Talk:The Wicker Man

	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.

Horror High‑importance

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neopaganism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism 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.NeopaganismWikipedia:WikiProject NeopaganismTemplate:WikiProject NeopaganismNeopaganism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summerisle

I find it a bit of a stretch that Summerisle (a sizeable community with numerous houses, a school etc) could have been inspired by the Summer Isles off NW Scotland when those islands are essentially a handful of rocky islets with a couple of cottages and a population in single figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.134.170.155 (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shows the distinction between inspiration and derivation, I suppose. It's only inspired by it's name and rough location, now derived from it. ToaneeM (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Scilly Isles. The islands have a noticeably warmer climate than the rest of the UK.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.207 (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prude

I put back in the bit about Howie being something of a prude...is there any doubt about that? Ellsworth 22:49, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

no doubt. just as there is no doubt the islanders are sluts with pedophile tendencies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.245.78 (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Song inspiration

Iron Maiden and Judas Priest both made a song called "The Wicker Man" (I don't know who was covering who.)

Is this referencing this movie?

Don't know about the Judas Priest song, but the Maiden "Wicker Man" is certainly inspired by the film -- as usual for the band, the song is probably just suggested by the title of a movie or book they liked than a direct reference to the story. (Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner, Lord of the Flies, Prisoner, Quest for Fire, Out of the Silent Planet, Run Silent Run Deep, Phantom of the Opera, From Here to Eternity, are all other examples) Sandrough 23:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Man myth

Dropped:

The burning of the wicker man at the end of the movie is cited to be a possible inspiration for the Burning Man festival based in Nevada.

Burning Man's founder debunks this here. Ellsworth 16:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Prude

what exactly is a prude i may be somewhat misinformed -anon.

Prude - "A person who is or tries to be excessively proper, especially one who is easily offended by matters of a sexual nature." Ellsworth 01:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Howie, may I suggest the use of the word 'puritan' or 'puritanical'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomez2002 (talk • contribs)

I'm extremely reluctant to use the word 1) because it's bedly overused 2) because it's a crappy word in general, because the Puritans themselves were not puritanical. Anyway it looks like the consensus is to leave out any characterization of Howey's scruples in that regard. Ellsworth 15:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remake

I've removed this section because it looks like this project has been shelved:

"A remake is scheduled for released in 2006. The film will star Nicolas Cage and will be set in the USA."

The remake is being released on may 2006- Robert Fulton

Soundtrack merge suggestion

I've suggested a merge into this page of the soundtrack page: The Wicker Man (soundtrack). I discussed it in the talk page over there and was interested in people's opinion about moving that page into a section on this one. --Thetriangleguy 18:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a sensible merge to me. I've added the "mergefrom" template to this article's page to encourage discussion. KarlBunker 18:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just went ahead with that merge. It seemed silly to me that an article on film which is essentially a musical, barely mentioned the music! --Thetriangleguy 20:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. The article is much better for the change. KarlBunker 20:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Profane" explanation

I've reverted back a version after "profane" removal, which contained comment "how so?". The reason I originally included the word was to differentiate between the two versions as explained on the Sumer Is Icumen In entry. I felt that it was a relevant piece of information given the context of its use in the film. --Thetriangleguy 20:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact that article uses the term 'secular' to differentiate from the 'sacred' (ie Christian) version. --Nantonos 01:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wicker Man festival

Should the article mention the Wicker Man Festival held in SW Scotland each year. The film is a definate inspirtaion for the music festival? --82.163.67.47 13:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Jamie[reply]

Music

Who's up for creating a section about bands who have been inspired (or covered "Willow's song"). We already list Iron Maiden twice!--Siokaos 06:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Author

I've read in several places that The Wicker Man was inspired by the novel "Ritual" by David Pinner. Does anyone know if this is true? The book is out of print now so I can't simply go out and buy a copy to see if there are similarities.

Have a listen to the commentary on the DVD (the 99 min version). It seems that Robin Hardy is aware of the book Ritual but he appears to deny it had anything much to do with The Wicker Man. Instead, he says that the film was inspired by a shared interest of himself and Anthony Shaffer in the Hammer Horror films, but feeling they were formulaic and full of clichés about vampires/witches/satanism - ie, the Church's views on "evil" forces. They wanted to make a more mature and intelligent film, getting away from all that. -Neural 10:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just a few minutes ago looking at a page in which it was reported that Lee, Snell, and Schaffer each pitched in £5000 each to purchase rights to the novel. After some development it was abandoned as a story source. I have a copy (boxed up) of a novelization that Hardy published after production of the film.[1][2]

Regarding the film's source material, British actor-cum-author David Pinner insists that his 1968 novel 'Ritual' formed the inspirational basis of The Wicker Man and stresses that he was paid around Â£15,000 for the film rights to his book about a policeman investigating the witchcraft-laden murder of a child in a remote Cornish village. The now sadly deceased Anthony Shaffer conceded that Pinner's book was optioned, but insisted that he had ultimately rejected it as being unworthy of adaptation, opting instead to start again from scratch. For Shaffer, there was little or no link between 'Ritual' and The Wicker Man, although Pinner points out that there are scenes in his thriller (such as that in which two people have hyper-sex through a wall) which are precisely mirrored in the film. Ironically, Pinner now asserts that the reason his name was dropped from the credits for The Wicker Man in the first place was that he felt that Shaffer's script had departed from his novel's satirical intentions, and therefore he wished to dissociate himself from the movie. Decide for yourself.
— Channel 4 article

