This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Princess Bride (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Do you think we should maybe add a "Memorable Quotes" section, especially for Inigo Montoya? Rmrfstar 13:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) lll
Started the section. Please add. -- Banana04131 02:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
-- Banana04131 17:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo58 ( talk • contribs) 01:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
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:
- WCFrancis 20:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
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
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?
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)
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]]
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)
IMDb says Westley, but in this article it's Welsey... which one? Natalie 17:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
I have edited the old version which was overly long and contained unnecessary and confusing detail. Much of the text was clumsy. Such as: "Fezzik finds four white horses, and Buttercup jumps off the balcony into Fezzik’s arms to mount the horse. Upon killing Rugen, Inigo is unsure of what to do with his life. Westley offers him the title of Dread Pirate Roberts, and Inigo accepts, and they both jump to the horses. Westley, Buttercup, Inigo and Fezzik ride away." Why is it necessary to explain that Vizzini 'drank from a cup containing poison.' Just say he, 'drank poison'!
What difference does it make what color the horses are, and why describe how Buttercup jumps off the balcony and into Fezzik's arms to mount the horse? Then it has to mention that Inigo and Westley also "both jump to the horses." What's the point of mentioning "rodents of unusual size" when it has nothing to do with the overall plot? The passage with Miracle Max was poorly written and in a way that the writer just wanted to include some humorous dialogue. Movie and book summaries are meant to be a BRIEF overview of the plot and NOT a retelling of every detail, particularly the writer's favorite scenes and quoting the dialogue.
A basic rule of writing is to use as few words as possible. If something can be said in two words instead of three, then use that. Summarize an idea in one longer sentence rather than two or three (or four) repetitive choppy ones that are disconnected and only add "dead weight" to an article. Also avoid clunky prepositional phrases, clichés or familiar phrasing, and avoid negative wording (i.e. Do NOT use "not"). Write using an "active voice" and not a passive one. PNW Raven ( talk)
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)
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).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fargo_(film)#Trivia
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
How did the following section about Fargo wind up on the Princess Bride page? 3Tigers 04:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Why does "ROUS" redirect here? Dbutler1986 03:40, 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)
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)
And speaking of dubious things, what about the rumor that this movie was almost titled, My Dinner with André the Giant?
In some instances across the article, Mandy Patinkin's character is spelt "Inigo", in others, "Iñigo". Could this be settled? -- megA ( talk) 10:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
plot map is needed!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.57.206 ( talk) 03:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
ROUS shouldnt really link here. Its been used since, like, and the film didnt even coin it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.82.78 ( talk) 19:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The article sites Rob Reiner stating (during the DVD commentary) that mirroring was used in filming the sword fight. However, on the Blu-Ray version of the movie, there is no mention of this. He says they both trained with both hands and both fought with both hands. I don't have a copy of the DVD version, though, so I don't know if his commentary is different. During the credits, Reiner says that his commentary was recorded on January 24, 2001. Maybe the information was taken from elsewhere?
Viking415 ( talk) 03:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The US Blu-Ray edition comes with a standard DVD of the movie with the (presumably) the same commentary. I will check my older DVD and see if Reiner discusses a mirror-image set. I am highly skeptical of the mirror-image set claim.
