Talk:Pan's Labyrinth/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Literal Interpretation

WOWO!!!!I noticed that the "Plot" section outlines a literal interpritation of the story, and does not mention the fact that the fantasy segments are fabricated by Ofelia's imagination

It would be great to include this if you can find a source for the information. While I think its very valid, it is otherwise Wikipedia:Original researchoriginal research. Also, please remember to sign your posts using ~~~~ Atropos 04:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
If I recall from the DVD extras, it is not a "fact" that the fantasy segments are from from her imagination. That's just one interpretation, and not that of the director.-Barte 00:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What the above says is true, Del Toro has said repeatedly that its up for interpretation, hell, the film gives hint after hint after hint after hint-Beau.

I think it would be very appropriate to have at least a line about the film's similarities to the story of God ordering Abraham to sacrifice Issac to Pan's ordering Ophelia to sacrifice her brother . I know some critics have pointed it out before, but I just can't seem to find them online.--24.118.40.168 16:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)lucas

yes, and the moses reference, when the labyrinth parts as ophelia escapes the captain.

There should at LEAST be a section "Interpretations of the ending"-Beau.

Does that mean you have a source for the information? Atropos 21:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Guillermo Del Toro's directors commentary, plus, really, given the immense amount of discussion on it, there should at least be a small section "Interpretations of the ending"-Beau.

I'm afraid I don't have the DVD of Pan's Labyrinth and can't comment on what is and is not in the director's commentary. However, the wikipedia talk page is not a reliable source. Please also see our verifiability and original research policies. You can also sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Atropos 07:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This sort of information quite clearly doesn't need to be sourced; it's an interpretation of the film, the source is the film itself. What do you expect, a link to some article expanding on possible interpretations of the film? Don't be ridiculous. 60.234.219.204 (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's borderline original research, which is prohibited as per Wikipedia's No Original Research policy as stated by Atropos. There's nothing stopping you from writing your own interpretation and posting it on your own website, but if you want to put it on Wikipedia, you have to follow Wikipedia's policies. Oni no Akuma (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Del Toro generally does great commentaries. That's where I got most of my information for The Devil's Backbone. In my experience though, "interpretations" sections usually end up being peppered by editors who want to put down their own interpretations, which could lead to badly (or un-) cited information. Using commentaries for production notes isn't a bad idea, but as has been stated, a lot of interpretations are OR. MwNNrules (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I know no one has talked about this for a year, but it's still good to point out. Here's a great interview with del Toro [1], in which he states that the film is very much like a Rorschach test, and even that del Toro wrote the script under the bias of what Ofelia is seeing is actually happening. But even with all this, I still prefer the literal plot summary over the opinion any day. You're suppose to come out of the movie with your own opinion, that's what makes it wonderful. --Tsunamipanda05 (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

. . . Guys, it took me less than a minute to find a reference calling the Faun's world "Imaginary": [2] Here is another: [3]. And here is one that explicitly says the viewer does not know: [4]. This article needs severe cleanup, to point out that the viewer never knows if the world is real or not (Unless del Toro chimes in on one side or the other) The plot summary, in particular, needs to be written from this mindset. Nobody ever sees the fantasy side except Ofelia, but she does somehow get out of that room. This is not original research. Taking a stand on whether the Faun's world actually exists or not is original research. --Bertrc (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler warning

Someone removed this for some reason, not sure why? I have put it back in. As this film is currently getting released on DVD around the world there will be many people about to watch this for the first time and it would be a nice touch if we warn them before they read about the ending. I takes two seconds to put the warning in and that two seconds could make someones enjoyment of this wonderful film all the better. Murphy Inc 13:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a bit of a fight going on right now over the spoiler warning template. I imagine someone just removed it prematurely believing that consensus had shifted towards not including spoiler templates. Atropos 02:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes i have made to the article...

Have removed this line from the plot section.. "The reality of the ending is deliberately left ambiguous, leaving it to the viewer to decide interpret the epilogue as reality or a mere dream." There is no reference for this statement, it sounds too much like original research

Presumably the issue is with "deliberately"? That the ending is ambiguous seems to me to be a simple statement of fact as both naturalistic and fantastic interpretations remain available (although the issue of how she escaped from her guarded room being left unaddressed at least suggests a bias towards the fantastic). Would "The reality of the ending is ambiguous, with the epilogue being interpretable either as as reality or a mere dream." aboid the original research issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.138.104 (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

And this from the Influence section for the same reason "Ofelia's dress that she unintentionally ruins during the course of her first trial is also strikingly reminiscent of Alice's dress, worn in Alice In Wonderland."

