Talk:Little Red Riding Hood (1997 film): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:54, 15 March 2021

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 7 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Csoda1 (article contribs).

Film: American Start‑class

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 12 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jriger12 (article contribs).

Plot

I feel like the plot section is more analytical than explanatory, especially when it's mentioned that LRRH is "less than innocent." This section should strictly be directly related to the plot without inferences being added. Cstev5 (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Cstev5[reply]

Black comedy is not really the style of this movie, also it has no sources to support it and it should be removed Hmess1 (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and was just about to comment on that. If the style is deemed important for the article, it should be included in a different section, though, I don't know what that should be. Mvill6 (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why was there a mention of the voice of the narrator when that has nothing to do with the plot itself? Aguil2 (talk)Aguil2

I agree with you that the mention of this does not contribute to the plot, at least how it is written in this article. However, the fact that the only speaking in this film is done by a narrator is important to the overall film itself. I believe this needs to be expressed more and maybe in a different way that way it doesn't throw readers off when viewing this article. Cferg33 (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the narrator of the film isn't necessarily part of the plot. He is only sharing the words that they think but the emotion and actions can still be seen. I think that the sentence talking about the narrator could be moved out of the plot section and into the introduction of the page.--Poryfruit (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why say she is warned by the cat when the cat is really speaking in a way that is difficult to understand what is said? Mihall5 (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! The addition of this information is a form of analysis, rather than a neutral summary. Lili813 (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The plot gives a very vague description of the story, saying how the wolf ate the grandmother and Little Red escaped on time. Then, it outwardly states how Little Red is shown as not so innocent. There should be examples of the behavior of Little Red so that the reader could make their own claim on the behavior of Little Red. --AshleyM18 (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you completely! This article does very little in the in-depth descriptions and just gives a vague overview. I think it would be useful to go into more description of this story, talking about the meanings behind the way characters are portrayed, giving examples, and talking about why the creators chose to portray the story the way they did. There are so many versions of this story so it would be useful to readers to come and see the personal twists that each creator made in their version of the story and why they did that. Cferg33 (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the information has no citation--Ekrop1 (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the plot section is written in a way that is confusing and not chronological. this should be fixed. it also doesn't make sense to bring up the huntsman in this section when it isn't relevant to the plot. this should be under a comparison section if deemed necessary to keep. Cquag1 (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Cquag1. I also found that there was a lot of analysis in the plot section that needs to be removed. -Mpavlik20 (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Cquag1 I thought the plot section needs some revision. It seemed to include a viewpoint on Little Red Riding Hood's behavior and it was difficult to read at certain points.--Poryfruit (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If the plot was written in chronological order then it would make more sense. Removing unnecessary analysis will also help better understand the plot. Kmack3 (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ok I am going to remove the mention of the huntsman now Cquag1 (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The plot section does not necessarily need to be in order, because the plot section does not need to give a play-by-play recap, but chronological order could help the reader understand the flow. (Daniel Thompson326 (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]

I think the plot section would be a little easier to understand if the sentences about Red Riding Hood surviving and her eating her grandmother's flesh were switched with each other. Or it could be left the way it is, with an edited last sentence. It seems like an abrupt topic change to go from the "happy ending" to her eating her grandmother. --Fgorm1 (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why was there mention of LRRH being "less than innocent"? That sounds like it isn't entirely neutral, and could lead the reader to form a similar opinion to the writer when they might not have otherwise. Cstev5 (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Cstev5[reply]