Signinstranger ( talk) 02:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I attended "The Princess Bride Live Commentary" event on August 15, 2013 at AMPAS. Jason Reitman asked Rob Reiner about the mirror image set. Rob Reiner indicated that this was not true, and that there was only one set. In additional, The Academy live tweeted "#PrincessBride Fact: The left hand/right handed swordplay was real! Doubles were only used for flips." [1]
-- Kuinak2 ( talk) 17:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Is there a reason Wallace Shawn is not included in the cast list in the body of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.213.50 ( talk) 15:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Whoever changed the revision of the plot info about the torture chamber should change it back. The torture chamber is not in the castle in ether the book nor the movie. It is a secret underground chamber in a nearby forest referred to as "The pit of Despair" in which the secret entrance is via a Tree. Go watch the movie, and then change it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.41.68 ( talk) 22:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't usually edit in the area of books, films, or movies. I edit biographies of musicians, so the Mark Knopfler tie to this film (which I, of course loved) brought me here. I didn't check WP policy-- I'm seriously sleep deprived at the moment, but I have a serious question. Is it wise to outline the plot, including the ending?! I mean, why ruin the suspense for others who never saw the movie? Isn't there a way to cover the fundamentals, but not the final outcome? Otherwise, where's the fun in it? -- Leahtwosaints ( talk) 07:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of plot, the plot section in this article mentions the Rodents of Unusual Size and the Lightning Sand, but not the Flame Spurts. I can't be the only one who remembers that there are three terrors of the Fire Swamp! Lithonius ( talk) 14:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Per this edit [5], while I would argue that the organization and tone needs to be improved, most of the content being removed is actually sourced and is encyclopedic, and thus its removal is inappropriate. Some of it reads like trivia in the current form it is in (single-sentence paragraphs) but the individual facts are actually reasonable and just need better cohension. -- MASEM ( t) 00:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
The Princess Bride (film). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I preferred the less-verbose version. Pinkbeast ( talk) 12:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Vybr8: This edit has been challenged by two editors ( Masem and me). Per WP:BRD, you boldly added the material (three times), you were reverted and now (if not earlier) it is time to discuss the issue.
Yes, the youtube clip was a copyright violation. Someone with no credible claim to the rights to the video posted the clip online. Their vague fair use claim that their use is somehow "educational" does not change this. Wikipedia does not use postings of copyrighted material without a credible claim.
IMDb is not a reliable source for this information. Please review Wikipedia:Citing IMDb.
It is entirely possible that the framing story was intended to take place in a particular suburb. However, it is trivial. Independent reliable sources do not mention the possible location of the framing story, let alone discuss it. We could find sources for lots of details in the plot/production that are simply beyond the scope of this project. The straightforward approach to sorting out encyclopedic information verses unnecessary trivia is coverage in independent reliable sources. IMDb is not reliable. A "behind-the scenes" (read: promotional) interview is not independent. - SummerPhD v2.0 18:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I have again removed an external link to a blog that briefly mentions Chicago stuff in the kid's bedroom (along with substantially more material about He Man stuff that Vybr8 doesn't seem to feel is as "critically important" as the unused setting for the framing story. I stated that the blog is a blog.
On reverting my removal, Vybr8 states, "You reverted an external link based upon the standard of a source. This link was never offered as a source." You are correct that WP:SPS states blogs/SPSs cannot be used as sources and this was an external link. I probably should have pointed to WP:ELNO, which clarifies that we should "generally avoid providing external links to...(b)logs, personal web pages and most fansites."
Consider for a moment what the external links section of, say, George W. Bush, September 11 attacks or Vaccine controversies would look like if we did include blogs. I find over a million blog entries on George W. on wordpress alone. Yes, the "Branded in the 80s" blog has a 4 part entry about all of the stuff shown in the background of the framing story. If you want to write or read about such things, blogs are a great outlet. However this one blog (out of over 67,000 on wordpress that mention the film) does not have anything encyclopedic to add.
Side note: A followup null edit by Vybr8 states, "Here is a quote from the policy you cited: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." External links are *not* mainspace." Although WP:ELNO would have been a better explanation, I feel I should point out that "mainspace" is not meant to refer to the "main" part of an article. Rather, it refers to live articles, rather than "sandbox" articles; "everything in articles, lists and captions". - SummerPhD v2.0 03:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
As a point to the above, I want to stress that we do not require the information to be from an independent source to be verifyable , as long as we have that source to point to. Many many other film article use interviews with cast and crew to establish details that are not reported by otherwise independent sources, that's not a problem. And we need independent sources to show that the film itself is noted by others (which is clearly met) but not all sources need to be independent. Here, though, we're talking a bit of trivia (that the room was meant to be based in a Chicago suburb) which only appears to be have picked up from a DVD commentary and not re-iterated elsewhere to any great degree , showing there's little interest in this fact. (If anything, the implications from an interview with the child actor that suggests the bedroom scene was filmed somewhere in London near the rest of the production is a more interesting fact to include.). -- MASEM ( t) 13:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
The above section deals only with the location of the house where the grandfather reads the book to his grandson. Nowhere in the article is it mentioned that the timing of the story is Christmas. The book itself is a Christmas present that is given to the boy. And it is an heirloom. I see time&place to be an important elements that would improve the article.