The film was conceived by the consortium of writer Anthony Shaffer; producer Peter Snell of British Lion; and actor Christopher Lee, who wanted to break from the Hammer films that had typecast him in gothic horror parts. They bought the rights to David Pinner's 1967 novel Ritual, but chose instead to work on an original Shaffer script about a sexually repressed Christian police sergeant from the Scottish mainland who investigates the disappearance of a schoolgirl in a remote Hebridean village. Shaffer admitted to being influenced by Pinner's book, albeit unconsciously, when the author complained of plagiarism.[3]
— Village Voice article

IMDB lists the book as an uncredited source. Without that book in hand, I couldn't comment on "how much" was used. David Spalding ^ta!k y@wp/_Contribs 20:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV Issues

I see two items in this page which strike me as somewhat POV, and I'm inclined to edit them to achieve a more neutral stance.

In the Synopsis section, there is a reference to the song Sumer is Icumen In, where it is described as "profane. In this context, it's clearly being used as a piece of religious music, so I'm thinking the term "profane" should be dropped.

Also in the Synopsis section, 63.228.102.234 just changed the phrasing from "neo-pagan religion" to "neo-pagan cult." While I realize there's a lot of overlap between the two terms among scholars, to the general public "cult" is a somewhat derogatory term, and I see no reason to prefer it over "religion." Absent a cogent argument favoring "cult" over "religion," I'm going to change it back.

Septegram 04:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of the song being described as "profane" has been brought up above. The reason for it being included was to differentiate between the two versions mentioned on the Sumer Is Icumen In article but since that comment was made the article on the song has been reworded and the "profane" version is now described simply as "secular". I think the problem here is that the suggestion in the film would be that the characters would be aware of the fact that they are deliberately not singing the sacred version; i.e. they are singing the version with the contradictory words to be profane or sacrilegious and show their contempt for Howie's god. I don't know, maybe I'm completely wrong. I'll leave it up to someone else after all I just realised I've written about 100 words on the absolutely unimportant matter of a single word. (oh yeah and I agree that the "religion" to "cult" change is silly) --Thetriangleguy 15:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so tell me: why exactly should we refrain from being derogatory towards a group that deliberately lures in people to murder?? i would assume (hope) that if any such a murderous group would spring up in real life all other neo-pagan groups would be quick to call it a 'cult': something outside of their own true 'religion' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.245.78 (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as the Christians were quick to criticise any group, faction or political regime within their own religiuon that resorted to suppression, torture and murder. Oh wait, hang on - does 1900 years count as "quick"? ðarkun coll 00:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a NeoPagan myself, I would indeed disavow any group that committed murder in the name of a Neo-Pagan religion (or, frankly, any group that committed murder for any reason). I wouldn't waste time calling it a cult, I'd simply disavow and abhor it.

This is a fictional group, so I'm not in the least worried about their feelings, because they don't exist. However, Wikipedia is supposed to present a neutral point of view, so I was striving for that in my edits. Since lots of belief systems have had murder done in their names, I see no reason to single out this fictional one and use a somewhat pejorative term when the perfectly accurate and neutral term "religion" is available at no charge.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 01:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I added the cleanup tag. This article is a little disjointed and I think could use some cleanup; feel free to disagree. :) -Elizabennet 21:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New posters, new screen shots

I've uploaded some real posters, not the wooden Anchor Bay box art, which I'll update the page with. One is (so far's I know) the UK release poster, another the US re-release, another some hokie Warner Bros. one I'd never seen before. Any idea what it is?

I'm going to upload some screenshots, too, but only add maybe one or two to the synopsis. If you search on my contributions today, you ought to see all the images. David Spalding ^ta!k y@wp/_Contribs 20:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to The Wicker Man (1973 film) ?

Since there is a The Wicker Man disambiguation page, and a The Wicker Man (2006 film) page, suggest moving this page to The Wicker Man (1973 film) for consistency. Please comment here so we can reach a consensus. TIA. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 14:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. This seems sensible to me. Are they currently identical?

Septegram 17:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. May I suggest that the article be moved to The Wicker Man (1973 film) and The Wicker Man becomes the disambig page? The current disambig page could then be deleted. Mallanox 23:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. This is the same situation as The Italian Job and Get Carter and The Ladykillers (also Cat People, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre) etc.. all cult films with bad remakes. The remake is not as important. Jooler 00:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jooler. After looking at those other films I suggest replacing the {{otheruses }} with:

This article is about the 1973 movie. For the 2006 remake, see The Wicker Man (2006 film). For other uses, see The Wicker Man (disambiguation).

--Thetriangleguy 01:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, and I think there's a template for such a case. I'll take a look in a little bit. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

Got it. This template is not for the faint of heart ...

