Talk:The Lovely Bones (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the New Zealand cinema task force.
WikiProject Pennsylvania (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mixed reviews?[edit]

More and more Wikipedia reminds me of stock recommendations, wherein "Hold" means sell because it's a turkey but no one wants to be brave enough to say that. 32% at Rotten Tomatoes is *not* mixed reviews," it's 2/3s negative. Would you call a restaurant that got two stars out of five "mixed"? Why not say at the very least "mixed to poor" reviews? Fifty-ish percent is "mixed." 32% is disappointing to say the least--now why can't we just say that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I would generally agree with "mixed to negative", but apparently some IPs disagree with that. It would be easier just to report the numbers and let readers make of that what they will. Daniel Case (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Move to The Lovely Bones (film)[edit]

This has been done. Daniel Case 15:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Citation for use[edit]

Subtitle: "Jackson searches for a studio deal." —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 15:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that's great news. I'll add it in. María (habla conmigo) 17:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if this adds anything new... —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 06:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Four studios interested in PJ's project. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 16:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Dreamworks takes it. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 06:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Press release for the above headline. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 06:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The lovely Rachel Weisz is on board. Looks pretty certain that this film will be made. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 00:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actor change[edit]

Ryan Gosling has left the project, so the film page has been updated to show this —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter Jackson's original decision to cast Gosling is bizarre. He is far too young for the role- only 14 years older than his film "daughter", and 11 years younger than his "wife". Does anyone know why this strange decision was made?JohnC (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe he read well for the part. Age disparities between actors in film and TV relative to their roles are hardly unusual: Isabel Sanford was 22 years older than Sherman Hemsley yet they played The Jeffersons as a married couple that seemed to be roughly the same age, and on the Australian original of Kath & Kim the actresses playing mother and daughter are the same age. Daniel Case (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Release date[edit]

The release date is March 13 2009, which Alientraveller just added. This is contrary to the IMDb entry for The Lovely Bones and should show that IMDb cannot be relied upon to declare when a film could possibly come out. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 16:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Just corrected a typo before you make yourself look foolish. Alientraveller (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we don't want that! :) Thanks for adding the release date. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 16:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


As this movie is not yet released it seems interesting that there is a reception section. WesUGAdawg (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Critics are often allowed to preview a movie, and publish reviews, before its general release. Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Photo gallery[edit]

I've removed the photo gallery per extensive discussion at The photos are freely licensed and fine from a copyright perspective, but don't add any value to the article. If this was a montage of photos from the movie it would be different. Stetsonharry (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Thank you for being bold and taking care of this edit. (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler in Reception section?[edit]

I can't find the Wikipedia policy on spoilers, but this is the first film page I've seen on Wikipedia where there is an apparent massive spoiler in the Reception section (highlighted by the caption to the photo). Should this be deleted, and the reference left in the plot section where you'd expect spoilers? (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The policy is at WP:SPOILER, and basically it says things should not be deleted solely because they're spoilers. However, I deleted it because it was a little too wordy. Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


They didn't actually show or really indicate that she was raped, did they? I mean, yeah one is left to assume... but still. Gigs (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

In the book she very definitely is. But I haven't seen the movie yet. Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Not mentioned in the Movie. (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Questions, H/heaven, UK DVD release date[edit]

Qs: To a new reader (well, me), so many references to the various release dates and locations throughout the article are confusing. The box office numbers and the review-aggregator statistics need to be updated. Also, could the thicket of review quotes be trimmed up? (Ebert's review is funny, though :))

DreamWorks: The trail of DreamWorks's involvement is confusing. It's listed in the Infobox as a distributor but the Intro says it "left the project." ?

Left as a producer; not as a distributor. The two roles are not the same. Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

H/heaven: If I recall correctly, in the book "heaven" is lowercased throughout, except in Susie's description of her "wide wide Heaven." Because in general usage "Heaven" is uppercased, like "Earth," I uppercased what I thought were references to the generally-known Heaven, and kept lowercase what I thought meant Susie's "small heaven" or her "wide wide Heaven" -- but I'm more than happy to leave final decision on all that to someone else :)

Having worked more on the book article than this one (and not seen the film yet), it seems they changed this. You are correct to note the only time that Susie uppercases Heaven (or, more acurately, that Sebold has Susie do it) is in that passage at the end that makes for lovely found poetry if you space it right. This "the in-between" idea seems to be more something they came up with for the film; it sure isn't mentioned in the book. Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

UK DVD date: LoveFilm says a June 28 release to DVD and Blu-ray in the UK, but the article (in "Home release" section) says June 11. ?

Thanks! This is an excellent article btw, I like the plot summary especially. -- LaNaranja (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I wrote the first draft as a rough draft based on the book plot; knowing there would be changes (some of which made the movie less dark than the book: Susie isn't raped when she's killed, nor does her mother have the affair with the detective as a prelude to leaving her family. Per WP:FILM policy we can introduce those only if there are explanations provided in, say, the DVD commentary. Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Daniel. Producer/distributor: Should that be made clear in the Intro, then ("After DreamWorks left the project, Paramount became the film's sole distributor.[3]")? Movie details: I wont introduce them; I havent seen it either. Thank you for your quick reply :) -- LaNaranja (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm so glad that no one objected to my removal of content that wasn't present in the film. I got it from Netflix yesterday and after I watched it, I came to read what we had. When I read the part about rape, it occurred to me that it wasn't mentioned in the film, although it was probably safe to say it was implied. It also didn't implicate Ray Singh as stated. I can see, though, in a book how that might work in. I didn't think the image of Stanley Tucci at awards for another film was a great fit either. I liked this film, though it made me a little uncomfortable. Saiorse Ronan looked a lot too much like my goddaughter, who sort of died the same sort of death, however, we did know what happened to her and we had something to bury. I called my goddaughter's mom to tell her not to watch it, it was too familiar. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Harvey name coincidence?[edit]

There has been a rumor circulating in Norristown that Mr. Harvey's name is a reference to Harvey, Illinois. If you are not familiar, that town is/was home to the infamous Dixie Square Mall. A rape/murder took place on that property not too long ago. I ask so I could maybe add this to the article. Can anyone confirm this?

Even if you confirm the existence of the rumor with a reliable source, I doubt this is strong enough to include. Only if Alice Sebold says this herself. Daniel Case (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No mention of DreamWorks in the infobox[edit]

Why is DreamWorks not on the infobox at all, not even under 'Studio', even though the DreamWorks logo is on the poster and the credits start with 'DreamWorks Pictures presents'? Boushenheiser (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)