I agree Cstev5 . I thought that there was some bias in this section of the article. I feel like this interpretation should be taken out of the article. Jciri3-19 (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree Cstev5. I also thought this also may have happened a bit when it was mentioned that she was very clever. --Ndani06 (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree Jciri3-19. I think that the lack of innocence is essential to the film. It does come across as interpretation, so potentially a new section describing reviews to the film could be added to include this information in a better way. Mpavlik20 (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual of Style page for Films suggests a possible Themes section. This could do for tracking the idea of innocence without placing it under the Plot. --End2657 (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence " She is thus portrayed, in another contrast to traditional depictions of the story, as being less than innocent" can be seen as an interpretation of a part of the film and not direct fact, this claim can make readers view the film differently, making the argument red is less innocent is an interpretive claim. Daniel Thompson326 (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this claim is more of an opinion than factual. The claim that she is portrayed as less than innocent should either be in a separate section for reviews of the film or left out completely.Rzell02 (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should all of the cast be mentioned when their character is mentioned in this section? Mvill6 (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked this question before and have now realized there is not wikipedia pages for all the actors, so they couldn't be linked, but maybe they should still be mentioned? Mvill6 (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment and I was going to agree with it, I think it would make much more sense if all of the actors were mentioned when their character came up, instead of just the wolf (and narrator). J.mer22 (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The hyperlink when you click on Timour Bourtasenkov's name is rather confusing. It brings you to a ballet company's website rather than to a page actually about him. Maybe this should be removed? Irhin1 (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the addition of this link to his name only gives context to his ballet company and not to him directly, it seems unnecessary. -J.mer22 (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC

Timour Bourtasenkov's link isn't the only one like this on the page, if you click huntsman it brings you to information about what type of character he is which really has nothing to do with the story. I think it should be like a hunter.

This link https://www.caryballet.com/biotimour-bourtasenkov.html gives more information about him. It talks more so about his dance career because that is what he primarily does. This could give readers background on who he is. Jciri3-19 (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction mentions that the film was based on the early versions of the fairy tale, specifically mentioning the Italian adaptation of the story. However, the short film is more directly inspired by the French story titled "The Grandmother". Instead of mentioning the Italian version, it would be more informative for the reader to mention the French version and describe what the film does differently from the original French story in the plot section of the article. Sbaek20 (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the mention is inaccurate. Since it is referenced in the lead, it should also be mentioned in another part of the article as well. The link associated with it is also broken, so, if the information is kept/adapted, a new source will be needed -- Lsand345 (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There some spelling and grammar mistakes within the article such as the sentence "She is clever enough manage without being rescued" the article should be reread and grammatical errors should be corrected. Daniel Thompson326 (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. This should have been proofread or they could have used an outside grammar checker.Jriger12 (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to make a section describing only the plot and create another section for cinematography. According to the Manual of Style for film, plot summaries describe the important plot points of a film. Including details like the cinematography of the film is outside the range of this description. They do, however, fall under the Themes section. Dayal24 (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you completely! There definitely should be a separate section to talk about the cinematography of the film. There definitely is enough information to add that would create a whole section.Ckirb2 (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to describe the plot of the movie in a way that is not subjective but can also give a thorough examination of it? Mguil2 (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mguil2 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I feel that the plot is now lacking some substance now. The bias about the plot is removed but the reader needs more information about the story. What more can be added without being subjective? Lili813 (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "The film bears similarities to some of the earliest versions of the fairytale, including the Italian "La finta nonna" (The False Grandmother). [2]" should be removed from the article. The second source is no longer available because the domain to the website has expired, and can not be used as a reference source. (Daniel Thompson326 (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]

References

There should be more sources explaining possible interpretations of the film to prevent editors from making connections themselves. --Kbrad41 (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should remove the second source, as the page no longer exists -- Lsand345 (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the domain expired and is no longer accessible unless through the use of the way back machine or if the lease is renewed for the domain. (Daniel Thompson326 (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]

I'm going to see if it can be recovered through the wayback machine and if the information it included was valuable.Amateur0 0editor (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

scratch that, it was a blog post. Not really worth it to track it down.Amateur0 0editor (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Vimeo link (https://vimeo.com/100666128) should be included as a source. It references her lack of innocence and the films basis on "the grandmother". It would also be good as then readers have a direct link to the film Mpavlik20 (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mpavlik20 I think it's appropriate to add in a link to Vimeo. This is where readers of the article can access the film. I think it should go under External Links Jciri3-19 (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. I think it should go under sources since that is where the overview of the plot is coming from. Ndani06 (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Background- New section

