Talk:The Devil's Rejects

Plot

The plot section should REALLY contain a spoiler alert, since it gives the entire ending to the film. Not sure of the wiki protocol for giving spoiler alerts, so I'll let a more experienced user add it. Thanks.

I would like to add that the Devils rejects is NOT a sequel to House of 100 corpses. When Ken Foree signed on to do this movie He was told by Rob Zombie NOT to watch House of 1000 corpses because, The Devils Rejects is a compleatly diffrent movie. It just happens to have charecters from house of 1000 corpses— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.254.1 (talk • contribs)

Just some notes I'd like to make...

Fact: Otis is not Spaulding's son. He's not related to the Firefly family genetically. According to the official site, Otis was adopted by the Firefly family. Only Baby is Spaulding's daughter. Tiny and Rufus were Earl (the Professor from the first film)'s children.

Now onto opinions...since 'horribly sadistic' was removed, would someone kindly tell me how Wydell's actions WEREN'T horribly sadistic?

But I have changed "save the day" to "save the Firefly family" which I think is fair.

And Charlie's redemption/damnation: In the context of the film, what he did was redemption. He betrayed his family and later tried to save his niece from a horrible death. Its been referred to in a couple of interviews as redemption. In no way was Rob Zombie implying that Charlie was damning himself by trying to save his family. Case closed. CyberGhostface 20:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to note, as well, that (at least in the version i saw) Otis and Baby didn't rape the two couples in the motel room. Tortured, yes; abused, yes. Or maybe it was just supposed to be assumed.--Genesis 12:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought that the scene where Otis forces Gloria to strip and then abuses her was implied to be a rape. Although not explicitly shown, it seemed clear that he was forcing her to perform oral sex on him.-- CyberGhostface

Article

Why does this article even exist?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.94.112 (talk • contribs)

Because it's a movie directed by a notable person, starring notable people, that is being widely released. --Myles Long 21:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it exist? Is there anything that makes it not deserving of a wiki entry? CyberGhostface 20:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I know this page isn't meant for movie reviews, but this movie was absolutely horrible. The plot, the acting, the senseless and stupidly portrayed violence. I expected better from Rob Zombie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgw (talk • contribs)

If you're going to make posts at create a username for yourself or add a signature. But just because you don't like the movie doesn't mean there shouldn't be a Wikipedia article. Others happened to like the movie, and Roger Ebert gave it two thumbs up. --CyberGhostface 17:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

If we all based our film-going lives around Roger Ebert's opinion, we'd be missing out on some stellar films. The bottom line you should be stressing here to these individuals is that this is an online encyclopedia, not a movie review forum or website. It's fine for them to have opinions, but opinions aren't facts and facts are the only things that belong in any article on Wikipedia. 63.233.114.46 07:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware of that, which is why I said just because you don't like the movie doesn't mean there shouldn't be a Wikipedia article. But he expressed his opinion and I expressed mine.--CyberGhostface 20:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a review, it's an article about the movie. It explains who made it, who's in it, the plot, and some trivia. It isn't a review. Whether you think it's good or not is irrelevant.

Deaths

The list does not mention the death of the cleaning lady of the motel the family band is held at. While not directly killed by the Fireflys, she is driven insane and hit by a truck. If I remembered more details, I'd add it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.164.231.195 (talk • contribs)

Wendy Banjo is run over the truck, and she is mentioned in the 'Deaths' section. The maid was not killed; she is later seen talking with Wydell.--CyberGhostface 16:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

1000 Victims?

I changed the identifying of a 1000 victims to over 70. The beginning of the film states that over seventy were discovered. I think '1000 Corpses' was more along the lines of a 'B-Movie' title that Rob Zombie was emulating when he made the film rather than saying that the family has literally killed over a thousand people...and it could just as well be referring to all the skeletons in Dr. Satan's catacombs underneath the ground...--CyberGhostface 20:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe at the beginning of the movie it says over 75 murders and disappearances. Anyone want to confirm this and make a minor change to the article?

For the purposes of this movie it's 75, however the shear number of corpses in the catacombs in the first movie (not including the demented denizens) might not add up to 1000, but it's certainly more than 75. Then again, you really can't compare the two.

Trivia

Is it necessary to add the trivia that the character's names were derived from Groucho Marx characters? This fact is made quite clear in the movie, and isn't really a secret.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DaddyTwoFoot (talk • contribs)

Its still trivia.--CyberGhostface 16:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't fit with the other trivia, though. The other trivia is explainnig things like why Grandpa Hugo wasn't in the sequel. The Groucho characters is an actual plot point, and already explained in the movie.--DaddyTwoFoot

Offensive Review?!

