Talk:The Woman in Black (2012 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

File:The-woman-in-black-poster.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:The-woman-in-black-poster.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

women in black

What age is this film to watch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.19.42 (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably adult. Not that it has any bad language, nudity, or overt sexuality, or indeed any real violence (despite the deaths which occur), but it's just an older, very slow paced more melodramatic film which would seem to require a bit more maturity in order to parse and understand. Banaticus (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The correct answer (which does not resort to speculation and opinion) is that it was rated PG-13 in the US. You can derive a suitable analogy for other countries' rating systems based on this. 12.233.147.42 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The end of the book

The apparent emotional status of the Woman in Black at the end of the book was changed from "enraged" to "smiling" by someone who kept trying to dump the link of his site onto the page, "Everyone has misunderstood the end of the book, they should visit my site to find out why." I visited his site, it had some crazy misspelled malware popup which I got out of by Alt-F4'ing everything because I could see it wasn't a real alert window and I didn't know what would happen if I clicked on it. Needless to say, I'm a little skeptical of the user's edits -- any user with a credible editing history want to chime in on how the end of the book presents the Woman in Black? Banaticus (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the ending of the book is different isn't it? At the end the woman in black suddenly appears and frightens the horse, killing kipps and his family. But I don't agree she was outraged at the end of the film, perhaps at first when her plan backfired. But at the end, She seemed a little sad to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.246.131 (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not an entirely accurate recollection of the novel's end, on your part. The major difference between the novel and both film versions is that Kipps survives in the novel; the entire plot is a memoir that he is writing about his experience in the village and the deaths of his first wife and son (he is inspired to write the memoir by his second wife and her children from a previous marriage). The long-running stage play is similar, except that he is rehearsing a play based on his memoir, and no mention is made of a second wife or step-children. Regarding "enraged" vs. "smiling", it's all speculation and interpretation and OR. Find a legitimate source that describes her reaction, or you cannot put it in the article. 12.233.147.42 (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Poster

Would anyone else be sympathetic about changhing the poster to this one? http://www.showbizjunkies.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/woman-in-black-poster.jpg Or even just add it as an additional image? I think it looks a lot more interesting than the poster we are presently using. Hawjam (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Hawjam

British English or America English in reviews section?

Being a British film, I'm aware that British dialect is preferable, but in the section that quotes rotten tomatoes, metacritic and other third party sources, shouldn't we use their spelling and dialect, particularly because these are direct quotes? --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Direct quotes must appear exactly as they were originally written, and must not be edited in any way except to indicate truncation, paraphrasing for clarity, and misspellings or improper language use in the original. 12.233.147.42 (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Nominator has withdrawn their nomination. Favonian (talk) 11:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

---

The Woman in Black (2012 film) → The Woman in Black (film). Look, the 1989 film is a cult television film, but the 2012 version is much more well known, as evidenced by the 2,017 votes on IMDb for the 1989 film compared to the 46,488 votes for the 2012 film and 4,960,000 results for the 1989 version and the substantial 72 million results for the 2012 version (sorry for not showing; google "woman in black 1989" an "woman in black 2012".) My point is that this version is the most looked for, so the title should be changed. Thank you. Zerbo (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how much more well known something is. The Avengers (2012 film) is one of the most successful films ever released, but we still differentiate it from the almost unknown 1998 film. --Williamsburgland (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

And yet Inception gets a spot over the McCoy Tyner album instead of being named Inception (film) still? How does that work? Zerbo (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Plus, the question isn't just about knowledge of something, its about notability. The 1989 TV film is barely notable (it doesn't even have a reference, for God's sake), while the 2012 film is notable. How little known it, the 1998 Avengers is just as notable as the 2012 one. Zerbo (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Inception - That's a good point; I'd argue that the name of that article should be Inception (film), as I think it once was. That said, there's already been several lengthy discussions on the matter, and I don't have the energy to dredge them back up. If you want to use those discussions and the results to argue your point, by all means do so.--Williamsburgland (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Your second point - while the television version of the film might be less notable, it's certainly notable. As you may know, the primary source for a film is the film itself, and this one did receive release via major media, and was based on a major source. If nothing else, it's worth noting that there are two versions of the film out there.--Williamsburgland (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you are afraid that the 1989 film won't be noticed, there always is a hatnote link at the top. Zerbo (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not afraid of anything; I'm just trying to keep a neutral point of view. I don't believe that Wikipedia should be giving more attention to one thing over another based on it's present popularity. --Williamsburgland (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Would it be better if we rename the 1989 TV film The Woman in Black (telefilm)? This could work because they're different kinds of films, and avoiding confusion? Zerbo (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Opposed: I disagree with the rename suggested. Both the the current title The Woman in Black (2012 film), and the proposed alternate title The Woman in Black (film) requires a parenthetical disambiguation (either "2012 film" or simply "film"). Neither would be reached directly by simply entering the basic search term The Woman in Black. As long as you're using a parenthetical disambiguation in the title, Wikipedia's policy is to use a name that ; as there are two films, it's reasonable to include the year to differentiate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Did you read my second option? I think "precisely defines the subject" is a good description for it. Zerbo (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Using "2012 film" does precisely fit the subject - it differentiates that it is a film, and of the two films it is the one from 2012. Anything shorter would be imprecise (only using "film" does not distinguish between the two). The suggestion to rename the other film using "telefilm" goes contrary to established Wikipedia standard use for naming made-for-television films (see, for example, the disambigs at Helter Skelter or The Hanged Man). I also ignored the hatnote suggestion initially given that the use of one still requires a parenthetical disambiguation of "(film)". As long as we're using a parenthetical disambiguation, we should use the most precise one that eliminates the need of a hatnote. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge we've never used the phrase telefilm; I don't understand what your objection to simply differentiating the two films by year is.--Williamsburgland (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I will modestly withdraw this nomination. Sorry if I wasted time. Zerbo (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Clear recentism. Those of us who are older still clearly remember the 1989 TV version. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is not a waste of time, Zerbo. Please don't look at it that way. --Williamsburgland (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

False Information

Hey, I got the uncut DVD Version of the movie, but were on earth is Jennets son saying "No, your not my mother!"? I watched the scene over and over again and believe me, he is not saying this! (I hope you get which scenne I mean) But the article says "Jennet leans over her son, but he says "No, your not my mother!" which angers her, but she leaves." Sorry, but that´s really not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.84.212.10 (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Production companies

So I'm a bit confused on the production companies: "A CBS Films (in U.S.)/Momentum Pictures (in U.K.) release of an Alliance Films, Hammer, U.K. Film Council presentation in association with Cross Creek Pictures of a Talisman production in association with Exclusive Media Group, in co-production with Filmgate Films, Film i Vast." Otherwise, there is no source in the article. How do we identify which one is actually a production company involved? The only back-up source I have is Variety calling it a UK-Canadian-Swedish production. Currently, the article says that +American. Where do we fit what where?

Alliance is Canadian. UK Film Council and Hammer are British.

So do we include the ones that say "in association"? How prominent are they?Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)