{{Two other uses|the [[1973 in film|1973]] film|the 2006 remake|The Wicker Man (2006 film)|other uses|The Wicker Man (disambiguation) }}

You'll love it. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 03:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC) _{Corrected the template 03:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

I agree with Jooler and Thetriangleguy. This is the "real" Wicker Man. It shouldn't be necessary to rename an entry for a legendary film every time someone produces a second-rate remake of it. Rodparkes 03:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of our personal feelings in the matter, the guideline here pretty clearly states that film articles should incorporate the year:

{{quotation|Often, films share the same name as other films, books or terms. When disambiguating a film from something else, use (film) in the title when only one film had that name, and (YEAR film) in the title when there is more than one film by that name (example: Titanic (1997 film)).|Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)|[[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28films%29] }} {{quotation|If a film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, use (YEAR film) in the title: Film Title (YEAR film). Rename the already existing article's title and change it to Film Title (YEAR film) also. (emphasis added)|WikiProject Films/Style guidelines|[[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style] }}

Also note that if I/we create an article about Robin Hardy's novelization of the film, it could also be called The Wicker Man, though the proper naming convention would be The Wicker Man (novel). Now that there are, dammit, two films with this name, the MOS recommends using the (YEAR film) suffix. I know we all love this film, but that doesn't let us flaunt WP style conventions in this one case. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 04:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines are where feelings come into it. Guideline are just that, guidelines. They are specifically not rules. If there are reasons not to adhere to them then it is perfectly fine to do so. And the guidelines can be updated or changed very easily. Generally we put books at the title and films and other derivitives of the same name use disambiguation. In this case, this film is the original piece of art and other film the novelisation and the Iron Maiden song are all derivitives. Jooler 08:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. If we label one film "legendary" and another "a crappy remake", we're not being fair and impartial. IMDB is where you can vote for screen legends, here we should be working on the assumption that all films were created equal. Mallanox 09:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly NPOV to to give the original work of art the priviledge of primary topic disambiguation. Or do you think that Mona Lisa should be at Mona Lisa (painting)? What about The African Queen? - If there was a porno film of the same name, should this be moved? Jooler 09:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I see the point about meeting those Wikiprojectfilm guidelines (which completely contradict Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic) a quick look down this list of film remakes seems to indicate that there are quite a lot of examples of a lesser remake with an identical title where the original takes precedence (a few examples: Dawn of the Dead, The Fog, Alfie, Attack of the 50 Foot Woman, Night of the Living Dead, Breathless, House on Haunted Hill). I presume whoever changes this one will go through and change all the others! --Thetriangleguy 19:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's the answer we're looking for. Apparently someone already created the "unambiguous" page The Wicker Man (1973 film) in August which redirects to this page, which is a "main topic page." As per the disambiguation page guideline, that's perfectly acceptable where "The Wicker Man" predominately refers to the Shaffer/Hardy 1973 film. The disambiguation page now links to the unambiguous page (as per the guideline). (There's a The Wicker Man (1978 film) page as well, though I don't see a need. The Abraxas re-release was in 1979.) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 03:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That page was created after someone else tried to move the page. The 1978 redirect should be put up on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion -- Jooler 13:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That this has previously been a subject of discussion/action was pertinent, why didnt anyone mention it? Aaaanyway, feel free to list that that on RfD for us, eh? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 14:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was moved without discussion and swiftly moved back. Jooler 23:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't heard anything about the remake for probably a year or so until now. I've at least seen the original and while I wasn't crazy about it, it is considered a cult classic where the new one looks to be considered a disaster. That makes the 2006 film severely less notable than the original and there is absolutely no reason to move anything--I don't think there would be even if the new one were a blockbuster. I encourage everyone to go about their business. Doctor Sunshine 02:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's much reason not to leave things as they are for the moment. Perhaps it would be good to review the matter a year after the remake has been released, as it will be easier to decide the matter away from the subjectivity of a press release campaign. I believe that the original probably is the more important one myself, but on the other hand, disambiguation is nothing to be ashamed of, especially when it helps distinguish between two of the same things using the name - ie films. Girolamo Savonarola 17:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

broken flow

The synopsis is now in the middle of the bit that described it's production and problematic release. This breaks the flow horribly. Jooler 01:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I based that structure (Production - Synopsis - Reaction - blah blah blah) based on a couple of other film pages. If you can point to a WP:MOS page about film pages, we can conform to it. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found what I was lookin' for. I'll make the structure more in keeping with the Wikiproject Films style guide. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 04:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That Deeley "one of the 10 worst films I've seen" quote

I removed that due to the following statement in the referenced Kermode article.

First up, let's get one thing straight. The recutting of The Wicker Man from its original assembly to supporting feature length was not commissioned as an act of malice by evil studio heads attempting to destroy a masterpiece. Despite having been roundly demonised for years by Christopher Lee, incoming British Lion Head Michael Deeley (who inherited the picture from producer Peter Snell) did not claim that the film was one of the 10 worst he had ever seen. ("I've made worse films than The Wicker Man" says Deeley now, who's point of view was notably absent from most previous accounts before 'Burnt Offering' put the record straight).
— Mark Kermode, http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/feature.jsp?id=111049

