Talk:The Wicker Man (2006 film)

Youtube?

wait, so wikipedia now details every time some random person does a parody on youtube? How exactly is this noteworthy? There are numerous parodies of every movie ever made, on youtube. Am I alone in thinking this is self-promotion or needless fluff? 72.65.102.76 (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Too long

this is way too long

Not any more! :) Totnesmartin 21:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Pruned some trivia

Got rid of the Raising Arizona trivia, per discussion below. Also nixed the unsourced, seemingly original research bit about police officers touching the trunks of cars they pull over.Jacobus 04:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

>no problem that you got rid of that part, it doesn't really have anything to do with the movie, but they do train police officers to touch the trunks of cars. as far as I can tell, to both test and make sure they're shut (so no one pops out or anyting), and also to leave a print (ie driver incapacitates the officer and runs off, when they catch up to the car it's just more evidence against the guy. Probably used more when they didn't have the dash cams) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viper13 (talk • contribs).

Overly negative

Edward Woodward, star of the original Wicker Man, has said that while he was offered a part in the remake and declined, he nevertheless was "surprisingly impressed by the quality of the script".

Trivial trivia

At the beginning of the movie when Nicolas Cage leans down and picks the doll up while he is riding a motorcycle is a reference to an earlier Nicolas Cage film, Raising Arizona in which his character leaned out of a car and picked up diapers. Also in the film the motorcycle riding bounty hunter Smalls reached down from a motorcycle and picks up Nathan Jr.

Uh, why is this here at all? These parallels are meaningless, minor and above all irrelevant.

>Yeah get rid of that.

Silly Disclaimer

What is this message doing beneath the plot summary of this film:

Note: This movie should not be taken as literal fact in the judgments of modern Pagan religious faiths and many would agree the film does not represent modern religious beliefs, regardless of any historical resemblance in past centuries.

This has no place in the plot summary--at all. I won't remove, as I don't feel that I have the authority to do so. But someone who edits this page on a regular basis should. 65.7.138.84 23:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)A Devoted Lurker

Differnt Movie, Different Message?

I think it's worth mentioning in the article that unlike the original this seems to be purely a horror movie, lacking the commentary on religion of the original. Trailers and publicity seem to indicate this, especially the use of the word 'Evil' to decribe the pagans, which frankly misses the whole point of the orginal movie, that both the policeman and the pagans believe themselves to be the embodiment of goodness and righteousness, and are doing the right thing by their differing gods. The end scene of the original showcases the rediculous nature of their beliefs, when both sides can do little, or in Howie's case absolutly nothing, except sing at each other. But I suppose the Hollywood execs are opposed to any criticism of religeon that might alienate their audience, not to mention Cage's obvious hostility towards non-believers indicated by his recent ill-informed comments regarding athiests while being interviewed in regard to Oliver Stone's recent 9.11 movie. A great shame in my opinion, since a remake might have found a unique social relevence in today's world, but now seems destined to be another cut-rate scare movie, whose highest aspiration will be to make a few million bucks and maybe spawn a few awful straight-to-DVD sequals that will serve only to make this first movie look a little better. Lauriet 02:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless there is discussion about this movie's commentary (or lack thereof) in the media in comparison to the original, it's not up to us to make up content to include in this film article. From a personal standpoint, what you said makes sense. However, it's not encyclopedic, unless there are a number of reviewers that have expressed this disappointment about the remake. If there isn't anything in the media about what you're talking about, then there's nothing to cite and include. --Erik 05:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote a skeptical preview of the remake here. Can anyone (who has seen the film, obviously) tell me whether my pessimistic predictions were valid? I was particularly concerned about it being a Christian propaganda film to demonize neo-pagans. Even though I like Nicolas Cage, I intend to wait until the DVD comes out before watching this. -Neural 16:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone??

Btw - what were these anti-atheist remarks Cage made? I think I might swiftly go off him if he turns out to be some rabid crusader for Jesus. -Neural 12:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own wickerman article describing Caesar's account of Druid festivals infers that the Druids never did this at all, and the legend comes from Caesar's need for a "reason to war" causus belli. Anyone and everyone should really treat this and every movie as a work of fiction and fantasy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.22.36 (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor note...

Having just seen the movie earlier today, there's no indication the bees on the island are africanized or killer bees. Cage's character is just allergic to bee stings.

That's fine. I originally wrote "killer bees" based on this article, but if the movie didn't actually identify them as killer bees, I can accept that. They're probably killer bees to the protagonist, anyway. :) --Erik 23:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Neil LaBute

I did some cinema-hopping after a film I had paid for, and slipped into the beginning of this movie. I wondered what it was about, read that it was filmed by Neil LaBute, and therefore stayed for another couple of minutes - until I really had to go because it became THAT stupid and the same time boring that I had to leave. I wonder what got Neil LaBute into that project? I only knew him as an interesting theatre playwright. You never know. Probably money... Solobratscher 06:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)--

No adult virgins in America today?

