Talk:Ring (film)

Iranian vs. Japanese

There is an Iranian movie called "The Rings" (Zanghu) which may have been influential on the Ring movie and novel it was based on. This movie is mentioned in the Wikipedia database as The Rings. It was directed by Mohsen Makhmalbaf. Of course, this film is about a telephone call that causes mysterious death. A very loose connection but it may hold water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.148.189 (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Korean Vs Japanese

Re: the revert of my edit, removing the "Korean Cinema" category. Yes, there is a Korean re-make of Ringu, but it has a different title, the ring virus. I think my edit should stand, and if necessary, there should be a separate page for the remake. As it stands, this page is primarily about the original film, Ringu, which is Japanese. If we are including remakes, why shouldn't it also be in the "American cinema" category as well, since there was a US remake? I'm removing the category again, please comment here if you think it should be re-instated, with some reasoning. -- Generica 03:55, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning. — David Remahl 03:59, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

the picture

That picture really freaked me out, as I hopped onto this page expecting to find plot information. I've blocked the picture in my browser, but is it possible to find a less disturbing picture? --Euniana 05:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You find it disturbing? I really don't know. It does nothing to me, and as you can see, it's the DVD cover. Something you'd see normally on a rental place. I don't know about the others, but I have no problems with it.--Kaonashi 05:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I too think it's somewhat frightening at first. Can we simply replace that picture with a picture of the U.S. DVD cover? Or even better, a picture of the film's theatrical poster, as that seems to be the convention for most Wikipedia articles about movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.245.156 (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no problem with the DVD cover. Posters are preferred, according to the style guidelines, but one DVD cover is as good as another. Geoff B 02:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Title?

Should this not be moved to "Ring (movie)" or something? I mean, look at The Seven Samurai and Spirited Away (not "Shichinin no Samurai" and "Sen to Chihiro no Kamikakushi"). Normally, I'd be the first to advocate calling a Japanese film by it's Japanese name, but Wikipedia convention seems to be to use the English title if it is mainly known by that in English-speaking countries (which this most certainly is). Anyone agree? elvenscout742 17:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

From my experience, this film is more commonly referred to by English-speaking people as Ringu rather than Ring, to differentiate it from the American The Ring. I may be wrong, of course. Also, this film is recorded as Ringu at the Internet Movie Database. Danikolt (Talk) 11:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

In my mind, this is an error due to not understanding how katakana loanwords work, combined with lazy disambig. with the US remake. The title is not a mispelling of 'Ring' for creative effect, or an invented term, but just the way to write the English word 'ring' in Japanese script. I'll move for now, if people object wildly here we can have a vote or something. --zippedmartin 07:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it is more commonly Ringu in English, and I don't think how katanaka works is relevant to that. I object wildly. - Nat Krause 08:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean more commonly? The image on the page shows that's er... just not true. Even the misguided IMDB says that the release title in US and UK is 'Ring'. I raised the katakana to try an show that 'Ringu' is not the 'japanese title', the title of the film is リング, which is Ring and could be transcribed as Ringu. If fandom prefers Ringu, then that's worth mentioning, but I don't see that as valid reason to pick the page title. Oh and a side point, I'm slightly at a loss as to what to do with Category:Ringu cycle, obviously a move to Ring cycle would be deeply silly. --zippedmartin 08:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm, you could be right. People I know in the U.S. always say Ringu and I had gotten used to that, but it looks like Ring is also quite common. IMDB, as you say, uses Ringu, but they do, as you say, tend to go overboard on approximating foreign language titles. On the other hand, Amazon is normally pretty standard, and they use Ringu, selling a copy of the DVD which appears to spell the title that way (UK and U.S.. So, I'm not sure, but either way is probably okay. As for Ringu cycle, I figure you might as well keep it where it is. Amazon uses the term "Ring series", but cycle might be more accurate, since all the various media versions don't constitute one series—it could be especially confusing because some of the Japanese versions were television series. - Nat Krause 13:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC) - P.S.: Unless I'm mistaken, the Korean Ring is almost always known as Ring Virus in English.

I concur with zippedmartin, the term "Ringu" is just a necessary mis-spelling to be able to write it at all in Japanese. I own a copy of the "trilogy", a copy of the Ring and Spiral books in english, and a small collection of the Manga, none of them say "Ringu", because the title is, was, and was always intended to be "Ring". If it were a japanese word, maybe that would make it different, but since Suzuki himself has stated it's based on something he plucked from an English-Japanese dictionary, I think it should remain in English. Also, "Ring (movie)" is more appropriate, since technically the original "Ring" was the novel. (Darien Shields 00:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC))

Okay, before we head to far right on the page, I thought I'd try and summarise all the uses of 'Ring' and 'Ringu' we've got so far. If I've missed anything, please insert it. --zippedmartin 22:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Ringu

• Convienience. It's easier to append a 'u' than disambiguate with ring, the Ring cycle, the Lord of the Rings, The Ring (remake) and anything else people might mistake the word 'ring' for on its own.
• IMDB (Extern link #2) uses 'Ringu'.

My assumption here is that their database is still using ISO 8859-1 rather than Unicode, evidenced by the fact they don't include titles in their original language, and have circumflexes rather than macrons for long vowels. The best they can do is include a transcription, wikipedia is not restricted this way. Finally, if I were to mention the film Metropolis people might be unsure which I meant, if I said Metoroporisu people would just thing I was mad.

