Talk:Ginger Snaps (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Ginger Snaps (film) was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 23, 2006 WikiProject peer review Reviewed
December 16, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
December 11, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
WikiProject Film (Rated C-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-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 Canadian cinema task force.
Note icon
This article has an archived peer review.
WikiProject Horror (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Have revised the page, the use of the English language is now in correct Canadian/British English as it should be given that is is a Canadian film. It now reads better too, having improved the phrasing to correspond accordingly.

Canadian English is closer to British English than American English is. Nonetheless, there are some "American" terms which are more common in Canada than their "British" counterparts. Case in point: "Whilst." I take it you are British, because the average Canadian would never say "whilst," we say "while" like Americans.


After many revisions by non-Canadian/British editors, have revised the article once again, ( it was a rag bag of American and British/Canadian English). As it was mostly and originally in Can/Brit Eng. (about 80/20), it is now wholly back into Canadian/British English in accordance with the film's country of origin: Canada. Although, I believe the wiki convention says majority rules in such content; in whichcase, I did th right thing anyway. 10 Apr. 2007 Lost Girls Diary

Perhaps a one sentence disambig mention at the top? Or note the pun regarding the movie's title? zen master T 20:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I put a brief note about the move title in the first paragraph. Feel free to tweak. —Morven 22:53, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
Is it ok to have 2 articles on wikipedia differentiated only by capitalization? Ginger Snaps and Ginger snaps? Not a big deal but maybe we need (movie) and (cookie) in the title to disambig? zen master T 23:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the difference between a horror film and a horror-comedy[edit]

CanadianCaesar, you state that 'If you watch the director's commentary, he makes all sorts of comments like "that was funny..." "We thought this was funny..." "What is this, a horror film?"'. This is no doubt true but i suggest that this doesnt make the film a horror-comedy. For one thing, look at the way genres are categorized here on Wikipedia. There actually is no 'horror-comedy' genre here, but there is Comedy Horror and it is a sub-category of comedy: as in comedy drama, comedy science fiction etc. This implies, and the list of films supports this, that the film and its intentions are primarily comedic, while its imagery, characters etc draw on the horror film. This is clearly not the case with Ginger Snaps. A great many horror films contain moments of comedy to ease the tension or for contrast but i think its going too far to then call all of these horror-comedies. Personally, I think this gives people a very wrong impression of what the film will be like. IMDB categorizes the film as Drama, Horror, Thriller. says Horror, Coming of Age, Monster Film, Feminist Film. Aglie 22:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The category is also a subcategory of Horror films. I'm aware of no rule that states comedy-horror films, or horror-comedy films, have to be primarily one or the other, (and I don't think the word order makes a difference); I agree a "great many" films are turning out to be blends of horror-comedies, but there are still films that opt for straight horror- there is little to laugh at in The Ring or its sequel (although I know some people found those to be unintentionally funny). CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this is the sort of thing that could really use referencing, considering the subjectivity of the categorization. I've seen the movie myself and I would definitely not categorize it as a comedy. True, there are a few things in it that are funny, but the movie as a whole is IMO not intended to be. What sources are there that consider it comedy? IMDB lists it as a "Drama / Horror / Thriller", Box Office Mojo classifies it simply as "horror", Rotten Tomatoes classifies it as "horror/suspense". Bryan 23:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Aha! According to this [1] Ginger Snaps actually won a comedy award. I think this is a pretty good reference that the film is comedy-horror. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


Would it be alright to add of Katharine Isabelle to the cast section? On the image page it says that the image was removed from the actress's wikipage so I'm not sure. I think it would add to the article. --Supernumerary 06:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It was removed for having no source. It now has a source and has been re-added to the article. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ways to Improve[edit]

Does anyone have ideas on the best way to improve this article? The only things I can think of are expanding the production section, copy editing, and possibly adding more screen shots. I want to get it ready to undergo a peer review.--Supernumerary 00:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

