Talk:The Princess Bride (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Princess Bride (film) article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.
Article assessment An assessment of this article took place along with other articles about 1980s comedy films during the week starting 6 March 2006.

Contents

[edit] Memorable quotes

Do you think we should maybe add a "Memorable Quotes" section, especially for Inigo Montoya? Rmrfstar 13:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) lll

Inconceivable! --Carl
... not to neglet the other characters... I'll add it when I get the chance. -- Rmrfstar 12:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
You keep using that word – I do not think it means what you think it means. violet/riga (t) 12:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Started the section. Please add. --Banana04131 02:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed the section because there was a Wikiquote tag at the bottom of the page. It seems to defeat the point of Wikiquote if we begin quoting things in the Wikipedia articles -- MacAddct1984 02:42, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't see it.

--Banana04131 17:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I added popular quotes which someone else incorporated into the Reception section. Unfortunately, although their popularity is common knowledge, I don't have an official citation. Not sure what would constitute an official citation to "prove" that a quotation became famous. 3Tigers 02:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] music

I would argue that most of what appears under "soundtrack" if not the whole section is not necessary; it seems POV, trivial (not encyclopedic) and kind of silly. I don't want to delete it, though, as someone found it notable . . . thoughts?

I think some discussion of Knopfler writing the soundtrack is perhaps warranted. I don't know that anything beyond that is notable. john k 01:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
As a massive fan of that album I would really oppose its removal. It is one of a few Knopfler soundtrack albums and is popular enough to be detailed, and the fact that such a well-known person did the soundtrack is certainly notable. Perhaps spinning it off to a separate article would be a good compromise, but I'm not sure if it's really worth doing that. violet/riga (t) 11:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iocaine/iocane

It's definitely iocane. I just looked it up in the book. -Aranel ("Sarah") 18:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Redirected from article on Iocane. Full text was:

Iocane powder is a fictional poison used in a "battle of the wits" in William Goldman's classic novel The Princess Bride. Goldman describes it as tasteless, odorless, dissolves instantly in liquid, and is among the deadliest poisons known to mankind. It originates from Australia.
See also
  • Fictional medicine and drugs

-WCFrancis 20:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andre the Giant

William Goldman, in the 20th anniversary edition of the book, states that Andre the Giant was the only person ever considered for the role of Fezzik. I suggest deletion of the references to Arnold and Kareem unless someone has proof.132.79.14.15 20:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Stranger

Actually, on page 325 of the paperback edition in the introduction for Buttercup's Baby, he mentions a young Arnold wanted to play the part of Fezzik, but by the time the movie went into production, they could no longer afford him. --MorgaineDax 00:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Just to confuse matters, this is what he says in Which Lie Did I Tell?, a collection of tales and observations on the film industry. The first mention is in the list of people at the first script reading, and the italics are his: "...Wally Shaw, the evil genius Vizzini. Mandy Patinkin, who played Inigo, was very much there. And sitting by himself quietly—he always tried to sit quietly—was Andre the Giant, who was Fezzik." He returns to Andre: "A. R. Roussimoff was the other new kid on the block that rehearsal morning. Actually, he was not precisely new to any of us, he was just new as an actor, because as Andrew the Giant he was the most famous wrestler in the world. I had become a lunatic Andre fan, would go to the Garden to watch him entertain the masses. I became convinced that if there ever was to be a movie, he should be Fezzik, the strongest man".
So even if Arnold was interested at one stage (and this could be ten years earlier), Andre was Goldman's preference. However, this film took years and years to get off the ground. The rights were bought, Goldman submitted a screenplay; changes at the studio put an end to that; he bought the rights back; there were two other "definitely going to make it"s which went wrong; ten years went by... plenty of time for all of these facts to happen: for Arnold to be interested; for Arnold to price himself out; for Goldman to be convinced that Andre was the man.
I think at least some of this history (the Which Lie..? book goes into quite some detail) should probably be in the article: where would it be appropriate to mention the meandering route it took from book to finished film? Between "Storyline" and "Soundtrack" sections?
--Telsa 10:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Buttercups Baby

The fictional (ie, nonexistant) sequel should be mentioned, don't you think? I am missing my copy of the book, but the epilogue mentions a forthcoming sequel, a sample chapter of which was available by writing to the publisher. I think the title was Buttercup's Baby. Can anyone verify?