This is a good article however, sorry to be nitpicky! Murphy Inc 13:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please continue to be nitpicky. That's how articles become perfect! Also, I am strongly considering removing the line in Influences about Spanish tradition, because it sounds like original research to me, but I'll leave it in until I'm sure it doesn't appear in any interviews. Atropos 02:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging the soundtrack

I think the soundtrack should be merged into this article. There's very little that can be said about it, so the only thing the separate article has is the track list, which could be included here. I really think it would be better. Atropos 01:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Be bold. --67.183.29.48 07:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Atropos 17:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

GA comment

The images need fair use rationales. Look to passed GA/FA film articles for examples. Also either add citations to the statements that are followed by "citation needed" tags, or remove the information until sources can be found. Both of these things must be fixed or somebody will quick-fail the article. --Nehrams2020 06:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the {{fact}} tagged stuff (one is invisible because I'm sure it is citable to somewere, the other I think was OR). I'll add the rationales and hopefully source the invisible paragraph tomorrow. Atropos 08:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

It's a good article, but it is not time for it to be nominated. I see that the article was merged recently with the soundtrack page, but unfortunately it incorporates an image without a rationale. The section also disrupts the flow a little, as the info about the movie is not entirely finished yet (Awards and DVD should go first). The other rationales are sufficient, but the last two images do not have them. The red links in the infobox, while not a reason to fail alone, distract from the main body. According to Wikipedia:Spoiler, the template should not be used in obvious places (disregarding the current debate) labelled by "Plot". I see a couple (2) oddly formatted dates. The 'casting' under "Cast" should be dab'ed. Some formatting errors, such as the extra bolded title at the bottom, extra spaces, Korea -> South Korea. Does the article explain why the UK version is longer? It's nicely written and the references are excellent, but at this moment it is not up to GA standards. ALTON .ıl 03:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I added rationale for the image use for the album cover. DVD section does need to be expanded however. Andrzejbanas 18:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Spanish or Spanish or Mexican?

Recently, an editor changed this page to refer to Pan's Labyrinth as a "Mexican" film. He or she moved Mexico to the top of the list in every Infobox category and changed it from [[Spanish language|Spanish]] to [[Mexico|Mexican]]. I disagree with this edit: first of all, the only thing at all Mexican about this film is that the director is from Mexico. It is set in Spain, it was filmed in Spain, the actors are Spanish, it was first released in Spain, I think it clearly has more ties to Spain. However, I think it is also clearly not our job to decide either way, and arguing about that would be wasteful of our resources. Instead, I think that:

  1. The countries in the infobox should be listed chronologically by order of release. That is: Spain, Mexico, Britain, America. That is how they were before, except for in the distributor section.
  2. The film should be listed as a Spanish language film, not as a Mexican or Spanish film. That is how it was before.

I have edited the article accordingly. Hopefully there will be no objections. Atropos 04:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Makes nothing but sense to me. I consider movies by Peter Jackson to be New Zealand films, but only because they are generally made completely in New Zealand. Conversely I don't think that Saw, Saw II and Saw III are Australian films, even though the creators are Australian. WookMuff 11:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. if this film can be categorized as Mexican, so Hellboy and Blade II should also be categorized as Mexican movies.85.96.166.45 03:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

