Talk:Crimson Peak

99.129.228.207, Josh3580, Lady Lotus: I'm seeing some back-and-forth editing on this article, and I wanted to make sure we can discuss the edits if there is disagreement about them. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

This film has begun production in Kingston, Ontario, and is now known as "Haunted Peak" rather than "Crimson Peak". [1]. -- 67.193.194.167 (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

If you read in the production, it's only called Haunted Peak for production title only. Need sources for other filming locations. LADY LOTUS • TALK 03:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Is there a reason why we do not identify a genre in the opening sentence? Do sources not label it as anything, or is their reporting considered too premature? I saw this which calls it "a Gothic horror" film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The film is not out yet and we need third party sources to better identify a genre. As the film is not completed we can't just go by what the director says because we need third-party sources. It's just like with R.I.P.D.. People kept insisting we add action to the genre field beforehand based on trailers and articles posted before the film had premiered. After that, no one bothered attempting to add action or anything like that. I'm leaning towards just waiting until things are premiered as with this film, it's not 100$ clear. I think a user can decide for themselves what kind of film they are getting into if they read the opening paragraphs. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) I don't understand this approach. Are you saying that no film should have its genre identified upfront until it can be seen by a critic? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) I had written that the film was an upcoming gothic romance horror film but User:Andrzejbanas stated that "need third party sources on genre and we shouldn't put a genre for a film that isn't finished yet." with this edit. When I reverted it, he undid it saying "Rv. per WP:RS,& WP:SUBJECTIVE we need third-party sources not related to the production." with this edit. We talked about it briefly on my talk page and his talk page. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if it should be like that for every film, but films are marketed in ways to get more people to see them. Whether they attempt to market something as a horror film, or an action or whatever. I don't think it's fair to just assume a film belongs to a genre based on marketing as that seems to avoid the rules Lady Lotus discussed above. I can understand that this would be an unpopular opinion as wikipedians like to fill in information (I'm equally guilty!). Perhaps this discussion should have been held at WP:FILM, but I think it would just lead to a bunch of posts and people not reading things and stating how they feel about things. In other words, not very constructive. What do you think Erik? Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Andrzejbanas and Lady Lotus, I see in the article body that del Toro wants to transcend genres, so I am fine with not having an upfront genre label in the opening sentence. However, it may be worth writing later in the lead section what the film is about, especially with the Gothic aspect being pretty well-established. Also, Lady Lotus may be interested in this to incorporate. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Lady Lotus, regarding this, the link above mentions Dundurn Castle as a filming location. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Oh, fair enough, do you want to add the reference along with Dundurn Castle? LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Just to catch up, we need third-party sources on the style of the film. The creators can call it anything they want, but it's more appropraite for a third-party to comment on it. Things can change in the editing room anyhow. So currently, let's leave it blank. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Den of Geek calls it a horror film here, as does Inquisitr, NBC News, and E-Online. It's also being worked into a Halloween horror attraction, so I think that it's relatively safe to say that this falls into the horror genre. It's also labeled as such on IMDb, but that's not really a RS. The film company lists it as a supernatural mystery, so there's at least that officially. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Bloody Disgusting also describes it as a horror film, as does JoBlo.com, io9, ScreenCrush, ComicBook.com, Charlotte Observer, Queerty, Latin Post, and Dread Central. (Here's another BD source.) Many of these sources also list it as a gothic horror. Here are the sources about it being worked into a haunted attraction: Daily News, Entertainment Weekly, IGN. Basically, I think that it's fairly safe to label this a horror film, if only in the category section. The thing about categories is that being in one category does not mean that this is the only category it belongs in - a film can fall within multiple genres and be placed in multiple categories - it's not an exclusionary type of thing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Pinging @Lady Lotus:, @Andrzejbanas:, @Erik:. Right now we're one of the only sites that aren't describing it as a horror film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
• I'm going to go ahead and re-add Category:2015 horror films. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I wouldn't add it yet as these sources have not seen the film. They can promote a film in any they want, but until you see it. There is no known genre. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I'm fine with Tokyogirl79 adding the category here. The criteria for adding categories is lenient, and I think it is unreasonable to bar genre categories because the film has not been released. I am fine with waiting on updating the opening sentence, though. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Andrzejbanas, like Erik said, genres are lenient. At this point pretty much all of the media outlets are labeling it a horror movie and I don't think that it's specifically because of anything that the marketing companies are doing. I think it's more because everything surrounding the film gives off the very strong impression that it's firmly in the horror genre. The thing about horror is that this is an extremely wide genre and a film can be horror without it being something like Saw, Nightmare on Elm Street, and such. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Regardless of impressions, we've had this issue before with "oh, this looks like an action film". This issue came up with films like R.I.P.D. which were promoted as an action film. When the reviews came out, no one was calling it that anymore. "Very strong impressions" is just giving into advertisting and shouldn't be taken as what a film actually is. Per WP:BALL, I'd suggest removing it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I think that this is one situation where they'll probably still be calling it a horror film after its release, especially given that there's a horror maze attraction based on the film. At the very least I do think that this should remain in the category section. If by some chance there's zero mention of this being a horror film after its release (which seems unlikely) then this can always be removed. However until then we should go with what we have: a heavy amount of coverage that labels this film as a horror movie. Also, I need to note that RogerEbert.com has labeled R.I.P.D. an action film in their review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

