Talk:Edward Scissorhands

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleEdward Scissorhands has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Conflicting Information[edit]

The article says that Michael Jackson was Tim Burton's first choice, then goes on to say that Johnny Depp was always Tim Burton's first choice... — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickO5 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominee[edit]

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

GA review[edit]

  • First of when mentioning who is in the film in the lead keep it simple such as - The film features Johnny Depp as the eponymous Edward, and also stars Winona Ryder, Dianne Weist, and Anthony Michael.
  • It also has a - remove also
  • Edward Scissorhands was a hit for Burton commercially and critically - International BO results please : )
  • and has become a beloved film amongst both children and adults - This could be considered POV as it is an opinion. There are adults and children who love every film - and those who hate films
  • "Edward Scissorhands." Name should not be in quotes
  • We are introduced to local - Do not use "We"
  • Possible in the plot section tell us who plays who rather than have it in the lead such as "saleswoman Peg Boggs (Diane West) as"..

I really don't see the harm in that. Wildroot (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Eventually, Jim attempts to implicate - remove eventually
  • No need to link Christmas
  • We then cut back - as above with the "We"
  • After casting every other character, Burton still had Edward - "Burton still had Edward" is confusing, i know what you mean but it should be reworded
  • "lack of virility." - quotes go inside the fullstop when it's only a word or two - full sentence quotes have the quotes outside
  • Johnny Depp has since become Burton's muse, appearing in seven of his other films - Just Depp - "Muse"? remove "other"
  • [citation needed] tag
  • During pre-production on Beetlejuice felt her to be perfect - word missing
  • remove link to dollars
  • newest, hottest and youngest director - POV and opinion
  • spent 12 weeks - Sixty different houses - keep consistent numbers or words
  • Sixty different houses had to be repainted for - they didn't "have to be" painted, Burton chose to paint them - Sixty different houses were repainted for
  • Do you think the expansion tag should still be there?
  • to compose the score - link score
  • "toss it out." - quote inside - as with "even harder than Batman."
  • Should Main Titles/The Suburban Theme/scores be in italics quotes or be normal?
  • remove link to America
  • Grammy Award Nomination - lowercase n
  • BAFTA win for Best Production Design, BAFTA award for best..
  • Italics for Entertainment Weekly in references
  • Authors last name comes first for references so Roger Ebert -> Ebert, Roger

Actually it's more professional using their last names first as does every other encyclopedic literature does the same. Wildroot (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • wasn't, wouldn't, couldn't, can't, wasn't, wouldn't, wasn't, wasn't should be spelt out - was not, would not, was not etc

That be all - feel free to comment if you disagree. M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Kim, refusing to believe this, hastens to enter the mansion. She reunites with Edward, and Jim follows to mansion. There, she reunites with Edward. Jim follows them and attempts to kill his rival." I don't think there's actually four sentences of information in here... but I'm not clear on the editing process, and hesitant to just jump in and clean it up. 169.229.121.229 (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)DF[reply]

Not to mention that it says "reunites with Edward" twice - she reunited with him twice? 163.192.21.43 (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the duplication, but as you said there are too many sentences and they aren't well linked. (210.49.178.166 (talk) 07:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I made some changes....[edit]

I noticed that the 'plot' section of this article was extremely messy. The sequence was completely out of order and it jumped around a lot. I know the film quite well and this retelling of the plot was misleading and confusing. I changed the order of a few of the sentences so that it now makes sense, but unfortunately these have now been put back to the way they were previously. I would much appreciate it if this was rectified as I believe it i now too messy and confusing, and not at all an accurate portrayal of the film. (Little cupcake 13 (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

WP:MOSFILMS specifies we don't have to describe the film's plot in the same order. I think the plot section is fine considering the first two paragraphs each focus on how Edward is treated by the family and the wider community before describing the story's events. Alientraveller (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the retelling of the plot does not need to be in the same order as the film, however it is very confusing to read, especially if someone has never seen the film. By retelling in a more correct order would make the article more readable and more understandable. I understand the idea of retelling the plot by seperating it into focussing on how Edward is treated by other characters and then telling the events of the film. However by writing it this way it seems to repeat a lot of points and seems nonsensical. The way this article is written seems as though it is written by someone who has never seen the film, instead simply writing a rehash of a review they saw in a newspaper. If you want to emphasise they way Edward is treated by other characters and then focus on the actual events of the film, you should create another section for this. Maybe titled Relationships between characters, or something. (Little cupcake 13 (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