Since this page needs cleanup, phrases like "is always going on about" or "said somewhere" are going to need to be replaced with verifiable references. If you find something on the commentary, give me a time-code location for it, I'll confirm and back you up on it (I have teh Anchor Bay 2-disc set). David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you disputing? If you want a cite for Lee saying that Deeley said it was one of the worst 10 films see http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20011221/ai_n14440775 IF you are disputing the no fee - this is reported extensively on the web too and I've heard Lee say it in numerous interviews. You think the IMDB link is not sufficient? Jooler 08:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, vey. The article you just linked to (also by Kermode, in 2001) also states that Deeley denies he ever said that. The passage I removed said, I recall, "At a private screening, he described the film as one of the worst 10 films he'd ever seen," which was inaccurate and misleading, as it's hearsay. Now, if there's a published interview in which Lee repeats his claim, you could include both sides. (Remember, this is an encyclopedic article, not a fan piece, so impartiality is required.) Frankly, I think it's irrelevant -- thirteen minutes were cut from the film prior to release in 1973. -- As far as the "no pay" issue, it's in there, in fact I corrected the formatting of your citation, so we needn't argue 'bout it. BTW, if you want to review the policy I'm measuring against, here's one, here's another. IMDb is IMHO questionable as their fact-checking is barely in evidence, i.e. anyone can submit incorrect data (and I've caught some of these over the last 8 years), but it's cited extensively here so the WP community accepts it. ;) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 14:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Hearsay. It's Lee's rececollection of events which is just as much evidence as any narrative of event could be. The article I linked to above specifically says Lee's grievances against Michael Deeley, incoming managing director at British Lion who, Lee insists, declared The Wicker Man to be "one of the 10 worst movies I have ever seen" - so I think it's undeniable that Lee has said this as Kermode is reporting it here. Deeley denies it, fair enough. So instead of removing it, why not change the text to include Lee's recollection (which he has been repeating for the last 30+ years) and report Deeleys denial. Jooler 16:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

When and where does Deeley deny he made his "worst 10 films" statement? Not in any of the Wicker Man Collectors Edition documentaries. 28 years on (2001) Deeley was heard to state his (2001) opinion that he has made worse films himself. That is not the same as saying "Lee is not correct, I never made such a comment in the early 70s." In 1973 he had a strong incentive to dissuade Christoher Lee of the need for expensive editing, distribution and promotion. I have no feelings on the matter either way but I would have thought this point was clear from what information is currently in the public domain. (J.O.)

The film that Deeley saw was an early rough edit of what had originally been intended to be a semi-musical, but it didn't work and so had to be later extensively re-edited, and the version that was subsequently released was a considerably different version of the film from that initially seen by Deeley. The original idea for it being almost a musical was the reason there are so many folk songs sung in the film.

Locations

I would like to add a locations section for this film, would that be appropriate?Belbo Casaubon 19:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic banner on soundtrack section

Why is there an "off topic" banner on the soundtrack section? The film is essentially a musical after all and the section is no more off topic than the trivia section. I didn't delete it just yet in case there is a good reason for it. --Thetriangleguy 19:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I added it as the section is overlong. The template states that the section "strays from the topic," and in that I was thinking of the fact that it discusses the soundtrack, then starts to explicitly talk about releases of the soundtrack, then if that weren't enough provides track listings for the releases. I think the track listings can go, I think the discussion of the releases can be condensed. I disagree that the film "is a musical," as neither Sgt. Howie or Lord Summerisle break into song, but the music was integral to the film ("Gently, Johnny" and "Please Come," and the various May Day musical pieces, being examples), and so some discussion is fine, where it relates to the film. I hope that makes it clearer ... I can make a proposed edit, if that would get the ball rolling. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 19:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"neither Sgt. Howie or Lord Summerisle break into song" Actually Lord Summerisle does. "The Tinker Of Rye" and I suppose "Sumer Is A-Cumen In" to a certain extent. (Is there not a bit where Sgt. Howie sings as well? Part of the prayer? though admittedly that wouldn't really count). Certainly I agree that the section could be cut back (For a start "For example, Lesley Mackie, who plays the character of Daisy in the film, sings the opening song, and various others in the CD Soundtrack" seems pretty redundant) but the parts about the style and the influence seem to be more significant than about half the stuff in the trivia section--Thetriangleguy 20:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was being flippant, yes, there is singing, but I don't class THE WICKER MAN with musicals SINGIN' IN THE RAIN or SEVEN BRIDES FOR SEVEN BROTHERS or WEST SIDE STORY. Those topics you list are fine, and very pertinent (YES, the trivia section is huge), but the detailed facts on CDs.... Please do take a stab at condensing the system. I've used all my edit tokens on this page, it's someone else's turn. ;) David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 22:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howie sings at the end of the film. He sings "The Lord's my Shephard" whilst the villagers are singing "Summer is a comen' in". The two make a very interesting juxtaposition. The film is sui generis, in the sense that it is both a musical and a thriller/who-done-it (though not a horror, as it was billed). TharkunColl 23:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I give up. :) Everyone sings at the end. Were it not for Howie burned alive in the flaming statue, the ending could be mistaken for the finale of a Charlie Brown television special. I concede that the soundtrack section is relevant, but I would argue for it being cogent, and a discussion of the soundtrack in the film. If it must include details of all releases, and track listings, it ought to be split off into a separate article like "Vehicles and gadgets" in Bond film articles, etc. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 19:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One possible solution that has benefitted certain other articles (see Dawn of the Dead) is to move the soundtrack to its own page. That way the important info is left in without detracting from the film itself. Desdinova 16:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't use Dawn of the Dead as an example as the section is nothing but a link to another. Try Goldfinger (film)#Soundtrack, Blade Runner#Soundtrack (ooh, that's an excellent model to follow!); bad examples IMHO, The Insider (film)#Soundtrack, Miami Vice (film)#Music, which just have lists in violation of WP:NOT. That's what I'm trying to deprecate in this article. - David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