why all these mexican haters?? (jokes) the movie made by Spanish AND Mexican production companies, so i think that should be stated. and being directed, produced AND written by a mexican makes it petty damn mexican. And i agree, it should at least be verified as a "spanish language" film. and as it stands now, it seems like it was awarded a "spanish Academy Award". Es-won 21:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Users are continuing to insert their "Spanish" or "Mexican" preference into the intro, often quite incoherently. I think it's best not to assign the film itself any nationality at all, but merely to note that the filmmaker is Mexican. La Dolce Vita is not described as an "Italian film", nor is Das Boot a "German film", so why should Pan's Labyrinth have a nationality? Lfh 18:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, no one has tried to make it a Spanish (as in, of or related to Spain) film, though a diverse range of IPs keep changing it to say Mexican or Mexican-Spanish or something similarly ridiculous. Spanish links to Spanish language, which is not POV and is a rather important detail. Atropos 19:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you entirely.  :) My only quibble now is that "Spanish" does imply nationality and not language - or at the very least it is ambiguous - and I see no reason not to just say "Spanish language" and make it clear. Lfh 19:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Because that's a nonstandard disambiguation which only serves to fix an non-existent problem. The only people who seem to care about the film's nationality are IPs who seem uninterested in discussing their opinion and think the film is MEXICAN! Atropos 21:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
(In other words, such a change would only be done to appease a group of editors who are wrong, unwilling to discuss this, and not going to be happy with that anyways.) Atropos 21:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not interested in appeasing anybody, I just don't think "Spanish" and "Spanish-language" are interchangeable, and find it confusing to treat them as such. You wouldn't call Citizen Kane an "English" film. Still, we've clearly both had our say here so I'll leave it up to you to fix this as you see fit! Lfh 21:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Were I writing on es.wikipedia.org (la enciclopedia libre) I certainly would. The only reason not to call it English is that its assumed. However, I concede that Spanish-language is more specific and not too unwieldy (though I must admit I am surprised you think they aren't interchangeable; being from an area with many Spanish speakers, most of them Mexican, I assume the language when something is called Spanish). I'll make the change. Atropos 06:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
This film was directed by Alfonso Cuarón, a Mexican director, but was produced by Mexican and Spanish companies, so I think even though it has a Spanish cast I would consider it both. Also, I noticed some fool put something about this film being solely Spanish ("In its native Spain"), so I removed it. I support using the term Spanish language film or state that this was produced internationally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.235.95.114 (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


Actually its a Mexican film because it was produced by production and distribution company Esperanto Films from Mexico... it was directed by mexican directer and produced by Alfonso Cuaron. Just because it was filmed in Spain, doesn't mean its Spanish.

As you may have noticed, it was agreed that this film was a Spanish language film, not a Spanish film or a Mexican one. Atropos 18:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a Spanish film, produced by Telecinco, about Spanish subjetc, with Spanish actors. Even there was a controversy with the Mexican nomination in the Ministry of Culture of Spain. Rohmerin (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a Mexican film, with the majority of the funding coming from Mexico in association with Telecinco. An American-produced film shot in Scotland using Scottish actors is American. El Laberinto del Fauno is a Mexican film. Hellboy is an American film. Hellboy II is an American film. El Laberinto del Fauno was nominated for its countless awards as a Mexican Spanish-language film, based and shot in Spain using mainly Spanish actors (Doug Jones is American and Federico Luppi is from Argentina.) Hellmistress (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pankorea.jpg

Image:Pankorea.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 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 04:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary

The plot summary is a summary, quoting the style guide:

"Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words (about 600 words), but should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as a complicated plot."

Without these details everyone keeps adding, it is already over 700 words. This is not meant to replicate the experience of seeing the film; extensive details about each scene that aren't very relevant to the plot. Please, keep it short and concise. Atropos 22:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Having just watched this movie, I came to have a quick look at the details behind it's making. I noticed the plot summary was written in two conflicting tenses, which I have amended. Also a couple of grammatical/spelling mistakes. Other than that I don't think I changed the main body of the text other than to make one or two sentences more concise for better flow. It still ahs far too much information in it e.g "A guest at Vidal's dinner remarks on how Vidal's late father, also a prominent military figure, had smashed his watch at the moment of his death on the battlefield so that his son would know the exact time he died. Captain Vidal replies his father never owned a watch." is completely pointless unless it is pointed out that Vidal is constantly checking the time with a cracked/damaged watch. Since the consensus is that the plot summary is already too long perhaps someone would like to remove it. piggyinthemiddle (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Failed GA

There are nice references, the thing is stable, the prose is nice...but it's not broad in detail. One major aspect that's missing from this article is the production: are there any details about how this film was conceived? You mention a great deal about the casting, but what about the budget? The location? All those other things. Pandacomics 11:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Literal translation