It could even be imagined that without this book being in the family, the grandson and even his mother might never have come into existence in the first place.-- Vybr8 ( talk) 17:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. ( non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The film article gets about 7 times the page views of the novel, and the soundtrack barely registers. This is not a slam-dunk WP:TWODABS situation, but I believe the soundtrack is sufficiently marginal that it fits the spirit. The Princess Bride is truly one of those movies that has overtaken its source material in long-term significance. The lede mentions some accolades, of which I think its inclusion in the National Film Registry is the most significant.
I don't think we are doing readers any favors by keeping a disambiguation page at the base title. The novel is prominently linked at the top of the film article (and vice versa, for that matter). There's enough warrant for keeping the disambiguation page still, but no reason to favor it thus. I was surprised that this hadn't been discussed more often, and that the novel was at the base title until just six months ago. -- BDD ( talk) 15:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Editors might find it interesting to also edit the version of this article in the Simple English Wikipedia.
Keep it simple, start by reading How to write Simple English pages . Not many good example articles I can point too but the article for simple:Toy_Story is an example of a detailed article with simplified text.
Give it a try. Have fun. -- 109.77.194.110 ( talk) 18:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
The livestreamed table read on September 13, 2020 is now included both in the Legacy section and in the Adaptations section. I think it is better suited to Adaptations, where I am going to try to move all of this material. If you disagree, let's discuss and improve. (AV Club has a link to YouTube of the whole thing, warts and all.) HouseOfChange ( talk) 19:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Update: I just created the article Princess Bride Reunion (2020). This event was notable per QP:BASIC, with SIGCOV both beforehand and afterward (including reviews in The New Yorker and Rolling Stone). As with Reitman's tribute, there's just too much SIGCOV to fit into a paragraph or two of the article about the movie. HouseOfChange ( talk) 21:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi. There is a dispute about this diff. https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1014895486&oldid=1014888516&title=The_Princess_Bride_(film) This is the place to discuss. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 17:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The tale is about a beautiful young woman who lives on a farm in the fictional kingdom of Florin.
That's fine but, as agreed, she should be named. That said, we should honour this diff.
The edit I reverted read:
The tale is set in a fictional kingdom called Florin where the beautiful young maiden, Buttercup, lives on a farm.
First. this is a plot summary, so to change it from what it's about to where it's set seems very odd. It reads as if Florin is central to the plot, rather than the young woman. It also contains two grammatical errors. As it stands we have a defining relative clause first, meaning in order to understand what 'a fictional kingdom called Florin' is (hint-it's a fictional kingdom called Florin), we need to know that it's 'where the beautiful young maiden, Buttercup, lives'. I also don't like the second, non-defining relative clause ('where the beautiful young maiden, Buttercup, lives') as it suggests there's only one beautiful young maiden. I'd rather that were defining (i.e. where the beautiful young maiden Buttercup lives).
If I had written "The tale is "about" a fictional kingdom . . ." then your argument would hold some water. However, I wrote that it is "set" in Florin where Buttercup lives. The entire summary is then about her and Westley. No one would infer from those words in the first sentence that the summary is about the kingdom. That is a huge stretch of logic. PNW Raven ( talk) 19:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Why did you remove Buttercup's name from the first paragraph? Once again, there is nothing to identify who "she" is. There is no connection to the second paragraph that the Buttercup mentioned there is her. If Buttercup is the logical place to start, then maybe stating her name is important. I have readded it. PNW Raven ( talk) 19:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The tale is about Buttercup, a beautiful young woman living on a farm in the fictional kingdom of Florin. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 06:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect I do not think that means what you think it means and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 4#I do not think that means what you think it means until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 06:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't edit regularly and respect the way this entry is so thoughtfully edited, so I didn't make this change - but under "Plot", when introducing the three outlaws, it's mentioned that Fezzik is from Greenland. While Greenland is the place where he was found by Vizzini after he was left, unemployed, by his circus troupe, Fezzik is a Turk. He was born to Turkish parents and spent his childhood in Turkey, only joining the traveling circus as an adolescent when his parents died. Should this sentence be changed? Seeinstaz ( talk) 22:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Princess Bride (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Do you think we should maybe add a "Memorable Quotes" section, especially for Inigo Montoya? Rmrfstar 13:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) lll
Started the section. Please add. -- Banana04131 02:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
-- Banana04131 17:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo58 ( talk • contribs) 01:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
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:
- WCFrancis 20:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
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
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?