You're correct on all counts. It could possibly warrant its own article, but I think that a section here could cover it fully. violet/riga (t) 08:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Could someone verify the most recent edit? It doesn't jibe with my memory, but my memory is hardly definitive. I think the chapter is noteworthy, whether it's a sample of BB or not. Scix 08:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello? The edit I refer to is the one that removed my note that one could request a sample chapter of BB. The note said that it was something else printed, but I think this is in error. I don't want to revert it without verification, but I don't seemt ohave my copy anymore. Scix 07:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spinal Tap

I'm taking the thing out about the eleven fingers and knobs that go to eleven. there's no connection. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.171.81.42 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox image

Hi, I replaced the image in the infobox with the original North American movie poster. What do you think of the change? Should a DVD section be added? Because this image has no article linking to it: [[Image:ThePrincessBride.png|center|thumb|ThePrincessBride.png]]

I moved the picture onto the article. It's in the Cast section for now. Tocharianne 02:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liam Neeson

According to IMDB, Liam Neeson tried out for Fezzik. From his biography on the site. "He recalled his most embarrassing moment in acting as when, relatively early in his career, he auditioned for the role of Fezzik, the giant, in The Princess Bride (1987). He said Rob Reiner had a look of disgust on his face when he realized that Neeson was "only" 6' 4", and 'Andre the Giant' ended up getting the role." Should this be included? Of course not 'as-is', make it Wikipedia friendly. SRodgers--65.24.77.104 03:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Souns good for the trivia section Scix 13:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wesley or Westley?

IMDb says Westley, but in this article it's Welsey... which one? Natalie 17:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, the complete text linked in the article says Westley... I'll go through and change it. Natalie 17:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Fixed this problem again. I know that Westley sounds a lot like Wesley, but it's really not. It's Westley in the book and in the credits of the movie. Myridon (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia note

The article says that Inigo and Wesley use real fencing techniques during the duel scene, but that is not correct. Inigo and Wesley cite the names of reknowned fencing masters (Capo Ferro, Bonetti, Agrippa, etc.) from history, but their techniques are not authentic. --Runolfr 20:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I'll change it. Lisiate 01:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot summary editing?

Someone flagged the plot summary as too long. I think it can be cut a little, but many classic films have Wikipedia plot summaries that are at least as detailed. For instance, see the article on "Casablanca". 3Tigers 05:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE for the justification of the tag, and WP:WAX for a refutation of the "but other articles have this" argument. The reason this template exists is because a very easy way to contribute to Wikipedia is to pick an article on a popular film and start filling in every detail from the plot. Chris Cunningham 07:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Would you please link some examples of appropriate length? I hope it's clear that I'm not seeking argument but clarification via example. Thanks. 3Tigers 03:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Princess Bride Category

Should there be a category for this? Between the book, movie, and characters articles there's a fair number of related pages to lump into one. Angryscientist 08:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like your chance to be bold!
Atlant 11:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Script notes

Why do you keep deleting the quote about Gen. Law? Its interesting, true and at least as relevant and important as crap like Andre the Giant's hand supposedly fitting over the princess' head when she was cold and other inane observances I read on this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.84.254.176 (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Are you taking the origin of the quote from a particular published source? If so, just include a proper citation for it. If it is your own conclusion, it is original research, which Wikipedia doesn't allow (it violates the tenet that everything on Wikipedia should be verifiable). --GargoyleMT 18:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
There, its worked into the article, its sourced, and it certainly seems reasonable, relevant and as encyclopaedic as the rest of the article. I would certainly like to know why some people seem to feel they have the power to deem some trivia valid while deleting other factoids they didn't originate themselves. Half the article should be trashed if you applied gargoyel's logic above.
What do you mean by "your own conclusion?" and why the hard-core attitude on this particular movie for excluding passages? Just a random movie I happened to read tonight:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fargo_(film)#Trivia

