Talk:Shutter Island

Story

The "Story" section of this article reads like a forum post, and is actually about the film rather than the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.180.49 (talk) 10:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The last line in the book is "We are, aren't we?" And the line about the monster/man is only present within the film. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Linds

Separation of Pages

This is a Shutter Island page that has both film and book in its description. The two are separate and should be divided up. --RossF18 (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no actual film in production, so per the notability guidelines for future films, information about the film adaptation in development goes to its source material's article. It's not appropriate being a stand-alone film article because the film is not guaranteed to be made. If production starts, a separate article can be created. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

well this person feels silly now don't they ;) Killemall22 (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ashecliffe

It was originally reported that Shutter Island would be renamed Ashecliffe, but considering that this has not been mentioned by The Hollywood Reporter, we should stick to the default assumption that it's Shutter Island. When production starts in March, we can go to Shutter Island and establish a film article there, redirecting Ashecliffe. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Premise

The current Premise section says it's taken from the Lehane website [1]. The page does not contain the premise as of 2/17/10. This section should be replaced with a Plot section. Rwalker (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

On reverting vandalism this section of the article was deleted, however I have not reintroduced it as I question its importance according to:

Story

The story of the movie is not an exact adaptation of the book.

The story of "Shutter Island" was masterfully crafted by Martin Scorsese. Unlike the book, the movie is comprised of multiple plausible plots that could all plausibly explain the same general story as well as the ending.

According to the first plot, Teddy Daniels (Leonardo Decaprio) is an honest US Marshall who is sent by the authorities to investigate the possibility of illegal experiments at the island hospital. He, on arrival, gradually finds out that the hospital staff are all involved in criminal activities. When the hospital doctors and senior staff find out that Teddy is trying to uncover the truth, they start giving him psychotropic medications. This leads to the development of frank psychosis and Schizophrenia in Teddy ,which in turn, justifies his stay as a "patient" in this hospital for "criminally insane". So, he becomes the "67th patient". This plot is strongly suggested by the robotic way Teddy talks about his life story, exactly as coached by the hospital doctors.

According to the second plot, the hospital staff and doctors are honest people and are making a genuine effort to help these patients (several scenes support this plot). On the other hand, Teddy Daniels (Leondardo Decaprio) is a schizophrenic who is "criminally insane" and a murderer of his wife. In order to avoid this negative memory, develops multiple personality disorder. His subconscious creates another "personality" who is the actual killer. The doctors keep trying to convince him that he himself is the actual killer and he had created another personality to avoid the guilt of his wife's murder. In the movie, he keeps getting visual messages (hallucinations) from his dead wife to catch this killer and Teddy tries his best to find and kill him.

According to the third plot, Teddy Daniels (Leonardo Decaprio) and his colleague, Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo) are on a carefully planned mission to collect evidence and uncover the wrong-doings that are doing on at the island hospital. As a part of that plan, both of the detectives play certain roles, in order to gain the confidence of the island authorities and the doctors. And they are just waiting for the right moment, before they leave and reveal the secrets of this mysterious place. This is suggested by the last conversation between Teddy and Chuck, which, at the same time, also suggests that Chuck is in fact, a hospital doctor and is still honestly trying to rehab and treat Teddy.

According to the fourth plot, Teddy Daniels (Leonardo Decaprio) is an ex-military guy and suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after World War II. His wife was actually killed by a person who put her house on fire. After arrival to the island, Teddy gradually develops more and more nightmares and flashbacks from the World War II scenes. He is particularly bothered by the fact that he could not save a jewish girl in a German Nazi camp. He keeps having flashbacks of piles of dead bodies left by the German Nazis that he couldn't save. Due to this excessive guilt, the same girl that initially appears in his war memories, starts appearing in his personal life flashbacks and becomes his daughter. He then develops this feeling that he could not save his own daughter. Various scenes from his past life show that he had no children. However, later on, his flashbacks include 3 kids. It is possible that his PTSD worsened to the point that he developed a delusion that he could not save his own daughter. He then develops multiple personality disorder and creates another "personality" who, in his opinion, was his wife's killer.

The story is twisted, has numerous shades of grey and makes you think twice at every scene. Almost every scene could have multiple plausible explanations. And overall, the whole story could have multiple, equally plausible explanations. At many points in the movie, it becomes extremely hard to differentiate between fact and hallucination/delusion. In summary, the story of this movie is an amazing piece of art and is a testament to the mastery of film making.