I don't speak Spanish but I propose "The Faun's Labyrinth" would be a better literal translation than "The Labyrinth of the Faun", which sounds rather awkward to me. Lfh 12:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As Spanish doesn't have anything similar to the whole posessive s thing that English has, they say "the object of the possessor." To change it to The Faun's Labyrinth would not be as literal a translation, which is the point. Atropos 07:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As long as we're going with literal translations, I side with Atropos, and am changing it back, until someone can verify that "The Faun's Labyrinth" is more literal, instead of less awkward. MwNNrules (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This should be "The Faun's Labyrinth." As Atropos said, Spanish uses a completely different grammatical construction for possessives. Because of this, the idea of making the English awkward for the (unsuccessful) sake of faithfulness to the Spanish title is inane. Remember: the English title is "Pan's Labyrinth," not "The Labyrinth of Pan" (it substitutes "Pan" for "The Faun" due to potentially confusing homophony with "fawn," according to del Toro). Even if that didn't render moot the argument for a "more literal" translation, actual literal faithfulness is only one of many factors to consider when translating. The faun presents a physical labyrinth (which he inhabits) as well as a metaphorical labyrinth of tasks (which he assigns); it is thus his labyrinth and not merely a labyrinth which happens to contain a faun. "The Labyrinth of the Faun" is not only bad English but a bad translation. A truly "faithful" translation is about communicating meaning, feel, and nuances of the original text. The most faithful translation I can think of is The Faun's Labyrinth. --Bperry7 (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Offering two translations which differ only in the (English) genitive construction used does seem somewhat pedantic. BOTH are literal translations of the Spanish title, as both "the A of the B" and "B's A" convey (not just the sense but also) the exact same grammatical construction as "el A del B" in Spanish. Thus, one should go. "the A of the B" has been suggested by some (see above) because it mimicks the word order of the Spanish genitive construction, but at least when I learned my English composition, the synthetic genitive with 's was supposed to be given preference unless the resulting expression became unwieldy. Hope nobody'll be too offended. --Hakseng (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

I'd like to notify everyone that I've brought this up at GA review, I think its inappropriate to fail the article because of a lack of a production section. Atropos 07:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Per WikiProject Films' style guidelines, a Production section is a staple section for a film article. I know I told you that I'd dump the headlines from my e-mail archives here so you can write such a section; I've just been too occupied (and I can't access my Gmail at work during the day). I can do the headline dump (akin to this) this weekend, so if you can wait till then and see what content is available, you could add a Production section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

spoiler

removed a spoiler at the end of the cast section. i hope this is acceptable. 69.246.162.12 12:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

you may want to leave a vandalism notice on the user's talk page who added that information. as i do not have an account here, i am unsure as to how to do that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pan%27s_Labyrinth&diff=143157555&oldid=143101376 69.246.162.12 12:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Left a message at their talk page, thanks for reverting that. Atropos 04:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Headlines to use

These are headlines that can be used to improve the article, especially in terms of production. Most of the headlines are in rough chronological order, if that makes a difference. If anyone needs help setting up the references with citation templates, let me know. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I'll be sure to go through these this week. Atropos 04:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

As per the 6 to 1 decision in this articles Good Article review, this article has been relisted, primarily because it has a production section now which is adequate and nobody else seems to think there are any other problems. Review archived here: Wikipedia:Good_article_review/Archive_25. Homestarmy 02:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Just curious...

When I first saw this movie I thought for sure I recognised the story, and the characters, because one of my closest friends has been terrified of the Pale Man for about... 6-7 years that I know of, possibly much longer, and one of the online pseudonyms she used was Ofelia, which she explained came from a story she read, about a little girl who found out she was a princess of the Underworld, had magic chalk which could draw a door anywhere, and who had to escape a creepy thing with eyes in its hands because you never, NEVER eat Underworld food whilst on a mission... Sound familiar? We used to tease the poor girl by drawing eyes on our palms and chasing her... not knowing the movie would be out in just over half a decade... Now, I absolutely loved the movie, every bit of it, but now that I see all this stuff everywhere with del Toro calling it an original work, but no reference to him writing the original story my friend was so obsessed with... I'm just confused, and I don't speak enough Spanish to know for sure that no-one mentioned anything about it. Don't suppose someone could fill me in or, if there really is a book out there, maybe put something on the page about it? I never read the book myself or I'd be less vague, sorry, but my friend was constantly telling me the story of it so I was predicting scenes before I saw them whilst watching Pan's Labyrinth. I've been Googling for roughly four and a half hours trying to find something and all I can find are reviews of the movie and a bunch of people complaining about how it was "too vague"... I must apologise if this is not the sort of thing which should be posted to the Wikipedia talk page, but I am not completely used to the way this place runs yet, and do not trust your average forums and review sites to have access to the same level of research and attention to detail as can be found here. Thanks in advance if anyone can explain this, and I am terribly sorry if my asking here was inappropriate. ^_^