  • In the scene where Shep interrupts Carl having sex with a blonde woman and beats him, when Shep chokes Carl with his belt, the camera focuses on Carl's feet lifted off the ground and shaking in the air. This camera shot is a reference to Spike Lee's "Do the Right Thing", in the scene that Radio Raheem gets choked by the police with that exact same shot of his feet shaking when lifted off the ground.
  • Carl says he's in town for "just a little of the ol' in-and-out," quoting a line from the 1971 film A Clockwork Orange.
  • The film Little Miss Sunshine features a character named Stan Grossman, almost certainly named after the character of the same name in Fargo.
  • Fargo is set in the year 1987. This was the same year as the release of the Coens' movie Raising Arizona.
  • Bear Cat wood chippers are made in Fargo, North Dakota.
  • On Invader Zim there is a scene in the episode Planet Jackers in which two aliens are in a ship together and one starts to start a conversation and the other won't talk. Then he says, "You know it wouldn't kill you to talk once in a while" and the other says, "Quiet or I'll eat your head. Is that enough words for you?". This was inspired by a scene in Fargo between Buscemi and Stormare.
  • An episode of King of the Hill has Dale Gribble steal Bobby's ventriloquist dummy and feed him into a wood chipper because of a bad experience he had had with a dummy as a child.
  • Pam Beesly, a character from the TV show, The Office, lists the film as one of her five favorite movies.
Not one has a citation. All are pretty speculative, and most are pretty inane, of little value toward understanding the movie Fargo and pretty much irrelevant to the subject. The last one is my particular favorite as a very lame addition to an already long article. And also, any pop culture reference to a wood chipper must be added to the Fargo article, apparently. They did, however, miss the "In and Out Burger" Big Lebowski tie-in.
My point is, if you are going to be that strict about trivia on movie articles on WikiP you have a lot of work cut out for you, almost all the movie articles have tons of this stuff. Fargo is just an example. I think the Vinccini/Bernard Law quote is at LEAST as interesting, educational, relevant and germane as the dreck I quoted above. Raphaelaarchon 07:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'm not the person who removed the item of trivia in question, I was only trying to be helpful in offering a longer explanation than is in the edit summary. As such, I suspect some of your comments were meant to be targeted at someone else. Since the phrasing of Vizzini's quote is only a similar phrasing to the quote from Bernard Law Montgomery, it's speculation to link the two without a source. I think I made a mistake in suggesting that it was original research, instead of an unverified statement (both are core policies that seem to overlap and interact). You're right that the rules are applied inconsistently. Or perhaps not applied at all. Not everyone knows about Wikipedia policies, or tries to apply them. Justifying not applying them in one article because they're not applied in another article can only lead to a giant deadlock, where the policy is never applied. (I think there's a policy or guide that expands on this reasoning, but I've spent a half hour looking and can't find it.) I love the Princess Bride, and I think any inspiration for Vizzini's quote is interesting as well. My search only came up with unreliable sources ([1] [2] [3] [4]). Likewise, neither DVD commentary track from Goldman or Reiner mention the quote or its origin (either would be a reliable source). Please help try to find a reliable source for it. (I think this sort of issue why the Manual of Style advocates against Trivia sections, and why the WP:TRIVIA article mentions OR and citing of sources specifically.) --GargoyleMT 15:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
My contention is that this particular factoid is _not_ in the same league with the garbage I posted above, and that there are much more egregious examples of artical fluff out there that aren't getting the scrutiny and lack of love my little addition did. There are rules and there are de facto practices. Wiki has and is always making up its own rules, there is no right or wrong, there is only consensus. If just seems to me people selectively cite wiki rules to screen items with which they disagree, while there are much more flagrant problems that are not addressed because people like the item. So, I guess I'm saying, the widespresad and continued use of items in articles that are unsourced or vaguely sourced means that complaints seem to be pretty subjective.
On another note I was reading a number of the Coen Bros' movie articles. Yikes. Raising Arizona is a mess as well as several others, besides Fargo. I wish I had the time to do work on all these, the movies deserve better. Raphaelaarchon 17:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm removing this again. It's an original, unsourced observation and to my knowledge it's still speculative (there's never been any confirmation that the line was a deliberate reference to Montgomery). Should there be a reliable source, cool, stick it back in.
As for the observation that some other articles suck, what is commonly ignored is that some articles don't, and if we're looking to compare this to another article then we should be comparing it to better articles, not worse ones. Chris Cunningham 17:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


I'm not going to get in a edit war, but you seem to be acting arbitrary, heavy handed and fascist in piskcing on this one factoid, when THIS article, not just others, is full of unsourced crap, speculation and in fact incorrect information. At least the section I espoused is factual. Raphaelaarchon 15:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
No personal attacks and assume good faith are good policies to keep in mind here. There are mechanisms for changing policy, if you disagree with it. --GargoyleMT 22:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well one mechanism I'm going to avail myself of is to arbitrarily take it upon myself to edit out anything in any article that I unilaterally find invalid or unnecessary, as you seem to do. My mistake was adding a valid passage to an article that an obsessive censor has chosen to audit. And I'll continue to revert it from time to time, with rewrites and resources, perhaps I can please your dictatorial editing sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raphaelaarchon (talk • contribs) 13:58, May 29, 2007

Who are you responding to? I can't tell from your wording or the indention level of your reply. --GargoyleMT 22:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

How did the following section about Fargo wind up on the Princess Bride page? 3Tigers 04:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It was added in the course of the discussion over original research. Particularly, this diff. --GargoyleMT 13:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another question

Why does "ROUS" redirect here? Dbutler1986 03:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In the movie, R.O.U.S. stands for the "rodents of unusual size" that Wesley and Buttercup encounter in the Fire Swamp. Joyous! | Talk 11:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That hardly seems a good enough reason for a redirect. That's a rather minor thing. 74.136.42.97 (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious

It is dubious to say that Íñigo Montoya is ambidexterous, since he mentions not being left handed and swaps hands in the sword fight scene. --Thinboy00's sockpuppet alternate account 23:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say he's ambidextrous, he has just trained enough to fight well with either hand. It's not quite the same thing, as in any other case he's probably right-handed. Andrea (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It's clear from the book that he is right-handed and fights better when he switches to his right hand. I'm going to change it. Farannan (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:PrincessBride05.jpg

Image:PrincessBride05.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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 14:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)