Talk:Bridge to Terabithia (2007 film)/Archive 1

Drowns/Head Injury

I haven't read the book in a long time but the book summary for Bridge to Terabithia says that she dies from a head injury but the page here says she drowns. Can anyone expand on this. SirGrant 08:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not overly familiar with either version of the story, but a head injury could be the proximate cause of a drowning. E.g., Leslie could have taken the rope-swing to the other side of the river but slipped and fell just before reaching the opposite bank. knoodelhed 15:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The 2007 movie is going to be COMPLETELY different from the book. Hann't anyone seen the trailer? Why is this summary here?

Here's proof: http://imdb.com/ri/TRAILERS_HPBRIDGE/TOP_BUCKET/49426/title/tt0398808/trailers-screenplay-E30192-10-2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.251.117 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I imagine the movie is somewhat different - but trust me, I remember specifically what she died of. I read it back in '05, and can still remember it clear; they said she had fallen and drowned. The boy, Jesse, had made the argument that that was impossible, as Leslie was good at swimming, but they said that they thought she hit her head, and drowned because she was unconcious. But, yeah, it is a bit different - I already noticed one obvious difference, in that Leslie, in the book, wears glasses, and doesn't look as attractive (as a child) as the actress who is playing her. I believe there was also an older movie, as I had read the book in my class (required), and I specifically remember our teacher had rented the movie from somewhere, and showed it to us. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.107.247.42 (talk • contribs).

You mean Bridge to Terabithia (1985 film)? NickelShoe (Talk) 16:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Plot Summary

This summary is exactly the same as the one on the Official website (Under About the Movie > Story). And is also copied on various other site: Google search. Any idea on the copyright status of this? --Chiklit 08:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

the summary is also the exact same as the one for the book. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge_to_Terebithia Given that the actually plot for the movie is unknown, and that it will only be based on, but not identical to the book, shouldn't the plotsummary here make some note of that? 131.216.14.115 17:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've written a summary of the plot based on the synopsis at the web site. It is now thus neither identical to the book nor a copyright violation. JDoorjam JDiscourse 06:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The current version has been adapted, with information about Leslie's death that doesn't appear in the official site's plot summary, which is a problem, both because we don't have a reference shown for how we know the film ends that way, and because the wording of the section suggests that all information comes from the official site's plot summary. So we need to source the ending bit and reword the section lead so it doesn't mislead about the source of our information. - Cafemusique 04:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

For some reason user Animefan50 is engaging in a delete / revert war without discussion or edit summary comment. Wassupwestcoast 04:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to talk to the user but have gotten no reply. In any event, the ending is now sourced separately (in fact, it was sourced before Anime's last removal). JoshuaZ 04:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've now made a formal report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. I think edits - deletions - are in good faith - I hope - and the problem is a user who doesn't know WP editing policy very well. Still, Animefan50 is very persistent. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 04:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Writing Quality

"He helps her out and reins her as Queen of Terabithia": that's not even a sentence. "Reins her"? He puts reins on her? Someone should clean this up (but preferably someone who has seen the film). Tahnan 04:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not out yet, you have 2 working hands apparently, why don't you do it? :/ 63.192.130.61 20:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Has ANYONE seen the film yet? It hasn't been released yet, right? --Brain 22:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

I removed the stuff about the controversy from the lead because it is covered in a later section. janejellyroll 04:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation for use

• Tara DiLullo Bennett (2007-02-16). "Bridge to Terabithia: From Imagination to 3D Enchantment". VFXWorld. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Citation for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Soundtrack

Soundtrack doesn't seem to be out yet as a CD but it is available on iTunes if anyone wants the info. It doesn't seem to include and of the Zooey & co songs though --Jackdavinci 02:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the soundtrack section needs fixed, as it is incorrect to state that it includes songs sung by the children in the classroom. The soundtrack should've included those songs, but as it is it only contains the pop and orchestrated music. I'll fix it later if no one else wants to. Dominicus Cerberus 16:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing the movie's soundtrack with the separately released CD which already has a page of its own - see Music from and Inspired By Bridge to Terabithia. The soundtrack section doesn't need to be fixed - at least not what you intend. Cheers ! Wassupwestcoast 00:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe at least a notice could be included that while the songs sung by the children were in the film(obviously), they were not included on the separately released soundtrack. Those were likable songs IMHO, and for many, would likely make or break the soundtrack. So it'd be a bad idea to imply that they are on the CD. Dominicus Cerberus 02:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Box Office

67.100.107.77, where are you getting your production budget numbers from and analysis. They seem at odds with what is available on-line. Please, provide a source. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Online, at imdb and Yahoo! Movies, it all says approx. $28,000,000, so I don't see any odds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.181.138 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the figures are OK now. The above comment refered to a user who was writing nonsense numbers. I then looked up the numbers on Box Office Mojo and revised the entry. Since then other users have updated the box office number with good verifiable dollar amounts. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 04:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I added "Canada" to a report of the domestic box office: U.S. and Canada combined is the "domestic" market in Hollywood terms. All grosses published reflect domestic earnings, i.e., United States and Canada, unless otherwise noted. in Box Office Mojo Key Terminology.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wassupwestcoast (talk • contribs) 01:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The Synopsis is too long?