How about a simple yes/no opinion then? Keep this picture of Katherine Isabelle in the cast section or replace it with this one? The first one only shows Isabelle, but the second shows Isabelle and Perkins. I think the latter is preferable.--Supernumerary 03:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced "drug dealer" with "marijuana dealer", as throughout the movie the only drug that Sam is shown packaging, making, or selling is marijuana, and as such calling him a "drug" dealer within this article would be slightly misleading. 20:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not vandalizing to reflect accurate information. The movie shows him dealing marijuana and no other drugs. If you are stating a quote from the movie's dialogue, it is appropriate to use the specific quote of "drug dealer". However, if you are summarizing the plot of the movie, as this article was doing, it is better to accurately reflect the plot by stating him doing what he is shown doing in said plot and not simply quote what another character claims of that character. Accuracy is vital to an encyclopedia, after all. 07:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid it is vandalism as what you see, or assume you see - as you don't actually see any drugs at all - in the film is not what he is referred to in the script, which is a Drug Dealer; in both the descriptives, and the dialogue. Therefore that's what it should say in the treatment. Lost Girls Diary 21:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Article nomination on Hold[edit]

  • There are run-on sentences and overall hurried writing and informal tone:
    • "However, Ginger rejects the first cure, a pure silver ring, and as Brigitte tries to find another solution Ginger kills a local girl."
    • "Mimi Rogers was sent a script, and she replied quickly to the black humor and comic relief in her role and received the part. Robin Cook, the Canadian casting director, suggested one of her favorites, Kris Lemche, for the drug dealer and after he auditioned Fawcett hired him."
  • All of the awards need inline cites.
    Done. I removed the comedy award since the official site did not have. However, IMDB and Wikipedia both have it listed, which is strange.--Supernumerary 16:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • In general, there are some sections that have too few cites. I start to worry about copyvio when I see whole paragraphs with only one cite at the bottom.
  • The lead should mention the controversy during shooting.
    Mentioned. Do I need to provide a cite there as well?--Supernumerary 22:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

--Ling.Nut 14:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to give a second opinion, so here are my thoughts:
  • I'm not as down on the prose as LN is, but it's not great. There are some areas that paragraphs could be expanded or combined before I would approve this.
I'd be really grateful if you could provide examples. I'm busy rewriting it and would be glad to fix anything pointed out.
No problem. The "casting," "Shooting," and "Reception" areas are the ones that need tightening, and you may want to see if you can find someone who can copyedit the plot area for you. It's somewhat rambling in nature. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The prose improved between yours and LN's reviews, but I had not gotten to the sections that were bothering you. So hopefully that means that I fixed what was wrong with them just as I fixed the earlier sections. Check and see if you would. (When I get some time I plan to rewrite the reception section to better incorporate the feminist critique and try to better represent the positive and negative reviews.)--Supernumerary 02:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There is a lot of sketchy sourcing happening that I don't know if I'm comfortable with. If you can source them away from website/fansites toward something more reliable (even if it's a trendy horror magazine or something), you'd have better luck.
The source for nearly all of the production data is the official press kit. However, the official site is now defunct (Google cache and the internet archive do not have copies), so it's coming through a copy on a fansite. As for books, a search of Amazon reveals it getting mentioned in only two, and one is only a passing reference. (The local library has neither of them, and I'm not sure if I want to spend $30+ for a few relevant pages.) All the other cites are of interviews or film reviews. So I guess what I need to know is, is the official press kit considered unreliable?
I didn't catch that. My suggestion is to stop linking the website repeatedly, and instead use a ref tag to reference the press kit. Then, in the external links, provide one link to the site with the press kit materials. Treat them like a book or magazine that isn't online, and you'll be fine. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
So yeah. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