All the posts made are filled with probably's, and "obiviously" that, but I don't really see an issue of having it. Especiall with it's current status of a "romantic horror" film, which doesn't really help anyone. To me, putting the genre up where there is no source is like putting up box office predictions in the infobox. Why not wait for critics to see it?Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

• My argument was more for the categories than the lead. I'd more go for gothic horror than romantic horror for the lead given the sourcing, but anyway - I also wanted to say that Rotten Tomatoes has this categorized as horror. Metacritic also has it listed as horror, along with several other genres. If by some chance everyone suddenly stops classifying this as horror after its release in a few weeks, this can always be changed or removed. However given the overwhelming amount of sourcing that describes this as a horror and the fact that two of the largest aggregators on the Internet have classified it as horror, I think it's extremely unlikely that it won't be classified as a horror film in some context. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

The "discuss" tag was removed as seen here, but it seems like it petered out more than it really concluded. Looking at sources from this past week, The Seattle Times calls it a "Gothic romance", and Entertainment Weekly says "gothic horror". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Even del Toro calls it a "gothic romance". here LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't matter what the director or creators call it. Per WP:SUBJECTIVE, WP:RS and WP:OR, we need third party sources on material that is up to interpretation. This includes genres. Statements from studios, directors, actors, etc. especially when the film is still in release are just promo material.Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

And if we really care what the director says: here he says it is not a horror film. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Andrzejbanas, Lady Lotus, Tokyogirl79: Reuters here has a detailed article describing the film's genre as a gothic romance. This seems like the best source yet since most other sources mention it as an aside. I've used this reference for the lead section's opening sentence. If we have supporting or contradictory sources this detailed, feel free to share. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I had added Category:Gothic horror films because Category:Gothic films and Category:Gothic romance films do not exist, but this and the previously-existing Category:2015 horror films were removed. Considering the flexibility of these categories, I don't think they have to be removed. There will be different perspectives, like The Silence of the Lambs has been called a horror film, but not to the point of carrying it as the primary genre. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

• @Erik: I've re-added them. The consensus here looks to be that the media is calling this horror, gothic romance, and so on, so I think it's safe to say that these apply. Andrzejbanas, you appear to be the only person who is insisting on removing these so I'd like to ask that for the time being you leave them in the article. Unless the media does an about turn face on this, I think that saying that it won't be called horror, gothic horror, or any of the variations mentioned above is sort of crystal balling in this regard. I agree with Erik - these genres are pretty flexible so leaving the article in these categories isn't going to mean that they can't fall within a multiple variety of other genres as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I still don't think they should be added because we are taking into assumptions based on WP:CRYSTAL, which states "Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. Although scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it." In other words, the use of "consensus here" can be ignored because you are avoiding a very basic rule. So if you want the director who says it's not a horror film and media who say "yeah sure, we haven't seen the film, but it's a horror film", I think we are being purely speculative on media and art that has not been shown to the public yet. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

• It's not speculation if almost every media outlet is reporting on this as a horror film or a gothic horror film (or some variation of the two). At this point it's more speculation to say that the media will suddenly stop referring to this as a horror or gothic horror. The thing is, this isn't our speculation, this is the media that is saying this - and many of these outlets have already seen the film (it screened at a major film festival) but cannot post their reviews until the film's release per the company's request. I think that at this point it's fairly safe to say that they will continue to identify this film as a horror (and the variations thereof) after they officially release their reviews. I understand that you're trying to respect the director's wishes, but the coverage identifying this as a horror film are pretty overwhelming. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

• It's also labeled a gothic romance here and here. It also looks like this is a review and the critic calls it a horror film, gothic horror, and so on. I really think that at this point it's kind of foolish to insist on us not adding category tags just because it hasn't released. Again, many of these outlets have seen the film, there's just a review embargo until the official date of release. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

The South Morning China Post article is not a review, and the other ones seem to just parroting what Del Toro has stated, and are just backing it up with his quotes. I don't understand why we can't wait for a films release before we post categories. Everything you are saying is "most of them this" and what not, but how a film is promoted is not the way to select it's genre. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

