Talk:Candyman (1992 film)

o_O

i am missing information about the first movie. o_O

"Plot Summary"

This is not a plot summary. It goes about 1/4 of the way into the movie and stops. This is not supposed to be a book report, finish the summary.

Trivia

One of the central themes of this movie:Uttering the name of the Candyman five times by looking in a mirror has been parodied in the Season 10 Southpark Episode "Hell on Earth 2006" wherein Biggie Smalls is summoned by various Southpark residents. I believe it would make an interesting addition to the trivia segment of this article. Please comment. 125.19.32.30 06:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Anirudh

Moved to talk

This section, added by an anon [1] on October 16, 2006 had a fact tag:

==The Legend==

It is believed that the Candyman myth featured in the film is loosely based on the real life "Bloody Mary" legend that was prevalent amongst children living in the Cabrini Green housing project. Most of the bathrooms in the Cabrini Green units had no windows, which was a source of fascination for children, who during play would often hide in, or trap other children in these pitch dark bathrooms for the purpose of scaring each other. The myth goes that if one were to repeat the phrase: "There ain't no such thing as Bloody Mary" Seven times, "Bloody Mary" would appear and gruesomely murder whoever was in the dark bathroom. One did not necessarily have to be in the bathroom to make "Bloody Mary" appear, and unlike the Candyman myth, one did not have to be looking in a mirror to make "Bloody Mary" appear in the bathroom.

I moved it to talk, removing it from the article. Travb (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I know this is old, but what the heck: The original story wasn't set in Cabrini Green, that was just done for the film, probably to relate to Americans. The Bloody Mary legend is also known in England, where Barker comes from. DreamGuy (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy of the plot paragraph

Looking through the history I noticed the plot paragaph has been changed and vandalised many times. Somehow I don't think the plot would involve a thesis on anal. I have reverted to what I think to be a good version of the page though I am unsure of the accuracy of that version. Nn123645 00:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Cast

Trevors mistress' name was never said in the final cut of this movie so shouldn't her character name have like (Trevor's mistress) next to it for people, like me, who haven't seen a directors cut or something to know what her name wasWrestlings Savior (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Neo-noir?

Complete nonsense. This film doesn't resemble a film noir, 'neo' or otherwise, in any way, shape or form. 90.214.35.184 (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

• Time
• The New York Times
• Roger Ebert
• Washington Post

to use with this article--J.D. (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Plot

Another user has edited the plot section into a stub, citing Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot and that plot summaries should be 400-700 words. However, this guideline is not remotely consistently followed based upon the plot sections of other films and fictional works. I've reverted this edit back to an expanded plot section but trimmed it so it's more concise.

Are there any other editors that have comments related to these recent edits for or against creating a plot section that clearly and concisely states the storyline versus a stub that provides minimal information about the actual details of the fictional work? Sottolacqua (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• I, the user who edited the plot, feel that the current plot description is far too long. Let's say that someone who has never watched the film is interested in it and checks out the Wiki page. You really think they are going to read the entire thing to figure out what the movie is about? And even if they do, do you think they are then going to take the time to watch the movie? I mean, why watch a movie when you already know everything that happens? I say we compromise. In the intro to this page, I propose we include a stub describing the plot in a few lines. It doesn't have to be the exact stub I created, but something similar that lets the casual observer know what the movie is about without making them read an outline of the entire story. Sound good? hsxeric (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Almost every film article on Wikipedia includes a detailed plot, from classic films to new releases. Your suggestion is not congruent with Wikipedia:Spoilers, which states that "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." Additionally, the article as it stands now is not a plot-only description of a fictional work as it contains information related to the production and reception of the film. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• • You obviously did not understand me at all. I wasn't deleting information because it spoiled the plot, I deleted information because there just way too much information. I am hence proposing a stub at the top of the page the briefly describes the film's plot in a few lines or so, that way people who just want a GENERAL IDEA about the movie can get that without having to read a novel. Make sense? hsxeric (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Your insistence that the plot section spoils details about the storyline is what conflicts with Wikipedia:Spoilers. The plot section has been pared down to include a concise description of the plot similar to what is found in thousands of other articles here describing works of fiction. If you want to include minor plot details in the intro paragraph, go ahead, but there is absolutely no reason to whittle down the current plot section so it resembles a teaser from the back of a DVD box. The purpose of this article is not to offer individuals the chance to figure out whether or not they want to see the movie based on a minor description. That's why there are sites that provide film reviews. Sottolacqua (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Dear kind and gentle sir, I feel that at this juncture, you are not completely understanding the civil argument I am attempting to put forth. May it please the Wikipedia to know that I am not insisting that the current plot section in any way is inadequate. I am merely stating that a small, short, concise, general description of the plot (placed at the very top of the article before the separate plot section) would indeed be beneficial to the article. I do not wish to dispose of or harm your currently obese plot section. I am not quite certain that you understand the direction I am trying to go with this, but I hope we can reach a consensus through a scholarly and polite debate of the highest merit. Thank you so very much for your time and may god bless you my fellow man. hsxeric (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope this isn't confusing the argument or adding fuel to the fire, but as it stands, this plot summary ignores what is probably the most interesting and significant aspect of this movie. The "Candyman" was a black man who had been lynched, and the story takes place in a housing project where impoverished blacks are made to live. Ignoring the film's commentary on racism is at best missing the point, at worst bowdlerization. So while, this summary may need to be shorter, it's at the same time incomplete. Dementia13 (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Departure from The Forbidden