Also, IMDb uses the original title of all films (check the two examples above) upon the first naming in their native language. Wikipeedia uses whatever the film is primarily known as in English.elvenscout742 12:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• A Region 1 DVD [1] released March 4 2003 (after the US remake had been made) is titled 'Ringu' (The Original Movie That Inspired The Ring).

Was there an earlier release in the US? I presume there must have been, but see no evidence for it on amazon.

• The Hepburn transcription of リング is 'Ringu'.

So? Wikipedia does not call the Spirited Away "Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi". If I had my way, it would, but consensus is against it.elvenscout742 12:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's been a recent push to have things under their original names, see Talk:Fucking Åmål#Move from Fucking Åmål to Show Me Love for instance. My main issue here is that this is *not* an analogous situation to that, the original name is リング, and in many ways a Hepburn transcription of that is less correct that the (reverse) translation. Though I'd like a native japanese speaker to comment on this, I'd say that in pronuciation of リング you'd tend to tone down the trailing /u/ anyway, and is definitely not the [uː] that I read when I say 'Ringu'. So, while stuff might be being changed to 'correct original names' all over wikip atm, I feel this is a case that definately doesn't apply. If however 'Ringu' (an 'incorrect and subsequent name') is the more commonly used, then that *would* be a valid reason. --zippedmartin 13:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Ring

• リング is just how you write 'ring' in Japanese - for instance the US remake is written ザ・リング (za ringu) in Japan.
• The film was originally released in both the US and UK as 'Ring' (according to IMDB).

I can't actually find any info of US releases prior to the 2003 'Ringu' one.

• All UK versions of the series [2] [3] [4] are titled 'Ring'.

The US 'Ringu' version is available [5] on import.

• the ringworld (Extern link #1) Uses 'Ring' in title and all text.

Does say '(aka Ringu)' on the main page.

• Snowblood Apple's Ring Cycle article (Extern link #3) Uses 'Ring' in title and all text.

Refers to the film on the main page as 'Ringu (Ring in English)', and in the 'Ring / Ringu' section as 'Ring (known in Japan as Ringu)'. (The film is of course known as リング in Japan, not Ringu).

My personal thoughts? Page titles should reflect what most users of en.wikipedia use. When I watched the film a few years ago in university it was called 'Ring', but obviously since the US remake has come out 'Ringu' has become a useful way of saying you mean the original film. An interesting reversal of the normal Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) clash, which tends to be stuff being known by transcription via scanlation or fansubbing, then when a US translation is released some fanatic goes round changing all the names etc to 'official english' versions even the 'common name' is still the transcription. Anyway, spent far too long over one 'u' already, and only time will resolve this, I suspect. --zippedmartin 22:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Coming out of the TV

I edited the bit which said: In the novel, it is never known that Sadako comes out of a TV to kill those who have watched the tape, it only implies this. In the movie this is shown directly.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't find any implication of this in the book. I don't see any evidence that this was intended by the author, and it's quite possible it was introduced for the movie. Note that both in the book and the movie, there are characters who die who are nowhere near a TV - this isn't a problem in the original book which says nothing about coming out of a TV, but it is a puzzle introduced by the movie. Mdwh 23:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Umm...

"Since the main character in the novel is a man, Ryuji Takayama is just a friend not an ex-husband in the movie."

Is it just me, or does this sound kinda funny? Like Ryuji Takayama is a friend in the movie, and an ex-husband in the novel? Is that... right?--71.254.40.140 06:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

--Reword this to "Since the main character in the novel is a man, Ryuji Takayama is just a friend, and not an ex-husband as in the movie"?

Editors

Ringu is perhaps the best horror movie of the 90s, yet its wikipedia article is brief and unorganized. Hope someone will continue to expand the plot outline and other sections a bit. Igorrr 10:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll probably re-organize this article a bit later. It really needs it. MentosC 19:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I'll be editing the plot outline some time this week as well. Igorrr 22:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I split the opening paragraph, which was about 6 paragraphs long, into seperate sections. This will help keep things more organized, but the article will still need some more information. I also deleted a paragraph about the popularity of the novels, considering that this article is about the movie, and the books have their own articles. I'll work on the article more tommorow :) -MentosC 06:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The layout looks better indeed.

Added the plot outline without giving away too many spoilers. Feel free to edit/correct it as you see fit! Igorrr 10:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ring.jpeg

Image:Ring.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Explain

What is so horrifying about Ring? I wasn't horrified in the least. Someone explain in this article why this film was so successful that it spawned two sequels and English versions. Yokosuberi (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Me too, i'm not horrified with movie.It didn't gave the scares, but it gave me the chills. Well, i've just put the "reception" section in that article. To say at least, you may understand the reason behind its blockbuster success. I just inserted what i've researched about the people's "say" about the movie (check the refs if you want). And i'm trying to find some critical reviews on it so I can also know what those critics want to say. I think you didn't liked the film. Everyone has opinions and not all are the same. Some might liked it, others not. You just said yours.

Neffyring (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)neffyring

Reception

The reception section was a total mess so I cleaned it up a bit. A lot of the grammar didn't make sense. Julieisthebest (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

,oh thanks for help, i'm not that good in grammar, so sorry! Neffyring (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)neffyring