The section used to be a separate article but the problem, as I remember it, was that despite the fact that music is an important part of the film it wasn't (and if you take out the section, still isn't) mentioned in the main article at all. Perhaps what would be better would be to take out all the information about the cd releases and split that, relabeling what is left as "Music" rather than "soundtrack"--Thetriangleguy 17:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should also add here that the difference to, for example, the DOTD section is that the soundtrack on that film was included in the article for a completely different reason. In this case, the film contains characters who break into song; in DOTD, the section was included because the soundtrack receives a lot of attention from sources external to the film (references in popculture and record collectors going out of their way for library releases[4][5]), i.e. it is not directly important to the film but still in some way notable.--Thetriangleguy 17:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fair point. How about a brief summary saying why the music is important to the film, and a link to the soundtrack as a seperate article for the things that have been decided as not relevant on this page ("For example, Lesley Mackie, who plays the character of Daisy in the film, sings the opening song, and various others in the CD Soundtrack")? Desdinova 18:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"How about a brief summary saying why the music is important to the film,...." Spot on! Thanks for brainstorming on my suggestion. Be bold. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 19:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gave it a go, very preliminary at the moment, but at least it's a start! Desdinova 20:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Wickermansoundtrack.jpg

Image:Wickermansoundtrack.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)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:The Wicker Man US.jpg

Image:The Wicker Man US.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 04:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia Section too long, needs edit

Some people want to axe trivia sections in wikipedia. I disagree. See Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections, but I think that the section here is too long.

Cultural References: First of all, I don't know what general wiki feelings are about cultural references sections, but it seems to me that the cultural references could be pulled out and and seperated from other trivia. It seems like there are an awful lot of those here (too many, I think), so THESE SHOULD BE CULLED, BUT NOT CUT OUT ENTIRELY. The Wickerman music Festival should be kept. Not all of the references to songs need to be kept.
Location of shooting: MOVE TO MAIN ARTICLE Charred stumps of Wickerman remain, visited by fans: DELETE OR KEEP IN TRIVIA SECTION
Nude body doulble used for Eckland (without her knowledge): KEEP IN TRIVIA BUT MAKE MORE CONCISE
Places in script which draw from Walt Whitman and Sir Walter Raleigh: KEEP IN TRIVIA SECTION, DEFINITELY WORTHWHILE
etc etc

Pigkeeper 21:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scariest 100 Scenes

The first paragraph says that the film is featured in Bravo's top 100 scariest movie scenes, but doesn't specify which scene took the prize (I'm guessing the scene with the, um, wicker man) - I think we should say which one it is: thoughts? -Elizabennet | talk 01:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just watched part of the Bravo's Scariest Movie Moments show last night. (It's one of those multi-parters where C-list celebs just riff.) The title is misleading...they seldom singled out specific moments in the movies on the list. I suspect they titled it that way because "Scariest Movies" would've been misleading too -- they had some un-scary entries like "Wizard of Oz" (for its flying monkeys) and "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" (for trippy scenes and Oompa-Loompas). 147.136.155.193 12:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Engaged?

I admit I haven't watched the extended version in a few months, but I don't remember any indications that Sgt. Howie was engaged. It definitely doesn't come up in the theatrical cut (he doesn't even mention a fiance when he turns Willow down). Also: this article seems to suggest that it's important for Howie to be a virgin because that'll make him more like Punch, even though nothing like that is ever stated in the film (it's just assumed that, well, OBVIOUSLY you want a virgin for your sacrifice). So I'm a-gonna fix that. Feel free to revert, I won't be offended. 71.197.236.254 07:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also changed two other things. The article had described Howie as "both wise and a fool," but I don't think the villagers at any point indicated that they thought Howie was wise or that wisdom was an important quality to them. Also I took away some scare-quotes. The article had said that if this sacrifice didn't work, the villagers would have to '"sacrifice" their "king"' -- Lord Summerisle isn't technically a king, but the sacrifice Howie was talking about was extremely literal. 07:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Howie being engaged is clearly mentioned in the theatrical release. He has a conversation about it in his room.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He clearly says that he is engaged when the neighboring woman (naked during the night engaged in an exhibition of what may be thought of as sexual ecstasy by slamming the wall and he obviously has a reaction on his side with he sweating embracing the wall) visits his room and he begs off a sexual encounter since he believes in celibacy until marriage.02:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A1Houseboy (talk • contribs)

Sgt. Howie is a strict Scottish Presbyterian and a prude who doesn't believe in sex before marriage. Hence Sgt. Howie is a virgin. That is why Willow is tempting him as for the subsequent ritual to be fulfilled he must have remained a virgin by his own free will. If Howie had succumbed to Willow's charms he would have thus proved himself unsuitable for the fate planned for him, and he would probably have been allowed to later leave the island unharmed and none-the-wiser.

