Talk:The Handmaiden

	Film portal 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.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Korean cinema task force.

Korea Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Korean cinema task force.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Watch theory

There is s sceen near the end where the lead actress looks at her wrist watch. Now, the historical setting is 1932, but her wrist watch is a Seiko solar. I do not think that this is a continuity error. I believe it is the director's way of saying, essentially, "Well, this has been an odd story, but plausibly realistic. Now we are going to see a couple of escapes that are pretty hard to believe. So, see the watch, "Seiko Solar"? I am showing this to remind you that this is a film and a fantasy. Let go your critical faculty and just relax as we watch these two beautiful women escape the men who are trying to control them." signed, Gregory G. Gibbs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.207.93.80 (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Handmaiden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161220200944/http://www.chicagofilmcritics.org/component/content/article/148-cfca-nominees-2016 to http://www.chicagofilmcritics.org/component/content/article/148-cfca-nominees-2016

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

I have to disagree with the comment that the plot summary is too long. It's a very complicated plot. Many scenes are displayed a second time with a whole new overlay of meaning. Lynxx2 (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fingersmith film adaptation

The See Also section should include links to the Fingersmith TV series (which, like The Handmaiden, has chapters). Those who come to this article are informed that The Handmaiden is based on The Fingersmith novel, but they are not informed about the film adaptation, and -- this is the important part -- they're here about the film adaptation. It's interesting to compare the two films. Just telling readers that The Handmaiden is based on a book doesn't serve our readership well. GetSomeUtah (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Fingersmith is adapted to this film and a 2005 TV miniseries. So, know that 2005 adaptation is a miniseries, not a film. Secondly, the viewers for the 2016 film are there for that film –and probably the book–, not the TV miniseries. It serves the readership well, because there are noteworthy changes between film and miniseries. The film is an adaptation of the book, not a remake/reboot/re-imagining of the TV series. Sebastian James (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was pointing out that many Wikipedia readers have come to this article to learn about the video adaptation, so it serves the encyclopedic purpose to alert readers to another video adaptation. But you heard me the first time and reverted rather than collaborate to establish consensus. I don't deal with edit-warriors and article owners, so I will yield and move on. Cheers. GetSomeUtah (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, it's closely related enough to have a See Also, which really doesn't detract at all by being included. And previous adaptations are generally of artistic importance to later works. I know as a reader I would have appreciated seeing something about the earlier adaption.Woshiwaiguoren (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2010's categories

Uhm, is it correct for this page to be added to 2010 categories? Maybe it's an error given by the fact that there's a movie with the same name from that year? Ivanbranco (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]