badlydrawnjeff had further comments, see above.
Hi Supernumerary,
I'm wobbly, but afraid I'm very gently leaning "fail" at the moment..
  • I did a little quick research and found two relatively respectable sources for some decent quotes:
Wow. Thanks for this, I don't know how I missed this one.
  • Briefel, Aviva.(2005). Monster Pains: Masochism, Menstruation, and Identification in the Horror Film. Film Quarterly, Spring 2005, Vol. 58, No. 3, Pages 16-27.
As for the prose, I'll think about it and put some more comments on again soon.
Thanks for your hard work --Ling.Nut 22:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I've been trying to do some copyediting on the prose. To be frank, it all looks as though it were typed in about 30 minutes flat — particularly the synopsis. A van hits the lycanthrope, and later they know it was the drug dealer's but how do they know? The name of the Canadian casting director is avoided for several lines, then mentioned with respect to casting the drug dealer. The whole article had an informal, unencylopedic tone (I replaced "turned off" with "appalled," for example. "Sam and Brigitte hide in a closet while he finishes the solution, but he is pulled from the closet." Who is he, and how is he pulled? These are just exxamples; the entire article needs copyediting, IMO.--Ling.Nut 19:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the copyediting. The "he" in the sentence you quoted refers to the nearest male antecedent "Sam", which I think is obvious. I will clarify that he is pulled from the closet by Ginger. I've clarified how she knows that it was Sam who hit the werewolf. I agree that it is awkward to avoid the casting directors name. However, I really don't see what is so terribly bad about the prose. I'm trying to be very formal (avoiding contractions, avoiding colloquialisms, etc) but apparently it's not working. I wrote most of the article. I copyedited it once before the PR, and I copyedited again when you first commented. I think it is beyond my abilities to fix the prose if I've failed after two copyedits. It seems that I will need to solicit someone to copyedit it (or read manuals, examine FAs, etc) and track down sources before it is ready for GA. Thanks for your time.--Supernumerary 04:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Article PASS[edit]

The article has improved since this process began. I'll take your word for it that you're going to keep sharpening it. :-) --Ling.Nut 23:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I will sharpen it up more as soon as my Christmas break starts on Thursday.--Supernumerary 01:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Lenin and McCarthy, I have checked the original ga version, and frankly it is the most badly constructed, awfully written tripe imaginable. Many have contributed to massive improvements since that time.

As I said previously, regular users are perfectly happy with the article as it is, apart from the vandals, whom, sadly, I would count you amongst! According to the wikipedia rules, you are supposed to respect the views of the majority. I suggest you do so! --Lost Girls Diary 5 August 2007.

"the most badly constructed, awfully written tripe imaginable."? If you has a look you would find that in fact the article has remained much the same, except for the excessive expanding of the plot and making the TV section more verbose without adding that much information. In fact, the very fact that it was GA'd would indicate that it was in fact of good standards.
Furthermore, you have no evidence that the consensus of the Wikipedia community approves of so long a plot summary. In fact, if you look at almost any other GA or FA approved plot summary you will find that none of them are this long. If you speak to the members of WikiProject Films, I have no doubt they will agree this plot summary is too long.
Finally, it should go without saying that I do not take kindly to being called a vandal. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 15:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You have, I'm afraid, a completely skewed view of the article. I don't like to have to call people vandals, but really, how else do you expect people to react? The version which was so-called 'approved' IS badly constructed, and, furthermore isn't even written in an understandable form of English - I refer you, for instance, to the piece where it refers to Ginger's period! Tripe and uncoordinated nonsense throughout! I hold a Master's in English Literature, do you really want to dispute the irrefutable facts with me?!

The TV section is hardly 'verbose', and was worked on by several regular users with an interest in the film, and the section brings together material not found elsewhere. The bulk of the article is changed out of all recognition to that of the ga'd version. What is more, it is NOT a plot summary (that comes in a few very short lines at the beginning), but a 'treatment' which is a completely different thing. It always was a treatment, even when it was 'approved'; just a very poor one. If you want to put it forth for having it's 'approval' removed, then do so, but unless you have something positive to contribute, then please think again before playing GOD!

Really, what makes you think you have some God-given right to come along and start issuing your orders? You are NOT an admin, and you have no proof that the article is not acceptable to regular users; and if you want to change it, or have it changed, the onus is on you to prove that regular users do not like it as it is. In fact, were it not, I'm sure regular users would have cut it months ago. What's more, you have contributed NOTHING to the article. all you have done is arrive at it out of the blue to cause disruption, nothing more or less.