58.163.155.5 23:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Penniroyel

I've never heard anything of the sort and to be honest I doubt the veracity of your story. Atropos 00:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


Nice. Here I am politely asking for clarification and assistance because I'm confused and very curious. I never said that Del Toro didn't write it, or was plagiarising anything, I was simply asking a question because whether he wrote it or not I was hoping to find the book - if it exists (no, not the screenplay, either). I was baffled by the whole thing myself, and hoped someone here might be able to enlighten me on what was going on there, which you, dear Atropos, have not done in the slightest though I thank you for the promptness of your reply if nothing else. But apparently I just wasted all that time (and I'm still looking, mind you) searching for a figment of my imagination just to mess with you? There's no logic in asking a question like this unless I truly want to know the answer, I'm not trying to waste anyone's time, I merely hoped to find an answer - not insults. Was I wrong about the standard of research here? 58.163.155.5 02:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Penniroyel

I didn't say that you were being malicious but I'll be clear: whatever you're looking for either does not exist or is completely coincidental. There was no book version of Pan's Labyrinth. Atropos 06:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The story is entirely del Toro's creation, but one of the strengths of the film is that he uses images and scenarios from many sources, which make the impact greater, by calling upon things we have seen, or done or thought.GBH (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
That scene has many similarities to the origin story of Persephone, eating on the other side causes reprecusions, both are female characters who are treated as royalty. Other evolutions of the story, Coraline and Hansel and Gretel among others, share elements with this scene as well, specifically the monster or witch that eats children, a defined path leading between where the antogonist dwells and "home". Nicholascobalt (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The monster is very similar to [5]--151.51.60.165 (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Canadian version dubbed

I'm not sure if this was the case in other parts of Canada but I know in Calgary and in Vancouver that the theatrical release was subtitled and not dubbed.

Kpeatt 04:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll remove it then, since its unsourced. Atropos 05:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

To Pan's labyrinth experts:

Hello, I didn't know where to ask this but I think Wikipedia is the way to find an answer to that question that torments me.

I am curretly reading Colline (sorry for french title, don't know the english one) from Jean Giono which take place in his Pan's Trilogy. After many searchs at my college library, I am yet to find any concluent explication of a symbol that is present in both the movie and in the book i'm reading:

Do you remember when the little girl has to kill a giant toad in a tree? Well in Colline, there is an old crazy man talking about odd things such as, and it's almost put this way, "A giant toad who lives in a willow, eating caterpillars and worms".

Doesn't it make sense to compare this toad to the one in Pan's Labyrinth?

Is someone enough versed in mythology and/or pantheism to explain me what this particular symbol means?

Or, do someone just know that Del Toro took his inspiration from Giono's work?

Thank you for reading and sorry for that scratchy english of mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.123.197 (talk) 17:16, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a symbol of toads generally living in the forest and eating bugs. They're slimy, fish-like, poisonous and monstrous; perfect fairy tale material. Not that I can think of any other stories with giant toads - unless you count Godzilla - but I'm sure there's plenty. 90.229.149.136 20:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Pan's Labyrinth deals a lot in archetypes - Vidal as the "classic bad guy" representing evil and cruelty, Ofelia as the classic young girl representing good who had to escape the evil world, etc.. and another archetype would be the big slimy toad. You see them a lot in fairy tales.

216.159.169.120 (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Civil War Trilogy

It's interesting to note that Pan's Labyrinth is the second film of del Toro's trilogy of fantastic films set in the years of spanish Civil War, being the first The Devil's Backbone and the last (currently under production) 3993. 217.217.164.59 09:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Nirnel

Yeah. That'd be nice to note in the article, but I'd wait until 3993 is released, or under filming. MwNNrules (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pankorea.jpg

Image:Pankorea.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 (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Video Game Influence

Sorry if this has been mentioned before - but in the commentary I believe the director mentions he was influenced in part by video-games when Ofelia picks up the key from the toad's innards. As a gamer, I picked this up watching the movie in the 'chimes' of items, and other certan touches. Could/should this be mentioned under Influences? 69.73.116.48 (talk) 06:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Standing ovation?