Sgt. Howie is both wise and a fool, wise for following the clues that first led him to the island, which have, unknown to him, been planted by the islanders themselves, and a fool for not knowing that the clues are being set up to lead him in the direction the islander's intend for him to go, and which will result in a very unfortunate fate for he, himself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.207 (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per WP:NCF. JPG-GR (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wicker Man → The Wicker Man (1973 film) — Nobody has provided any proof on why this should be the primary topic. As the article notes, it largely slipped into obscurity but it has won a few awards. Article statistics from March show an average of about 1162 hits a day [6], minus an avg. of 205 hits [7] because people check the dab page as they didn't find the right one. In contrast, the 2006 film remake got about 745 hits a day [8], which matches up very strongly against the 1973 film (about 957), indicating that the 1973 film does not significantly outrank other instances of TWM. I therefore suggest creating a primary disambiguation page without the (disambiguation) unless someone has a good reason for keeping the 1973 film as the primary title —hbdragon88 (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support, but only because of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). While the original is now a highly respected and award-winning film, the later one is a pallid remake which has been widely panned and will (hopefully) be forgotten 35 years from now. Any similarity in page hits can be attributed to "recentism". Llamasharmafarmerdrama (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I would support this in the case that the two films are unrelated and the title has another primary usage. However, this film is the original and by far, the best known. If a remake can't stand above its predecessor, there's no reason that it should be put in the same league with the original brainchild. 71.106.183.124 (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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

Nothing But the Night

Is there any connection between The Wicker Man and a film called Nothing But the Night? They were both filmed around the same time (1972), in a similar or identical location (remote Scottish island), both were about a missing girl, and both starred Christopher Lee (but the latter also had a Peter Cushing cameo and the girl who grew up to be Cassandra in Only Fools and Horses). TharkunColl (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hand of glory photo caption

The caption on this photo should be changed. The photo shows the fingers burning as if they are themselves candles, and the caption states that the film portrays magical practices such as this authentically. However, the depiction in the photo is inauthentic. According the the Wikipedia article on the Hand of Glory, the preserved hand of a deceased criminal is used as a candle holder, perhaps by curling the fingers around the candlestick, and many period illustrations show a candle affixed to the outstretched palm. No account of the folklore or actual use of the device suggests that the entire hand is a candle or that the fingers are replaced by candles shaped to look like fingers. Ipso facto, the depiction in the photo (and therefore the film) is inauthentic. However, I am at a loss to know what to replace the caption with. Perhaps a description of the scene in the photo would be more appropriate. 71.200.140.35 (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

seeing as its in the production section, but is irrelevant to that topic, and that the caption is incorrect, and that it's not exactly Fair Use to have as many film screenshots as the article currently has... I'll remove it. Perhaps there's a behind-the-scenes photo out there somewhere? Totnesmartin (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there are probably many other production stills which can be used to illustrate the somewhat authentic depiction of pagan practices. As this example isn't as potent, removal makes sense. Thanks. -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 20:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion with cast?

'Howie finds himself powerfully attracted to Willow, the sexually liberated daughter of the landlord (played with sinister campness by the mime artist Lindsay Kemp, otherwise famous for having taught David Bowie and Marc Bolan).'

However both the cast section of this page and Lindsay's own page say that she actually played Alder MacGregor and Willow was played by Britt Ekland. .

Anyone able to shed some light on this or make an appropriate correction? GideonJones (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the line actually means (although it is written a bit confusingly) that the landlord was played by Lindsay Kemp, not that Willow was. I'm not entirely sure that the bracketed section is even necessary in that sentence? Certainly the bit about teaching David Bowie and Marc Bolan isn't relevant to the plot or even the film in my opinion. sjwk (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Kemp is a bloke, and played Alder MacGregor, the landlord. Britt Ekland played Willow MacGregor, the landlord's daughter. ðarkun coll 11:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

title

Should not attention be drawn to the pun (intentional I assume?) with 'wicca'? Alf Heben (talk) 09:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no pun. See wicker man. DonQuixote (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever you are, please get in touch with me (lipwak@gmail.com) or anyone on this Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/29082840986/ No one has ever seen a cut that you mention so we want to find out more about it. Thanks. Lipwak (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who/whom

Sorry to get all pernickety about grammar, but "who the locals claim never existed" is correct, not "whom". This is made more obvious if you take out the subordinate clause "the locals claim" - "a girl whom never existed" would clearly be incorrect. I have added commas to make it read a bit better. MFlet1 (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong.

Just like to point out that you changed the meaning by taking that out. Compare "the locals claim that she never existed" vs "she never existed". In the latter case, yeah the correct word is "who", but then again, that doesn't have the same meaning as the former, in which case "whom" is acceptable. DonQuixote (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just saw your edit, adding commas alters "whom" to "who" and it keeps the same meaning. DonQuixote (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second reading, adding commas just makes it read awkwardly. It needs some copyediting: either switch back to "whom" with no commas or add more words to make it more readable. I'm going to copyedit it back to "whom" with no commas. DonQuixote (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, American English doesn't use "whom" that much but rather "who" for both object and subject. I'm just going to drop the commas. DonQuixote (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, American English does not use "who" for both object and subject. And I am unanimous in that.

Probably for the best. I am right though. MFlet1 (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A simple proof involves exanding the full clause: "to search for a missing girl, a girl whom the locals claim never existed". The previous version was a contraction of that. So no, you were wrong. But that's neither here nor there as a compromise has been reached. DonQuixote (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, is it just me, or does the phrase "I am unanimous" not make sense? (It is true, though, that while many native speakers of English ignore — or are ignorant of — grammatical rules, correct usage does exist and distinguishes between "who" and "whom," regardless of where you are in relation to the world's major oceans.)