I haven't read The Forbidden, the short story on which this film is based, though I intend to eventually. However, I think that if there is anyone familiar with both interested in this article that a section with a paragraph or two on the differences between the film and short story would be interesting. In particular if there is any information available on why elements were changed. I mean, I'm expecting the change in location be simply because apparently all american films need to be set in america, but any other important details that were changed would be nice to know. Might be more suited to trivia depending upon how much there is that's worth mentioning, as obviously there will be sections in the film that can be attributed to padding, for example.

Obviously nothing too verbose, but I think it'd be good to have a summary, perhaps focusing on Candyman and his legend, and how it differs from the short story. It might also be worth mentioning why Candyman killed some people even though they hadn't summoned him; is this a departure from the story? It's not clear how the summoning was really supposed to fit in giving the fact that most of the people he kills never completed the ritual.Haravikk (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No Production section

This article is missing information on the film's production, it should be added to the article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I have created a production section, though I admit that more can be expanded to it.Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Trial

Helen is in a "psychiatric hospital pending trial". Trial on what charge?Royalcourtier (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

All of the murders and assaults thus far in the film are pinned on Helen, as I recall. I would probably have to watch the film again before I made an authoritative statement as such in the plot summary. Certainly, the police suspected her in at least the latest murder. Remember: "It was always you, Helen." This can be taken two ways. The first is that the Candyman is in love with Helen, who is the reincarnation of his previous lover. The second way is that she was criminally insane and responsible for all the murders in the film. See this retrospective for details. In fact, maybe I'll eventually get around to writing about the film's themes. Anyone got any more sources for themes? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Candyman (film). 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/20090225191138/http://www.ugo.com/channels/filmTv/features/eleven/slashers/ to http://www.ugo.com/channels/filmTv/features/eleven/slashers/

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

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

"Oh-the-horror.com"

I removed the citation to the website "Oh-the-horror.com" added here since it's not clear whether the website itself or the reviewer are considered to be WP:RS for Wikipedia's purposes. I've started a discussion about this at WP:RSN#"Oh-the-horror.com" to see if a consensus can be established either way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Genre

I've noticed that the film's genre has been re-edited multiple times between "slasher" and "supernatural horror" and also simply "horror". Could it possibly be classed as all of the above? Allan1406 (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Country of Production

Several sources only state US as the production country:

• US
• Sight & Sound just stay USA.
• Cineresources also just states USA.
• AFI also just states USA.

I believe that's enough. The BFI item is mistaken. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The IP editor who changed it a persistent vandal. Just ping me whenever he shows up, and I'll block him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

oof. Gotcha. Noted. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Mikey minas song

mikey minas 41.116.229.83 (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)