Does the article really need two mentions of the Cannes standing ovation? What if it's kept under Reception and is removed from Distribution? HertzaHaeon (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any problem of the article mentioning about the standing ovation its just a statement which is stating facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sybarite29 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Minor Error

In the sentence explaining the origin of both the English and Spanish titles: where it says "mythological fauns of Greek mythology" it should say "mythological fauns of Roman mythology" since fauns were Roman dieties not Greek. The original Spanish title refers to the mythological fauns of Greek mythology, while the English title refers specifically to the faun-like Greek god Pan (intended to help English-speakers differentiate the title from the term fawn). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.157.91.92 (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Curious of your situation, I looked up faun on this site, and found that it said that fauns are Roman. A shocker for me, because I'd always read of fauns in Greek myths. The article pointed at a Greek counterpart though: satyrs. As for me, I'd always read of both in Greek. I don't know, and I didn't particularly trust the verifiability of either, so it's Greek until someone presents solid evidence, say something like an actual ancient Greek source. By the way, I firmly hope that no one will give a stupid responce to the OP's demand, without presenting what they've read in the past or evidence amounting to Greek or Roman. MwNNrules (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Who dubbed Doug Jones?

Who ever dubbed him should be marked off as narrator in the infobox. Narration comes directly before the actors in my experience with infoboxes (I've seen a few). At first, I was going to put down Doug Jones directly, but I remembered that that would be a mistake. Any information would be useful. MwNNrules (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The actor who dubbed Doug's voice as El Fauno is Pablo Adan, but he is credited after the main members of the cast. There is a strict order of crediting in contractual agreements for actors, and can actually be a source of litigation if flouted. Hellmistress (talk) 10:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Standing Ovation

"Twenty-two minute standing ovation?" Are you sure about that? I seriously doubt that a movie got an audience clapping for half an hour, and the source does nothing to confirm this. Also, I noticed a small bit of original research in the Cast section, "Appears to possess a slight hint of conscience (observe countenance during most of Vidals actions)", needs a source. Good article though, thanks to everyone who worked on this. The DominatorTalkEdits 00:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

After no reply I decided to be bold and removed the unsourced parts. Also, there seems to be inconsistency as to whether the director's full name is capitalised or not (i.e. both del Toro and Del Toro). The DominatorTalkEdits 20:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Del Toro on the ending section

Anybody else feel that it's weak in comparison to the rest of the article? Though some of the information is useful, can we integrate it somewhere else, or get rid of it? MwNNrules (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

After confirming with Girolamo Savanorola that it was weak, I deleted it. MwNNrules (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Theatrical poster

Per WP:FILM, I'm going to change the poster tomorrow to the original Spanish poster. (See other articles about foreign films). If there are any objections, let me know, and I'll bring it to the attention of the film wikiproject. Thanks.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

'Puppetry' vs Animatronics

The correct terminology for the design of the remotely operated creations in the film is animatronics, not puppetry, and I've corrected the entry to reflect this. Hellmistress (talk) 07:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone keeps going on about some vandalism gibberish, I keep seeing messages; who sends this shit

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Excessive non-free content

There is a lot of non-free content in this article, all of which uses generic, copy-paste rationales. I can understand the use of a copy-paste rationale for the infobox image, but I am not seeing what the other poster image is adding, at all. The album cover and boxset images seem a little excessive, while the lack of a real rationale on the screenshot makes it difficult to judge what it is actually illustrating. This is a decent article- it would be a shame to ruin it through excessive non-free content. J Milburn (talk) 21:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Title

Why is the film called Pan's Labyrinth in languages other than Spanish? What's the relevance of Pan? The faun is not named in the film, and if this article is to be believed the faun is not based on Pan either. Can somebody please provide an explanation? I feel it would be a valuable contribution to the article. 78.86.61.94 (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pan%27s_Labyrinth/Archive_2&oldid=1142330190"