As for the original issue...I'm really not sure about this one; I'm also not sure I understand the arguments for "who" vs. "whom" (despite which, if I had to choose, I'd be slightly more inclined to say "who" — but as I said, I do not feel at all confident of this.) I'm glad we managed to fix the article, but I'd still like to know which is right, and why. Can we please try and figure this out without making it all emotional and personal and flamey? (pretty please?) Mia229 (talk) 10:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Mia229 is still with us, I am unanimous in that is a catchphrase and running gag of the character Mrs. Slocombe from the TV comedy Are You Being Served?. Cultural education is sadly not what it was, evidently! Nuttyskin (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Versions

This is entirely POV, which is why I place it here on the discussion page instead of in the article. Possibly more people remember and add to that, though. In the late seventies (ca. 1979/1980) I visited London together with my brother and went into a late night double feature of The Wicker Man and a second horror movie. We both still clearly remember this night because among other things we almost got shut out of our hotel for being too late, and also due the impact that movie made on both of us.

It is maintained here and on another site that the entire (complete) copy of the movie was lost prior to 1979/80, indeed was even used as landfill. This cannot be true, as both my brother and I very clearly remember seeing a movie much longer than even the current restored extended version, by which I mean INCLUDING many scenes of Woodward and Lee in a greenhouse and huge walk-in fridge, Lee slicing an apple for Woodward to taste, walking the gardens with him, a long monologue by Lee about the apples, Woodward witnessing quite a few more scenes in the village, Woodward tailed by Lee on the mainland, Lee jogging with his face and hair hidden, tieing a shoelace watching Woodward about to embark on the plane, etc. etc.. I am convinced that what we saw that late fall in London was an entire copy of the original movie without any lacking scenes at all. This however means that someone somewhere actually has at least this one complete copy of the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.246.43.249 (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Filming

The article mentions that scenes at the castle were filmed in February 1972, but the rest was filmed in October. But what year? Would that be 1971 or 1972 - I'm guessing 1971 since they wanted to make it in the Spring (which they could have done if it's October 1972), but if it's October 1971 - how come the film took so long to be released (December 1973)? Either way, the year needs to be specified and perhaps a reason for the delay if anyone knows?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having had a look again, I'm thinking it must have been October 1972 since the film is set in April and May 1973 (a calendar is clearly shown). Still it would be good to have clarification of which October it was filmed in?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having got the book, filming is definitely Oct 72 (with some shots in late summer 72). I will add more details as I get further in.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 10:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

trivia: US Tax Court

I recall skimming through a print copy of either US Tax Cases or Memorandum Decisions - more likely the latter - and finding a decision denying a tax writeoff for the 1973 film's losses, on the ground that the film's producers could never reasonably have expected to make a profit from it. http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcInOp/asp/HistoricOptions.asp online only goes back to 9/25/95, but if anyone has access to a university law school library, they should easily be able to find either a print or a commercial website copy of this decision. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Musical?

Described in the lede as a 'Musical' Horror film. OK, so there's a couple of catchy numbers but there's no way this could be thus described. Is This is Spinal Tap a musical? --82.41.20.198 (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"This Is Spinal Tap is an American 1984 rock and roll musical mockumentary directed by Rob Reiner" Charlr6 (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hardy is currently developing his next film, The Wrath of the Gods, which will complete The Wicker Man Trilogy.[3][4] It was reported on 22 July 2013, via a message from Robin Hardy himself, that a copy of a long lost older version of the film has now been found.[5] This is a very confusing paragraph: does it mean that Hardy has discovered an older version of The Wrath of the Gods, perhaps in an earlier draft of the one on which he is now working, or (as does seem more likely) is that yet another version of The Wicker Man has turned up, and the info has been appended to The Wrath of the Gods, making the confusion? I’d suggest if the latter that separate paragraphs would be more elegant. Jock123 (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - "musical" means a specific film genre with its own, often rather artificial and contrived, vocabulary. The term "musical" does not apply to this film. There are sections of the film which contain a limited amount of singing, and dancing, but that does not make the film a "musical". The scenes with singing are always done in a realistic context. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of corrections

It was a toad, not a frog, that was used to "treat" a sore throat.
It was the innkeeper who said the photo was broken, not some "landlord's daughter".

I think you are right about the innkeeper, but wrong about the frog. Fixed. TwoTwoHello (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Wicker Man (1973 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 15:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 February 2017