This section would include and expand on information regarding the other versions of the folktale that the director and writers of the film chose to base the film from. Such information may include : -differences and similarities between renditions -authors/publishers of past versions -Sources of other renditions Joshn49 (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea Joshn49. We would need to find published sources making those connections before adding them.Amateur0 0editor (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. A lot of the information on this page like the references to the huntsman and The False Grandmother belong in a section involving the historical background of the fairy tale instead of being put inside the plot and lead section. --Fgorm1 (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

could this possibly be handled just by linking the more complete article on little red riding hood on Wikipedia? We don't want to recreate that article here necessarilyAmateur0 0editor (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Hyperlinks

removing Timour Bourtasenkov's link because it doesn't provide any info to the citeJdore1 (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His hyperlinks have been removed. Irhin1 (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cast

I think adding new information (from good sources) to the sections about the actors. Perhaps more information on the characters they played as. I'm going to start searching for a source that provides information on the characters.Jriger12 (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. What information do you think would be relevant enough to include?End2657 (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. I think some key past roles would be relevant. For example, Christina Ricci played Wednesday Adams in the Adams Family (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/christina_ricci). Mpavlik20 (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Her personal bio page mentions her role in darker stories, which is certainly relevant to this play if that is what you were looking to add. I also found some information on the background of Tim. End2657 (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Director's History

I think we should add history about the Director's previous film mediums. This way readers can think of how his adaption was made and how this film stands in his history of film making.Mguil2 (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mguil2 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new plot

Here's a new idea for the plot summary. I propose that since the film builds up to when the wolf eats Little Red Riding Hood's grandmother, then the plot should describe how the actors portray this. You could also add that the wolf is able to lure in Little Red Riding Hood but she catches on and thinks of a smart way to escape without being caught. The first line in the plot description about the film being black comedy can be removed. The closing sentence stating that she is not innocent can be changed, perhaps that she fails to realize what is actually happening. Please reply if you have an idea on things that should or should not be included. Kmack3 (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like your idea about adding more information to the plot section and removing the sentence about black comedy. I do not; however, think the sentence about Little Red Riding Hood not being innocent needs to be removed. In the description of the film on Vimeo, it states that she is portrayed as a "no so innocent" Little Red Riding Hood. This film was also uploaded to Vimeo under the name David Kaplan, so the description seems to be reliable. Please let me know if you feel differently. Irhin1 (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images and Media

I believe we should add images of the characters within the film to give the readers an understanding of who and what are we talking about. This includes images of Little Red, the wolf, the cat, and the grandmother. AshleyM18 (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 : I agree, the addition of this link to his name only gives context to his ballet company and not to him directly, it seems unnecessary. -[[User:J.mer22|J.mer22]] ([[User talk:J.mer22|talk]]) 17:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC
 : Timour Bourtasenkov's link isn't the only one like this on the page, if you click huntsman it brings you to information about what type of character he is which really has nothing to do with the story. I think it should be like a hunter.
+::This link https://www.caryballet.com/biotimour-bourtasenkov.html gives more information about him. It talks more so about his dance career because that is what he primarily does. This could give readers background on who he is. [[User:Jciri3-19|Jciri3-19]] ([[User talk:Jciri3-19|talk]]) 15:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 The introduction mentions that the film was based on the early versions of the fairy tale, specifically mentioning the Italian adaptation of the story. However, the short film is more directly inspired by the French story titled "The Grandmother". Instead of mentioning the Italian version, it would be more informative for the reader to mention the French version and describe what the film does differently from the original French story in the plot section of the article. [[User:Sbaek20|Sbaek20]] ([[User talk:Sbaek20|talk]]) 17:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)