- Nyxaus 18:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This movie/novel is a complete ripoff of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (silent movie from 80 years ago)

It's okay for someone to redo or even republish something in the public domain but it's not okay to pass it off as their own work. Shame. Go look up this silent movie here on wikipedia and see for yourself. It's the same exact twist ending and many of the same ideas (the two guys investigating, murders, insane asylum, etc.). Someone should add a section to this entry about that but I don't know how. TS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.42.142 (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

         The two stories have a similar plot but they are not anywhere close to the same work.

Removed Items

I removed "But he questioned himself"which would be better, to live as a monster or die as a good man?" This implies that Teddy was not actually going back to his insanity, but would rather be insane. Because imaginary world is far easier than crucial reality." from the summary of the book because this exchange only happens in the movie.

1954 or 1955?

Was it set in 1954 or 1955? I thought it was set in 1955, during the double-header hurricane that hit new england in 1955 (two storms, less than a week apart). I don't have the book handy to check, unfortunately. Rmd1023 (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ending from the novel or the movie?

I reverted this edit [2] which included:

though his line "better to die a good man than to live as a beast" indicate that he is faking the regression and choosing to have the lobotomy, instead of living with his guilt.

But according to this source [3] the author states that this ambiguous line was added by the screenwriters and wasn't part of the original novel. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 21:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Shutter Island → Shutter Island (novel) — Due to the popularity of the film, this page should have a disambiguator added, with a new disambiguation page replacing it. This follows the example of similar film adaptations such as Fight Club and The Green Mile. –CWenger (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I should have done this first, but I just created the page Shutter Island (disambiguation). So I propose moving Shutter Island → Shutter Island (novel) and Shutter Island (disambiguation) → Shutter Island. –CWenger (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think a dab page is needed frankly, and the hatnote covers the link to the film, so why change something for the sake of being changed?   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Since the release of the film most people typing "Shutter Island" in the Wikipedia search box will be looking for the movie. From past experience consensus would oppose putting the film as the primary topic due to recentism and the fact that it was based on the novel. So I think this is a good alternative and is consistent with other novel–film pairs. –CWenger (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose A hatnote on each page is sufficient per wp:twodabs. ^walk victor falk ^talk 22:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:TWODABS only applies when there is a primary topic. I am contending there isn't one here. –CWenger (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• The novel is the primary topic (in the original sense of the word, not the wp:primarytopic one) ^walk victor falk ^talk 00:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• But doesn't WP:PRIMARYTOPIC govern article names? Bottom line, how is this case any different from Fight Club or The Green Mile? –CWenger (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"Govern" makes it sound so... algorythmic. We decide. In the case of FC and GM, there other things to disambiguate from apart the novel and the film. ^walk victor falk ^talk 02:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If you look at The Green Mile disambiguation page, there is not much there. Aside from the novel and the film, there is "the green mile", which is from the novel/film, then Miles Green (a village), and green mileage (miles per gallon gasoline equivalent). I don't think this comes down to how much there is on the disambiguation page as much as whether or not there is a primary topic. I contend there is not one here—if anything, it is probably the film. –CWenger (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with you if the novel and the film were independent work of arts. But since one is based on the other, it's better to let the original one be without a disambiguation (disambiguators, and especially parentheses, should be avoided per wp:precise), to convey that fact. ^walk victor falk ^talk 14:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

People use this argument a lot and it has some merit, but I don't see it in any of the guidelines. Did I miss it somewhere? If not, I think it gives undue weight to the novel (which I would guess is actually less popular). Not a big deal, but worth changing, even if it is just to save one mouse click. –CWenger (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not really written anywhere, it's more a custom that has arisen spontaneously, since original works tend to be more notable than the derivatives and get their articles written first. There's a point to be made for consistency here. I think derivative works should be the wp:primarytopic only if they are condireably more notable than the original; for instance a film based on a non- or barely notable book, that becomes widely known only because of the film. The novel's article says it was a "best seller" , so it doesn't apply. Regarding the mouse click, people wanting the film must either click from the dab page or from the hatnote (which has considerably more "educational value"), so there is no difference? ^walk victor falk ^talk 01:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The book is primary and is notable in its own merit to deserve an article. Barsoomian (talk) 08:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Different Endings In Different Versions?

From the plot summary: "The ending of the novel has Teddy receive a lobotomy in order to avoid living with the knowledge that his wife murdered their children and he is her murderer."

The German translation (Ullstein, Berlin 2004), ends with Teddy's still being delusional. He's talking to "Chuck" about escaping the island. "Chuck"/Sheehan signals to Crawley, and Crawley approaches them together with four orderlies carrying what appears to be a straitjacket. 92.35.8.248 (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)