"In addition, Cage's character is not a virgin, like the protagonist from the original film, as it was thought that the idea of an adult virgin in modern American society was too far-fetched." Is this intended to be a joke, or perhaps somebody's speculation about the producer's motives, or is this an actual cited reason? It seems preposterous to suggest that adult virgins don't exist in modern American society. If I had to guess, I would assume that it's a matter of Hollywood trying to market to their perceived audience, as in "Like, Cage's character can't be a virgin, man. That'd be like totally lame. Everybody would think he was a total dork", or some such. Of course, encyclopedias aren't a place for speculation. A citation might help here.--220.29.92.4 16:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hadn't they heard of "True Love Waits"? Totnesmartin 21:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't. --Das654 08:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

He's not a virgin because it's an important plot element that he has a daughter (who was not born through artificial insemination). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Plot "summary"

While I respect the amount of time that appears to have been put into the plot summary section, it is detailed to a ridiculous extent and uses some decidedly unencylopedic language. It also has a large number of shifts in tense and aspect. It could well use some serious pruning by someone familiar with guidelines behind producing a reasonably-sized summary. 207.7.163.116 18:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Anybody think this movie had a touch of misandry about it?

---

Sorry I don't really know how to make a new section. This bit should fit. The plot summary doesn't appear to make sense. There seem to be important parts missing and as someone who hasn't seen the film some parts are bewildering. Particularly the part at the end with Rowan.

---

"The famous plot twist from the original film is missing in the 2006 remake, where the policeman, at the point of his sacrifice, in turn admonishes the villagers, claiming that sacrificing him will be an act of murder, and will not restore their crops' yield. He predicts that when the crops inevitably fail the following year, the only suitable sacrifice will be the Lord Summerisle himself (Sister Summersisle was Lord Summerisle in the original movie)."

WHAT famous plot twist?! The above is rubbish, this isn't a plot twist. The twist is when the policeman discovers that he has been misled by the villagers all along and he is to be the sacrifice. Someone change the synopsis accordingly. 90.221.208.142 (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Would someone who has seen the film please tidy up the plot summary? It's basically incoherent (and ungrammatical), but I haven't seen it so I can't rewrite it so it makes sense.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 05:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The plot summary includes a paragraph which begins, "On the day of the ritual, ...". What ritual? No ritual is mentioned before this statement. Could somebody please fix this. HairyWombat 04:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The plot section is mostly a copy of the IMDB synopsis. (Or maybe it's the other way around?) I saw it on Syfy today but didn't get much out of it. (I decided to read this article and the IMDB because I found the movie itself to be incoherent.) Older versions of this article have included some better plot explanations, which got trimmed because they were really long. (This one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Wicker_Man_(2006_film)&oldid=131609395 cleared up some of the movie's weirdness for me). The "ritual of death and rebirth" had been mentioned several times early in the movie, although nobody explained it (either to the cop played by Nicolas Cage or the audience). They gave him enough information to know when it was going to take place, and to make him suspect that Rowan was going to be sacrificed there, so that's the pivotal "day of the ritual". 98.226.12.79 (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wicker-man-poster.jpg

Image:Wicker-man-poster.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 04:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

What is meant by "The remake is largely considered "sicker than The Wicker Man (1973)"."-- Beardo (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Infamous scene

"In an infamous scene, Malus also asks how the doll got burned, to which Willow replies she does not know." - why infamous ? -- Beardo (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Nicholas Cage shouting "How'd it get burned?" has become something of an internet meme hence its 'infamy.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.36.100 (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard this meme before. It is not infamous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.222.100 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Horrible anti-pagan propaganda

This all started with Julius Caesar's outrageous lies to demonize the Gauls which a few Christians saw fit to repeat in order to demonize pagans as they were burning them at the stake (oh the irony). There is not a single shred of evidence that anyone was ever burned alive inside a Wicker man. Beyond doubling as a funeral pyre or acting as an effigy for someone reviled (like Julius Caesar) it was the Wicker man ITSELF that was the sacrifice, not a human victim burned screaming inside it (as if one could not break out of such a structure). I am amazed there is nothing about it's similarity to the Jewish Blood Libel in the criticisms, this is just as bad. --67.58.85.57 (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Gauls sacrificed those who committed in their view, the most heinous crimes, of treason and offenses against women and children (I think), by burning in a wickerman. It's not anti-pagan, because the Romans were pagan, and such could be reversed and used against CHRISTIANS who commited witch burnings. Everybody burns everybody. Your logic is severely lacking. What it most reminds me of, is The Lottery, another story of sacrificial superstitions in modern times.

Running time?

IMDB 102min, here 220? 88.114.29.138 (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Lee Quote

Switching out for "I don't believe in remakes. You can make a follow up to a film, but to remake a movie with such history and success just doesn't make sense to me." from here. Not sure why the original ever made it into the article, and in fact am only substituting because from my googling the British media assures me that Christopher Lee was critical of the movie instead of just indifferent to the whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.155.125 (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Different Versions

I saw a version which does not have the "not the bees" scene. The article mentions different versions, but doesn't mention this particular change.

I've also seen a version with the bees and one without. Jim Michael (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)