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)
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]]
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)
IMDb says Westley, but in this article it's Welsey... which one? Natalie 17:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
I have edited the old version which was overly long and contained unnecessary and confusing detail. Much of the text was clumsy. Such as: "Fezzik finds four white horses, and Buttercup jumps off the balcony into Fezzik’s arms to mount the horse. Upon killing Rugen, Inigo is unsure of what to do with his life. Westley offers him the title of Dread Pirate Roberts, and Inigo accepts, and they both jump to the horses. Westley, Buttercup, Inigo and Fezzik ride away." Why is it necessary to explain that Vizzini 'drank from a cup containing poison.' Just say he, 'drank poison'!
What difference does it make what color the horses are, and why describe how Buttercup jumps off the balcony and into Fezzik's arms to mount the horse? Then it has to mention that Inigo and Westley also "both jump to the horses." What's the point of mentioning "rodents of unusual size" when it has nothing to do with the overall plot? The passage with Miracle Max was poorly written and in a way that the writer just wanted to include some humorous dialogue. Movie and book summaries are meant to be a BRIEF overview of the plot and NOT a retelling of every detail, particularly the writer's favorite scenes and quoting the dialogue.
A basic rule of writing is to use as few words as possible. If something can be said in two words instead of three, then use that. Summarize an idea in one longer sentence rather than two or three (or four) repetitive choppy ones that are disconnected and only add "dead weight" to an article. Also avoid clunky prepositional phrases, clichés or familiar phrasing, and avoid negative wording (i.e. Do NOT use "not"). Write using an "active voice" and not a passive one. PNW Raven ( talk)
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)
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).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fargo_(film)#Trivia
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
How did the following section about Fargo wind up on the Princess Bride page? 3Tigers 04:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Why does "ROUS" redirect here? Dbutler1986 03:40, 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)
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)
And speaking of dubious things, what about the rumor that this movie was almost titled, My Dinner with André the Giant?
In some instances across the article, Mandy Patinkin's character is spelt "Inigo", in others, "Iñigo". Could this be settled? -- megA ( talk) 10:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
plot map is needed!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.57.206 ( talk) 03:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
ROUS shouldnt really link here. Its been used since, like, and the film didnt even coin it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.82.78 ( talk) 19:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The article sites Rob Reiner stating (during the DVD commentary) that mirroring was used in filming the sword fight. However, on the Blu-Ray version of the movie, there is no mention of this. He says they both trained with both hands and both fought with both hands. I don't have a copy of the DVD version, though, so I don't know if his commentary is different. During the credits, Reiner says that his commentary was recorded on January 24, 2001. Maybe the information was taken from elsewhere?
Viking415 ( talk) 03:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The US Blu-Ray edition comes with a standard DVD of the movie with the (presumably) the same commentary. I will check my older DVD and see if Reiner discusses a mirror-image set. I am highly skeptical of the mirror-image set claim.