- >Edward is arrested and released when a psychological examination reveals that his isolation allowed him to live without a sense of reality and common sense. >>Why 'allowed'? 'Made' or 'forced'. It's а reason, not a consequence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.153.171.143 (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

clean up[edit]

Maybe it is just because I woke up from a short nap on my day off from camp, but it seems that the grammar throughout this article is unusual if not incorrect or somewhat incoherent. I myself might edit it at some point if I have the time, but if anyone else wants to take a shot at it, feel free. Valley2city 23:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the third paragraph of the lead section, we are told that the film injected over $6 million into the Tampa Bay local economy. Then in the second paragraph of the section "Filming", we are told the film injected over $4 million into the Tampa Bay local economy. Granted, over $6 million is 'over $4 million'; still, it would be nice if the figures jibed. Sandinog (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Bourne version[edit]

Someone should write up a section on the Matthew Bourne ballet version, it's amazing! TR Wolf (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from a link to Matthew Bourne's official website, there's no mention at all of the stage show. I haven't seen it and know very little about it, but I feel its existence warrants a paragraph, if not its own page. Does someone who's familiar with the stage show want to have a go? Dom Kaos (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy?[edit]

I'd say it's more drama/fantasy. Dunno, it's more subtly ironic than comedic, and most of the absurd or funny moments are actually rather sad seeing how scared or confused Edward gets. Also, it's a quite tragic film, not only in the ending but through the whole plot. I don't agree on the “comedy” part of the definition. 80.35.16.144 (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, comedy is too strong of a word to describe this movie and it should not be labeled as such. Orbzon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

It's a comedy-drama. The whole premise is kinda absurd and funny if you think about it. A man with scissors for hands falls in love with a suburban girl. Then again, I guess that can be taken a little dramatic. Wildroot (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It#s the question of how you categorise the character of Edward. The comparisons are zombie or monsterlike, but there is

the possibility to recognize him as a real trajic clown. So it's a poetic tale a fairy tale either, and related to the clown tradition somehow comical.--Danaide (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction in article[edit]

The lead refers to Burton talking about growing up in Burbank. In the body where it talks about the film's development, it says it was in the Santa Clarita Valley. I don't which is correct, but Burbank is in the San Fernando Valley, not the Santa Clarita Valley, so the two sentences contradict one another. 64.124.27.3 (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim or Kim?[edit]

Is it Jim or Kim who asks Edward to break into Jim's house? There's been a bit of back-and-forth about this. DonIago (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edward Scissorhands. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Edward Scissorhands. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Dark fantasy'?[edit]

Not mentioned in Allmovie, Box office mojo, or the majority of RT reviews, so doesn't seem to have due weight for WP:FILMLEAD. A google search of 'Edward scissorhands dark fantasy' also suggests a difficulty in finding reliable sources for it. I recommend removing 'dark', or replacing it with 'gothic (fiction)' since that seems to be mentioned frequently. Barely made one (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2006 vandalism and Ed Wood[edit]

The page was vandalized in 2006, a lot of content was removed, and it was never fixed. I am interested in one of the lines removed: "Tim Burton stated that he named the lead character Edward because of its similarity to the name Ed Wood." Any references to this? - Jay Talk 12:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Depp's costuming discomfort?[edit]

The article states: "Depp's wardrobe and prosthetic makeup took one hour and 45 minutes to apply." I'm surprised that it did not take more time. I am wondering, though, how much discomfort was involved with the costume and prosthetics. Whether the outfit was leather or vinyl, it must have been hot with the tight cinching, especially under the lights required; likewise, his skin under the heavy make-up. The scissor-hands prosthetics must have required practice and exercise in order to build up Depp's hand muscles so they wouldn't tire and cramp during filming. Was there any mention in the trade journals about these topics? Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edward_Scissorhands&oldid=1196498938"