I don't think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.111.110.114 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

7th grade?

In the book, Leslie and Jesse are in 5th grade although they appear to be 7th graders, also supported by the fact that they sit closely to the very back of the bus. Despite this, Robb's song claims that they are in 5th. It is also possible that the school went up to 5th grade, which is common among schools around the United States. I don't understand what the issue here is. Why does someone think they are seventh graders, and what does their sitting on the bus have to do with that? And I think most elementary schools in the US cover kindergarten-6th grade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.94.119 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

They are in the 6th grade, Jess and Leslie, in the movie.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.205.202 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Differences

There are presumably thousands of differences between the book and the film. It's not clear that any of them needs to be mentioned here, but if they do, only the significant ones please. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course there are many differences. With the low signal to noise ratio - out right vandalism or plain nonsense - of the edits, I'm happy to see any factual edit even if it isn't clearly significant. Micro or macro triviun: it's all trivium. Perhaps my standards are too low :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 11:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's true that these articles are mostly made up of trivia, there's still a spectrum; things like "in the book x read a book, but in the film he read a magazine" is pretty near the bottom". And they're all unsourced, and usually unexplained, of course. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

In Agreement. Especially about the unsourced and unexplained edits. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 19:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, am I the only person that realises that there wasn't weird giants and what not in the book? Or did I miss that part? I would have thought that this would be the primary difference, but, hey. You Wikipedian's are all so superior in thought that I mightn't understand your reasoning.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Countessa (talk • contribs) 19:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The time based stuff it non notable trivia and should be deleted. I fi can get some consensus, i'll start. DurinsBane87 01:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Should the Genre be Emo Teen Drama

Think about it, It's emotional, it has a lot of teenage themes, and their's drama.74.117.157.185 19:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent attempt to expand plot summary

First, the plot summary is already rather too long; the new version is seriously inflated (and is thus likely to breach copyright law). Secondly, the new version fails to improve on the old one in terms of style, syntax, etc. (rather the reverse, in fact). Thirdly, the claim is apparently that the source for the new material is the film; that was the source of what's being replaced too. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(and is thus likely to breach copyright law) ... please keep your legal opinions to yourself. We don't need another wiki lawyer. I suspect almost all jurisdictions would view your opinion as nonsense - and in the case of wikipedia the relevant jurisdictions I believe are the U.S. and Florida. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 19:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Plase read and try to keep to WP:CIVIL.
2. This precise point has been made recently by another admin with regard to another set of articles; "let me also remind people that overblown plot summaries are a problem not only in terms of 'Fancruft', but also in terms of copyright. Plotlines of fictional works are subject to copyright. It's a fair use issue just like with images: a plot summary needs to be subordinate to a legitimate encyclopedic goal, such as critical commentary. Long plot summaries that don't fulfil such a goal and which aren't really summaries but full-blown renarrations of the whole series cross the line into "derivative works", and are therefore nonfree". --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Introducing the phrase thus likely to breach copyright law is wikiLawyering: i.e. Using formal legal terms when discussing Wikipedia policy . Remember there is the real world with real laws and there is the Wiki world governed by Wiki policies. Quoting an admin on copyright/intellectual property law is laughable ... and nonsensical. Stick to policy statements and not legal statements. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you could manage to leave a message that's not relentlessly aggressive and uncivil, I'll reply to it. I'll check back every so often. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, incidentally, see {{plot}}. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

misleading trailer

should anything be put in the artical about the misleading trailer? i'm pretty sure anyone who hasn't read the book went into the film expecting to watch some NArnia ripoff, and instead went out with thoughts of slitting their wrists because of the sheer depression brought on by the film.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.24.133 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The DVD?

Shouldn't something be said about the DVD in the article? Like its release date, special features and what not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominicus Cerberus (talk • contribs) 00:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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 no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Bridge to Terabithia (2007 film) → Bridge to Terabithia (film) — There is no page named Bridge to Terabithia (film), therefore, this one should not have the number of the year in the title, only the film part —Rbb l181 23:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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.

• Oppose. Bridge to Terabithia (2007 film) with the (2007) is needed to differentiate it from Bridge to Terabithia (1985 film) which is an earlier film with the same title. This conforms completely with Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Film titles. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Because of the 1985 film.
• Oppose per rationale provided by Wassupwestcoast.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The page Bridge to Terabithia should be called Bridge to Terabithia (novel). This would conform with Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Books - literary works. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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.

Special Effects?

I'd like to add some info on the use of computer-generated creatures in the film, as these creatures are not necessarily required in a film version of the book. In addition to discussing the technique of the special effects, this topic might also be relevant to the trailer controversy. Any thoughts/opinions? --RainbowWerewolf (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)