If you persist in this, then it is indeed vandalism, and you know it. -- User: Lost Girls Diary 6 August 2007

Playing God? Issuing orders? Causing disruption? All I am doing is adding a template calling for maintainence. I repeat, no plot section (defined as a treatment, a summary, or whatever you want) that has been approved as GA or FA is this long. It is not vandalism to call for this article to be brought to standards, nor does it require admin powers or any special mandate, and if you report it as such you will likely be disappointed. I will readd the tag. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have actually taken a look at some of the recent updates, and have to say some are unnecessarily adding to the article as a whole, and I have begun a review and edit. But, as long as you add the tag, I will remove it, or maybe someone else will do the honours in my absence. If not outright vandalism, it certainly invites vandalism from the mindless by adding the template; that much should be obvious! Why exactly have you got it in your head to play God with this - and many other articles? I note that in some cases you have actually done some good, and I applaud that; others, I'm sorry to say, you come across like a petty bureaucrat. As my English tutor drummed into me, if you have nothing to contribute, do nothing! You would do well to heed those words.

I would definitely recommend patience - it is a virtue, and who in their right mind would want the article of Dec 2006 back?!

Lost Girls Diary 6 August 2007

Lost Girls Diary

Treatment has been edited and revised. It is now only 9 lines longer than Supernumary's last version; and he was responsible for it getting it's 'approval' - which, incidentally, missed a whole raft of plot out. The approved version is only 8 lines shorter, that version also missed great chunks of plot, and the difference in length is quite obviously nothing to go adding tags about.

This is as tight as it can get and remain both readable and follow the plot structure; both of which are not only desirable, but essential. You may not like it, Lenin and McCarthy, but you have to remember that not everything can be stanardized to suit you; but please bear in mind, after all, you are just a wiki user, like me, but unlike me are not a contributor to the article in question. I have had the article looked at by a number of people here, and they have all approved of it. It is very clearly up to standard. Please do refrain from adding the tag again; not least, as I have said before, if not direct vandalism, it does encourage people to make mindless edits. If you don't think it is up to standard, then ask for it to be recategorized; but, frankly, that is unnecessary. I will be back to improve the grammar, etc. and maintain as such.

Lost Girls Diary 7 August 2007



Is there a reason why "treatment" is used instead of "plot"? All other articles use "plot" for the section's title. SIR KITTENS MCFUZZYPAWS III, ESQUIRE (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No, there doesn't seem to be. I've removed the brief summary under "Plot summary" and renamed the "Treatment" section "Plot", as guidelines suggest the section should be named. The section clearly is a summary of the plot, not a summary of the Film treatment. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Ginger Snaps (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force, all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAGA. Overall the article is very good, but I have determined that this article needs some upkeep to maintain its status, and have some additional comments:

  • The plot summarily is rightly marked as overly long. There are so many details it's rather convoluted.
  • Some unsourced statements/original research:
    • "Interestingly, both actresses were born in the same hospital, attended the same pre-school, elementary and private schools, and are at the same agency. Perkins was twenty-two at the time and Isabelle four years younger, but it was Perkins who would be cast as the younger sister."
    • " However, they did credit it as a worthy attempt and often gave it half marks on their star scales."
    • "Owing to a cult following, it has managed to post significant video and DVD sales. These earnings combined with moderate theatrical success abroad have translated into the creation of a trilogy."
    • "As of 2008, no further information has developed, and it remains to be seen if a TV series will materalize."
  • There are lots of one or two sentence groupings that are not paragraphs by themselves (by definition they need three or more.) These need to be merged, fleshed out or cut.
  • File:Katharine Isabelle1.jpg- I don't see much of a rationale for the use of the non-free image, as there isn't much that requires her portrait in the film or couldn't be adequately replaced with a free image of the actress.

I am putting the article on hold for one week pending resolution of these concerns. Please keep me appraised on this page of progress. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As there has been no progress on any of the above issues, I am delisting. The article can be renominated at any time, but I encourage editors to fix the listed issues. Further comments or questions should be directed to my talk page. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.