I reverted a recent edit which removed comments from film critic James Berardinelli's review of the movie. The editor objected to the inclusion of the review, because it "personally insult[s] the fans." I'm inclined to entirely disagree. Berardinelli's review is a useful addition to this article because it is an example of a critic who vehemently disliked the movie. It provides balance to Roger Ebert's rather glowing review. Any scathing review (and this review is scathing) has the potential to offend die-hard fans. But such is the nature of criticsm -- one's opinion is likely to offend if it differs from the closely held beliefs of others. One man's waste of $9 is another mans Citizen Kane. Remember, Wikipedia is not censored. We should not be removing valid information just because it offends the delicate sensibilities of the readers. Sixtus LXVI 00:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The line in question was "Of course, that kind of advice would lead to e-mail death threats and other assorted nasty comments from those who spend money on The Devil's Rejects." It would have been nice if you could find a negative review that doesn't insult the fans like that.--CyberGhostface 00:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It only goes to show just how bad Berardinelli felt the movie was. He believes that a movie this bad would only attract a certain type of crowd. Though I disagree with him (hell, I LOVED the movie), I feel his review is a good balance to Ebert's. I didn't insert the quoted material in the first place, and as such, I feel I have no burden to find a replacement for it. If you object that much, I suggest you find another negative review to put in its place. Sixtus LXVI 00:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look at rotten tomatoes tomorrow for a review that's negative but isn't spewing venom.--CyberGhostface 03:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

How's this review? [1] Its pretty negative but he's for the most part pretty polite about his views.--CyberGhostface 03:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The review you found looks fine to me. However, I personally think your current revision of the article is fine as is, but if you want to switch, then be my guest. The only point I was trying to make is that it is foolish and counter-productive to remove perfectly valid information because of a supposed insult. Lots of articles on wikipedia are insulting to a great many people -- check out the talk page for the Muhammad Cartoons to see for yourself. Also, articles on homosexuality and evolution are no doubt insulting to the fundamentalist Christian, in that the articles portray lifestyles and ideas that are contrary to their beliefs. The article does not claim that his quotes are fact; it simply voices the opinion of a rather well-respected film critic. The "insulting language" is proof of just how deep his feelings of dislike and repulsion are, and it serves as a effective counterpoint to Ebert quotes. As opposed to being insulted, I take it as a point of pride that folks like you and I exist, thus proving that Berardinelli is wrong in assuming that all of the film's fans are raving, death-threat happy lunatics.

So, to wrap up, I think if you can put together quotes that are as effective as the Berardinelli quotes in portraying the so-called "opposition position," then by all means, go ahead. However, I think doing so is a waste of time. Sixtus LXVI 03:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure that this is actually intended as an insult to fans of the film. As I read it, Berardinelli says he wouldn't call it "something that must be seen to be believed", because he doesn't want outraged mail from people who read or misread that as a good reason to see the film, and subsequently don't like what they see. In other words, he doesn't want people to pay money to see a film on his word and feel cheated. -BlackTerror 05:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Of course, that kind of advice would lead to e-mail death threats and other assorted nasty comments from those who spend money on The Devil's Rejects" I mean, come on now. Not exactly a compliment.--CyberGhostface 20:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a clear case of CyberGhostFace censoring a review he disagrees with, that offends him because he enjoyed the movie. CyberGhostFace is showing a clear lack of objectivity. I have not seen the movie, so I am neither offended by the movie or the review of the movie, but find CyberGhostFace's compulsion to remove the Berardinelli review to be editorially unsound and not in keeping with Wikipedia as a fair and impartial source of information. The subject of the section was "Response", as in "Response to the Film". Berardinelli is a respected critic, and inclusion of his response is a perfectly legitimate way to illustrate the wide range of response to this movie, from positive to very negative. His review should remain in the article.64.147.67.22 21:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)64.147.67.22

If I wasn't being 'objective' then how come I added a negative review that stated '"Rejects" plays more like a junkyard of homages, strewn together and lost among inept cops, gaping plot holes and buzzard-ready dialog'? I'm not just removing negative reviews, I also added one. Wikipedia isn't a discriminate collection of information. We don't need to post any review that we feel like.--CyberGhostface 22:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If you were objective, you would have balanced the Berardinelli review with a positive instead of censoring it.You are the one deleting reviews you don't like, and were the only one to have a problem with the review. I think you meant that "Wikipedia isn't an INDISCRIMINANT collection of information", and at any rate, Berardinelli's review quote isn't an indiscriminant piece of information, it is an example of one extreme of reaction that the movie received from mainstream critics, which is very relevant information in understanding a film's impact64.147.67.22 22:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)64.147.67.22