• The reviews are out and they seem to like to use the terms "horror" and "gothic romance" in many of them. The thing is, it's unlikely that a site will promote a movie as something other than what it is - it's unlikely that they'd promote this as a comedy, for instance, or as just a romance. Also, many of these sites had already seen the film, since it was discreetly screened at at least one film festival as a surprise screening. (If you look at this Variety review, you'll see that they'd actually seen this last month in Paris.) This wasn't overly publicized because there was a huge embargo on publishing reviews or spoilers before a set date. Basically, the marketing for this film was being done by people who were aware of the film's tone and entire plot, but couldn't break the embargo. Part of the reason I wanted these categories in the article was because it made it a lot easier for people to find and made it better category-wise in general. I do understand to a degree what you're saying about marketing, but sometimes things are marketed pretty much just as they are and it's not unreasonable to expect that a film that markets itself as a horror/gothic romance film is exactly what it says it is. If by some chance this had come out and it ended up being nothing but a period drama, we could always have changed the categories then. I think that trying to make a film genre category-less is more than a bit overkill, since one of the main reasons you've argued for this to remain category-less is because del Toro made a remark about wanting to transcend genres - despite him, the actors, and the film's marketing department continuing to market this in the genres currently used in the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
• Having seen the film and read several reviews, I say "gothic horror romance" or "horror/gothic romance" is the most accurate description of the genre. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Got my edit of adding horror to the opening sentence reverted because of 'genre mashup' - however it looks like much of the discussion here is in favour of it. I think it would be misinformative not to list horror as the primary (or co-primary) genre. In addition, many articles here use >1 genre in the lead sentence, here's some examples: Inception, Contagion (film), Minority Report, all of which are good article status as well. — Limabeans (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

These are good examples of genre mashing-up. WP:FILMLEAD says to identify "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". This is because of the slippery slope of editors thinking that this other genre fits, as well as this other genre, as well as this other genre. It needs to snap back to what the core identity is. The lead section is very small, so we could definitely discuss horror if we expand it to be based on the article body. Interestingly, this shows that "horror" was struck out in favor of "gothic romance". The New York Times says it "isn't really a horror film" and mentions "supernaturalism" as a red herring. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Lady Lotus, we should not base our billing order on IMDb's approach. Looking at the film's page on IMDb, it says, "Credited cast, sorted by IMDb STARmeter." This seems to mean that it is based on each celebrity's general popularity, which does not have anything to do with the film. I imagine that a small-budget film with a major celebrity doing a cameo would have that celebrity on the top of such a list. I agree with InfamousPrince that we should use the synopsis to at least list Wasikowska and Hiddleston first. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I agree that IMDb isn't the most reliable for such things but since it's the only thing to go off it's better than just assuming that Hunnam isn't top billing. You (InfamousPrince) don't know that, that's just an assumption based off the short little summary that's on there so far. Hunnam could be the main character for all we know, and to guess otherwise is WP:OR. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

The celebrity-driven STARmeter is not reliable at all since it is not related to the film. It is not appropriate to list the cast based on which actors generally get the most visits to their IMDb profiles. The synopsis is the appropriate rule of thumb here to lead off with Wasikowska and Hiddleston. Is having these two first, because of the synopsis, that disputable? We can update the list when more information comes out at some point. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

The synopsis of the film is a mess and needs cleaning up. I made a few grammar corrections, but it needs a full makeover. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I agree, I added a cleanup tag. I just saw the film and, in addition to having serious doubts about the style of the section, I'm not sure that the statements presented as facts in the plot summary actually conform to the events of the story. At the moment it is certainly not encyclopedic. Arided (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've done a major overhaul to try and get this into a more encyclopedic format. I have not seen the film, so I cannot be sure of the accuracy of the plot. It still needs some work on the style, but other editors keep adding unnecessary plot details to "embellish" it.PNW Raven (talk)

I've noticed the consistent adding of plot details too. It will probably stop once all the hype over the film dies down. You did a great job though with the plot synopsis. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

If I remember correctly the date on the check that Carter Cushing gives to Thomas Sharpe is 1901 when Edith is an adult and just before he dies. If correct, that means the beginning of the story is set in 1887. If you do an internet search for "Crimson Peak" and 1901 it brings up several links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.67.184 (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

This is a minor grammar flaw, but all the the reviews start with the reviewer's name and the word "wrote." I think a little more grammar diversity would help. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Do we need quite so many reviews? The critical reception portion seems very overcrowded to me, and a few of those reviews don't add much information. Not to mention all the missing citations for the review quotes; maybe I'll get around to including them sometime soon... --Algernon333 (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I added citations to what I thought were the more informative review quotations which didn't already have them. I find the remaining uncited quotes redundant or uninformative, but I'm loath to remove them without permission... --Algernon333 (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Since no one has added citations to those review quotes I singled out, and they don't contribute any information/insights the other quotes don't have covered, I've removed them (excepting one, which I provided a citation for). If the page maintainers think I've overstepped, they can undo the revision, of course. IMO, this way the Critical Response section looks less unwieldy and each critic's quote has something to say. Algernon333 (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Algernon333, I support the trimming and think it could go further. Right now, I have to say the section does not look good. It is repetitive and essentially takes one quote from each sentence. A better approach would be to have less reviews, paraphrase more and in multiple sentences. We can use Metacritic to balance the sample of reviews. It said 24 reviews were positive, 12 mixed, and 1 negative. So we should have a ratio of 2:1 positive to mixed reviews. The negative review could be briefly quoted at the very end. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crimson Peak. 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/20120626144753/http://www.saturnawards.org/ to http://www.saturnawards.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)Reply