Talk:Sleepy Hollow (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleSleepy Hollow (film) was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 11, 2008Good article nomineeListed
January 5, 2019Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Odd wording[edit]

It reads: "Although he was a fan of the genre, Burton was surprised that he had yet to do that type of a film," the genre being horror. I believe it's saying that Burton was surprised that he himself had never done a horror film, which seems odd, as the man would know whether or not he had. Unless the "he" refers to someone else, and in that case, whom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.202.97 (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wicca[edit]

The article refers to Crane's Wiccan mother. Wicca is a neopagan religion, which did not exist in 1799 (as Wikipedia's own article states). It would be correct to describe Crane's mother as Pagan, or even better as a Witch (a child of nature, using Crane's own words) 68.221.252.131 (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)ASC[reply]

Good article nominee[edit]

Please review this article, and if you seek improvements, contact me so it can be promoted to GA status. Go to Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Film and cinema. Wildroot (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ga review[edit]

  • Sleepy Hollow would be released with box office success and critical acclaim. Expand on this slightly, BO international total, Rotten tomatoes % , although keep it simple
  • A proponent of new, eh?
  • Taking a room at the home - reword
  • Please re-upload the images to be less than 300x300 px to qualify as fair use
  • Don't link Entertainment Weekly every mention in the references, add italics for EW in references also
  • IMDB is not reliable
It is when listing Awards and Nominations. But I do agree with other stuff such as trivia, user score, etc. Wildroot 20:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can edit it, so it's not really at all reliable and surely reliable sources can be used. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alphabetize categories
You don't want to do that. That's stupid. When discussing film article you do it as a means to tell the entire thing in chronological order. Wildroot 20:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • became mired in the, and looked pretty much dead, felt the script to be a perfect vehicle for Burton is not encyclopedia language. Will be back later, feel free to disagree and i will copyedit a bit. M3tal H3ad (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I copy edited the Development section to give it more of an encyclopedia vibe, formatting dates, lowercase for words etc, diff is here will be back soon. M3tal H3ad (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another copyedit i changed the title from Desine to design, which i presume is what you meant. M3tal H3ad (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Following improvements i am passing this as a Good Article, good work. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing plot[edit]

Why on earth is half the plot is missing, abruptly ended with the note "Will be continued ASAP"? It should have all been written at once; judging by the current length, it would have also needed reducing once finished. Have added a warning tag: If I hadn't lent my DVD i'd have added the rest of the plot myself. JaffaCakeLover (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone tried to redo the plot summary. Since this is a Good Article, I suspected that a complete plot summary already existed previously. I found the proper revision and returned the original summary to the current article. Feel free to work with that writeup! Erik (talk | contribs) 19:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 05:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Budget[edit]

A new user changed the budget in the infobox from $65 million (which is sourced to the Box Office Mojo page) to $100 million (sourced to the IMDb page). There is a considerable difference between 65 and 100, so we have to wonder which of those figures is accurate. I restored the older number, but we should determine if this is accurate. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 17:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take Box Office Mojo's numbers over IMDB's any day of the week; that said, their page for the movie is currently display 100 million.[1] EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...and IMDB is saying 65 million now.[2] EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would lean toward BOM's numbers, as well, and the fact that IMDb's number has since been changed makes me all the more loathe to accept their figures as accurate. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 22:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New century?[edit]

I did not see the movie but the last sentence of the plot ends with (...) just in time for the new century. Since the movie starts in 1799 I assume the "new century" is 1800? If so, it is not yet the new century, the next century will start on January 1st, 1801. Wsw70 (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the new century under discussion is the 19th century. And yes, WSW70, you're right according to the numbers, but obviously that's just not how people see it -- and more to the point, that's not how the characters see it. In fact, at one point, Ichabod Crane ridiculously claims that they're approaching "a new millennium" -- in 1799! 65.51.145.131 (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sleepy Hollow (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sleepy Hollow (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sleepy Hollow (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

Please do not add unsourced genres to categories or the articles. Per WP:OR, WP:SUBJECTIVE and WP:RS, we need reliable sources backing up genres. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Community reassessment[edit]

Sleepy Hollow (film)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delist Sourcing and prose issues still apparent. AIRcorn (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "Plot" and "Cast" sections are currently completely unreferenced, and I have therefore placed the {{unreferenced section}} templates on them. This brings it under the "Immediate failure" criterion of the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, so the issue either needs to be resolved or the article needs to be delisted as a GA. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: The plot section of a work of fiction usually does not require citation, per MOS:PLOTSOURCE: the film itself is assumed to be the source. I personally try to provide references where possible to avoid any potential for conflict, but it isn't a GA-pass criterion. The sourcing for the cast section is a concern, but one that should be a lot easier to resolve. Vanamonde (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: ah OK, thank you. I wasn't aware of the MOS:PLOTSOURCE allowance, but I guess that does make sense. I've removed the orange tag from that section. Hopefully the cast can be dealt with fairly easily then, and we can close this quickly.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Technically the cast list can be covered by the film itself. It is statements about character motivations like An orphan who looks towards Ichabod as a father figure after his own father is murdered by the Horseman and extra info like Tim Burton and Michael Gough had previously worked together on Batman and Batman Returns, with Michael Gough portraying Alfred Pennyworth which really need sourcing. I might see what I can find. AIRcorn (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added some sources, but it was pretty lackluster to be fair. I have never seen the movie so just went off a few reviews and they all pretty much concentrated on the first three. I am not going to do that for all the minor characters. I guess someone could remove the descriptors or else look for more obscure sources. Probably neutral on whether this is delisted or not. It is pretty standard for a lot of film articles, but personally I find the overquoting in the development and reception sections a bit too overdone. The reception section is quite average as it is basically bullet pointed quotes minus the bullet points. Thinking about it more I would see this falling into delist territory as is. AIRcorn (talk) 08:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Costumes.[edit]

Greetings and Happy New Year:

Wikipedia's movie articles seem to rarely include information on costuming. This is frustrating as I have seen numerous actors state in interviews that they really start getting into a character when they first get into costume. It is especially odd not to mention it here in this movie where the costume designer had so many award nominations and some outright wins. Will someone with access to film or costuming journals please add this type of information?

Thank you for your help, Wordreader (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Reboot"?[edit]

I came thisclose to simply removing the "reboot" claim myself, but the previous editor did correctly cite a source, so I'll refrain. Still . . . words are supposed to mean something, a fact that the cited source gleefully ignores in favor of throwing in a popular buzzword. There is a difference between an adaptation and a reboot, and any possible reinterpretation of The Legend of Sleepy Hollow cannot possibly be a reboot if you look at what the word actually means, even by Wikipedia's own definition. The concept of a reboot requires a pre-existing franchise or series with an ongoing continuity that is rebooted. That simply doesn't apply here. Every adaptation of Washington Irving's story is not a "reboot" just like every actor appearing on stage in Hamlet is not "rebooting the continuity." 65.51.145.131 (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sleepy_Hollow_(film)&oldid=1210407159"