Signinstranger ( talk) 02:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I attended "The Princess Bride Live Commentary" event on August 15, 2013 at AMPAS. Jason Reitman asked Rob Reiner about the mirror image set. Rob Reiner indicated that this was not true, and that there was only one set. In additional, The Academy live tweeted "#PrincessBride Fact: The left hand/right handed swordplay was real! Doubles were only used for flips." [1]
-- Kuinak2 ( talk) 17:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Is there a reason Wallace Shawn is not included in the cast list in the body of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.213.50 ( talk) 15:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Whoever changed the revision of the plot info about the torture chamber should change it back. The torture chamber is not in the castle in ether the book nor the movie. It is a secret underground chamber in a nearby forest referred to as "The pit of Despair" in which the secret entrance is via a Tree. Go watch the movie, and then change it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.41.68 ( talk) 22:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't usually edit in the area of books, films, or movies. I edit biographies of musicians, so the Mark Knopfler tie to this film (which I, of course loved) brought me here. I didn't check WP policy-- I'm seriously sleep deprived at the moment, but I have a serious question. Is it wise to outline the plot, including the ending?! I mean, why ruin the suspense for others who never saw the movie? Isn't there a way to cover the fundamentals, but not the final outcome? Otherwise, where's the fun in it? -- Leahtwosaints ( talk) 07:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of plot, the plot section in this article mentions the Rodents of Unusual Size and the Lightning Sand, but not the Flame Spurts. I can't be the only one who remembers that there are three terrors of the Fire Swamp! Lithonius ( talk) 14:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Per this edit [5], while I would argue that the organization and tone needs to be improved, most of the content being removed is actually sourced and is encyclopedic, and thus its removal is inappropriate. Some of it reads like trivia in the current form it is in (single-sentence paragraphs) but the individual facts are actually reasonable and just need better cohension. -- MASEM ( t) 00:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
The Princess Bride (film). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I preferred the less-verbose version. Pinkbeast ( talk) 12:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Vybr8: This edit has been challenged by two editors ( Masem and me). Per WP:BRD, you boldly added the material (three times), you were reverted and now (if not earlier) it is time to discuss the issue.
Yes, the youtube clip was a copyright violation. Someone with no credible claim to the rights to the video posted the clip online. Their vague fair use claim that their use is somehow "educational" does not change this. Wikipedia does not use postings of copyrighted material without a credible claim.
IMDb is not a reliable source for this information. Please review Wikipedia:Citing IMDb.
It is entirely possible that the framing story was intended to take place in a particular suburb. However, it is trivial. Independent reliable sources do not mention the possible location of the framing story, let alone discuss it. We could find sources for lots of details in the plot/production that are simply beyond the scope of this project. The straightforward approach to sorting out encyclopedic information verses unnecessary trivia is coverage in independent reliable sources. IMDb is not reliable. A "behind-the scenes" (read: promotional) interview is not independent. - SummerPhD v2.0 18:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I have again removed an external link to a blog that briefly mentions Chicago stuff in the kid's bedroom (along with substantially more material about He Man stuff that Vybr8 doesn't seem to feel is as "critically important" as the unused setting for the framing story. I stated that the blog is a blog.
On reverting my removal, Vybr8 states, "You reverted an external link based upon the standard of a source. This link was never offered as a source." You are correct that WP:SPS states blogs/SPSs cannot be used as sources and this was an external link. I probably should have pointed to WP:ELNO, which clarifies that we should "generally avoid providing external links to...(b)logs, personal web pages and most fansites."
Consider for a moment what the external links section of, say, George W. Bush, September 11 attacks or Vaccine controversies would look like if we did include blogs. I find over a million blog entries on George W. on wordpress alone. Yes, the "Branded in the 80s" blog has a 4 part entry about all of the stuff shown in the background of the framing story. If you want to write or read about such things, blogs are a great outlet. However this one blog (out of over 67,000 on wordpress that mention the film) does not have anything encyclopedic to add.
Side note: A followup null edit by Vybr8 states, "Here is a quote from the policy you cited: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." External links are *not* mainspace." Although WP:ELNO would have been a better explanation, I feel I should point out that "mainspace" is not meant to refer to the "main" part of an article. Rather, it refers to live articles, rather than "sandbox" articles; "everything in articles, lists and captions". - SummerPhD v2.0 03:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
As a point to the above, I want to stress that we do not require the information to be from an independent source to be verifyable , as long as we have that source to point to. Many many other film article use interviews with cast and crew to establish details that are not reported by otherwise independent sources, that's not a problem. And we need independent sources to show that the film itself is noted by others (which is clearly met) but not all sources need to be independent. Here, though, we're talking a bit of trivia (that the room was meant to be based in a Chicago suburb) which only appears to be have picked up from a DVD commentary and not re-iterated elsewhere to any great degree , showing there's little interest in this fact. (If anything, the implications from an interview with the child actor that suggests the bedroom scene was filmed somewhere in London near the rest of the production is a more interesting fact to include.). -- MASEM ( t) 13:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
The above section deals only with the location of the house where the grandfather reads the book to his grandson. Nowhere in the article is it mentioned that the timing of the story is Christmas. The book itself is a Christmas present that is given to the boy. And it is an heirloom. I see time&place to be an important elements that would improve the article.