If I wasn't being objective, I would have removed any negative review whatsoever and populated it with only positive reviews. All I did was replace it with another negative review that just happened to not accuse the fanbase of sending threatening messages. Why is it so important to have this one review? What difference does it make in what negative review it is? --CyberGhostface 22:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I would call that a transparent attempt to appear objective while censoring a review that offended your delicate sensibilities. 64.147.67.22 22:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)64.147.67.22

Thanks for the accusation. But a negative review is a negative review. And one from a paper that's been around since 1847 is arguably more notable than one from an online critic. You still haven't answered why its so important that James Berardinelli's review be on the article when there are other negative reviews out there.--CyberGhostface 22:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So we are judging a source's notablility based on its longevity, are we? In that case, I assume you believe that The National Enquirer (founded 1926) is more notable than Newsweek (founded 1933)? Yes, actually, I did answer why Berardinelli's review was relevant, you just choose not to accept it. At any rate, the burden is not on me to prove why it should be in the article in the first place, the burden is on you to prove why it should not, since you were the one who deleted it in the first place, other than your impotent reason it might offend people who liked the movie. Any movie review that rips on a movie is likely to offend people who liked the movie. Critics call horror films "perverse" and worse all the time, basically calling anyone who watched those movies, let alone liked them, perverts. There is plenty of information in Wikipedia that is bound to offend one segment of the population or another, but if they are facts, or reports of opinions that are relevant, they are kept in the articles. The important issue here is not the merits of Berardinelli's review, I don't really care about, the issue here is that you chose to censor, no, vandalize an article to remove remove something you found insulting, and are so obsessed about it that you are monitoring the article a year later, reverting any changes which would put the review back in. That lays bare your true agenda and complete lack of objectivity. With an attitude like that, you have no business contributing to Wikipedia at all - it is people like you who have opened Wikipedia up to so much criticism for fallibility as a source recently. At this point, the relative merits of Berardinelli's quote are immaterial, it should be put back in as a matter of principle, that it was wrong, again, vandalism for you to have removed it in the first place. 64.147.67.22 21:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)64.147.67.22

You shouldn't throw around words if you don't know what they mean. Vandalism is "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Removing one negative review and placing it with another negative review is hardly vandalism. And you haven't answered why that review is more relevant than any other negative review that could be in its place. And as for me being 'obsessed' by monitoring an article a year later: give me a break. Its one of 762 pages on my watchlist. For Christ's sake, I have movies that are over thirty years old on my watchlist. Am I "obsessed" with those too? To the same degree, are you obsessed in your repeated attempts to continually reinsert the review back in the first place?--CyberGhostface 22:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Cyberghostface, there is this thing that exists outside of Wikipedia, and it is called the real world. In the real world, vandalism multiple meanings separate and predating its meaning in the "wiki" world. But, you know, your definition works for you actions, too. You sound like a freaking broken record with "you still haven't answered why that review" even though I answered why I have no burden to defend Berardinelli's review but still did explain its validity, you are just have failed to comprehend, and I am tired of repeating myself. I have a question, when you your mentioned that you have a watchlist with 762 wikipedia entries on it, was that comment intended to make me think you are not obsessed and actually do have a life? Hmmmm. The only thing you are right about is that I have spent too much time thinking about Berardinelli's review this week (at least I didn't spend a year obsessing, though, that would have been pathetic), so with that I am out of here. Consider yourself the winner. I will leave you with your sanitized and completely inoffensive Devil's Rejects article, along with 761 other pages that you aren't at all pathetic to be monitoring. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.147.67.22 (talk) 16:50, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Figures

Wait, are the figs right on this, because on the "House of 1000 Corpses" article it states that the production budget was 7 million and the film earned over 16 million....Same as this movie, just wondering if someone didn't get something confused since the "House" article states that "Devils" was "better received". How is it possible that the same fans who saw "House" all went to see the sequel? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wickedxjade (talk • contribs) 08:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

I don't know, but I do recall that in terms of being 'better received' its probably referring to the critical reception. House was widely panned, and although Rejects got a number of mixed reviews, the general consensus was far more positive.--CyberGhostface 22:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)