The following is a closed 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: Moved — Amakuru (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following request on my talk page, here is a rationale for the move: There is a consensus that the original film satisfies WP:PRIMARYTOPIC on the grounds of "long term significance", owing to its "cult" status, and accolades such as that mentioned by Randy Kryn: Cinefantastique magazine called the film "the Citizen Kane of horror movies". George Ho's point about the page views being equal is a valid one, (although as Ribbet32 notes, the original film is still somewhat in the lead, and does technically have more than 50% of pageviews in what is almost a two-horse race). Arguments about long term significance are always subjective unfortunately, so it's hard to apply hard-and-fast rules to them, but in this case with five participants agreeing there is a primary topic, against just one dissenter, the consensus does lie that way, and is not unreasonable. — Amakuru (talk) 09:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– Original film is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per nomination, good find and primary. The page is viewed by app. 1,000 readers a day, and although the 2006 remake receives about the same number on some days this 1973 film seems primary due to long-term significance (i.e. Cinefantastique magazine called the film "the Citizen Kane of horror movies"). Randy Kryn 16:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All topics here with articles are based on the film, and it has high long-term significance as one of the most acclaimed horror films ever. The 2006 remake has much less long-term significance, as most people agree it is dung. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with the proposal to move the disambiguation page from "The Wicker Man" to "Wicker man", though. All topics here are known as "The Wicker Man" or "Wicker Man". Nothing here is being disambiguated from the different wicker man. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I based this idea on the original lede to the dab page, which has since been removed, and the current hatnote at Wicker man. It's not that important what we call the dab page, but I think my original suggestion would allow for wider inclusion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - True, the remake received negative reviews and awards, while the original film has better reputation. However, neither film would be recognizable as the base title itself, The Wicker Man. Like Randy said, statistics say that both articles are viewed almost equally by readers. Per WP:Primary topic, "Is there a primary topic?" Despite significance of the original British film, I will say... no. Actually, even if the primary topic exists, per WP:GUIDES and WP:AT#Deciding on an article title, we should make some exceptions, use common sense, and put most readers first before ourselves and/or film enthusiasts, i.e. ordinary readers first and/or those unfamiliar with the films. --George Ho (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The original film gained its reputation early. Remakes of major films are generally homages or made for economic incentive, and should only replace the original as primary or remove it from primary under extraordinary circumstances. If Nicolas Cage remade The Searchers or Bringing Up Baby, especially if he remade them badly, we would not change the primary simply because of page views. Long-term significance has its role in selecting primary, and this seems a case where that easily fits the description. Randy Kryn 12:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see your viewpoint, and I appreciate it. Originals vs. remakes can be outside the scope of Wikipedia and can vary from one case to another. However, regarding "The Wicker Man", both films were part of pop culture, and we are putting the "primary topic" rule above what should benefit most readers, including general ones. By using the long-term significance criterion, if the original film is selected as "primary topic", we would be forcing many readers to direct to the original film page and then to use a hatnote directing them to either a remake or a dabpage. Also, per MOS:LEAD, most readers would read just the introduction and then move on. I don't know how many readers would want to read the whole article, but I estimate low amount, despite what the stats say. I don't see how the original film meeting "primary topic" helps benefit the readers to seek what they are searching for. Also, I don't see how either film meets the WP:CRITERIA to obtain the base title, "The Wicker Man", no matter how the original film is the "primary topic". George Ho (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to my analysis on statistics, most readers are apparently fine with the current setup. If you want to discuss the AutoComplete setup... well, any established editor can disable it, but... those unsigned can't. Would this sound self-defeating? George Ho (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC); 21:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what about WP:COMMONNAMES and WP:AT#Disambiguation, which discusses distinguishing topics by titling? I thought parenthetical disambiguation is suitable for the original film, and even I'm saying the "original film". Here are sources from 2010s (this decade) significantly covering the films:
Original film: book about cinema, article about some trilogy or something

Remake: book about pop culture impacted by 9/11, Substream mag,

Both: book about horror genre, Ecogothic, making of the original, almanac, KIMT-TV, obituary of Robin Hardy (director of the film)

George Ho (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your statements above do make sense, and will check out the links later. Many readers do search for the N. Cage film (although some are probably looking for this one and take a look at that page as well), yet still the weight of long-term significance leans me to this one as primary. Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but to me long-term means "historical significance", and that takes you out decades or centuries. Now, if it were just me, I'd instantly pop Wicker man in as primary, no matter how many views it gets, per long-term significance as the century moves along. You mentioned stats about readers reading the entire page, how many do that? Is it a good-size percentage? Having not seen stats I'd guess five percent, maybe less for a large page, maybe 15% for one this size. Thanks. Randy Kryn 22:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. ;-) George Ho (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support strong long-term significance, and an edge on the page views. Ribbet32 (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Definite primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Music

Finally got around to updating the final paragraph in the Music section, removing unclear, unsourced claims and clarifying the origin of the music that makes up the soundtrack. I especially objected to the claim that the songs in the film 'were not actual cult songs used by pagans'. An encyclopaedia should not define things by what they aren't, unless it is especially relevant; which in this case it is not. The claim is spurious at best and wildly inaccurate at worst. As the new source shows, the 'pagan' songs used in the film are based on collected folk songs, many of which are believed to date back to pagan times. As such, the 'authenticity' of the songs is very much up for debate, and to my knowledge there is no relevant research into the matter to call upon to make that claim one way or the other. As it stands I have clarified the section by simply explaining the writing process, leaving out all the unnecessary speculation, which has no place in an encyclopaedic article.Telenarn (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Wicker Man. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 03:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Release date contradiction at Don't Look Now

Please see Talk:Don't Look Now#Initial release as a double bill with ''The Wicker Man''?. --wooden superman 15:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corn Riggs

There is a "original research" flag against this song. Listening to the song, as played on the soundtrack, and the citated YouTube video, and referring to the original music, as would have been used by Burns, I feel that a second reference to the original music could be referred here, so that researchers could compare themselves as to the differences. 2A00:23C5:4CE2:CE01:2958:E11A:D706:DBBD (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]