It could even be imagined that without this book being in the family, the grandson and even his mother might never have come into existence in the first place.-- Vybr8 ( talk) 17:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. ( non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The film article gets about 7 times the page views of the novel, and the soundtrack barely registers. This is not a slam-dunk WP:TWODABS situation, but I believe the soundtrack is sufficiently marginal that it fits the spirit. The Princess Bride is truly one of those movies that has overtaken its source material in long-term significance. The lede mentions some accolades, of which I think its inclusion in the National Film Registry is the most significant.
I don't think we are doing readers any favors by keeping a disambiguation page at the base title. The novel is prominently linked at the top of the film article (and vice versa, for that matter). There's enough warrant for keeping the disambiguation page still, but no reason to favor it thus. I was surprised that this hadn't been discussed more often, and that the novel was at the base title until just six months ago. -- BDD ( talk) 15:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Editors might find it interesting to also edit the version of this article in the Simple English Wikipedia.
Keep it simple, start by reading How to write Simple English pages . Not many good example articles I can point too but the article for simple:Toy_Story is an example of a detailed article with simplified text.
Give it a try. Have fun. -- 109.77.194.110 ( talk) 18:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
The livestreamed table read on September 13, 2020 is now included both in the Legacy section and in the Adaptations section. I think it is better suited to Adaptations, where I am going to try to move all of this material. If you disagree, let's discuss and improve. (AV Club has a link to YouTube of the whole thing, warts and all.) HouseOfChange ( talk) 19:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Update: I just created the article Princess Bride Reunion (2020). This event was notable per QP:BASIC, with SIGCOV both beforehand and afterward (including reviews in The New Yorker and Rolling Stone). As with Reitman's tribute, there's just too much SIGCOV to fit into a paragraph or two of the article about the movie. HouseOfChange ( talk) 21:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi. There is a dispute about this diff. https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=1014895486&oldid=1014888516&title=The_Princess_Bride_(film) This is the place to discuss. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 17:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The tale is about a beautiful young woman who lives on a farm in the fictional kingdom of Florin.
That's fine but, as agreed, she should be named. That said, we should honour this diff.
The edit I reverted read:
The tale is set in a fictional kingdom called Florin where the beautiful young maiden, Buttercup, lives on a farm.
First. this is a plot summary, so to change it from what it's about to where it's set seems very odd. It reads as if Florin is central to the plot, rather than the young woman. It also contains two grammatical errors. As it stands we have a defining relative clause first, meaning in order to understand what 'a fictional kingdom called Florin' is (hint-it's a fictional kingdom called Florin), we need to know that it's 'where the beautiful young maiden, Buttercup, lives'. I also don't like the second, non-defining relative clause ('where the beautiful young maiden, Buttercup, lives') as it suggests there's only one beautiful young maiden. I'd rather that were defining (i.e. where the beautiful young maiden Buttercup lives).
If I had written "The tale is "about" a fictional kingdom . . ." then your argument would hold some water. However, I wrote that it is "set" in Florin where Buttercup lives. The entire summary is then about her and Westley. No one would infer from those words in the first sentence that the summary is about the kingdom. That is a huge stretch of logic. PNW Raven ( talk) 19:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Why did you remove Buttercup's name from the first paragraph? Once again, there is nothing to identify who "she" is. There is no connection to the second paragraph that the Buttercup mentioned there is her. If Buttercup is the logical place to start, then maybe stating her name is important. I have readded it. PNW Raven ( talk) 19:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
The tale is about Buttercup, a beautiful young woman living on a farm in the fictional kingdom of Florin. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 06:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect I do not think that means what you think it means and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 4#I do not think that means what you think it means until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 06:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't edit regularly and respect the way this entry is so thoughtfully edited, so I didn't make this change - but under "Plot", when introducing the three outlaws, it's mentioned that Fezzik is from Greenland. While Greenland is the place where he was found by Vizzini after he was left, unemployed, by his circus troupe, Fezzik is a Turk. He was born to Turkish parents and spent his childhood in Turkey, only joining the traveling circus as an adolescent when his parents died. Should this sentence be changed? Seeinstaz ( talk) 22:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)