pegship 17:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Switch...?

The plot summary says that the Watcher "explains the switch that took place" but the summary itself never explains that switch. I haven't seen the movie, but could someone who has put that into the main plot summary? Otherwise it makes the plot summary rather confusing. -Elizabennet 02:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid adding the Watcher's explanation of the nature of the switch will only make it more confusing. It is vague at best, suggesting something to do with the "magnetic pull of the eclipse". The original cause of the switch - before the ending was re-shot - had it that the Watcher needed Jan's "image" to free Karen. Neither makes any sense in terms of science. I'll go back and listen to the dialog, but I don't think anything worthwhile will come of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.201.58.141 (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No. of endings

The number of possible endings was not hyperbole. It is stressed in all the promotional material for the film that there were a huge number of possible endings. This information is especially important to the article because the actual ending was changed and reshot so many times. Do not remove this cited information again, or it will be reported as vandalism. 151.201.15.45 17:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC) -02:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Scott Michael Bosco (who's written on the subject and was responsible for getting the the original endings unearthed), the film was only screened WITHOUT the "Other World Sequence," and as the final cut that's most widely known -- but it's my understanding there were actually THREE versions of the film released theatrically. For decades, Leonard Maltin's Movie & Video Guide has had this blurb: "First shown with an abrupt conclusion, then with special effects sequence that made things worse, then reworked again -- and improved (by Vincent McEveety) -- for 1981 rerelease." Anyone have further info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.135.221 (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]