Talk:Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007 film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title

Shouldn't this be called Sweeney Todd (film)? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 04:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  • There are actually several films called "Sweeney Todd" (based on the original story and character that the musical was based on). Sweeney Todd (2007 film) would be a more accurate title. (Ibaranoff24 20:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC))

is this going to be a musical? no, right? LollyLo 03:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Burton has confirmed that the movie will be using Sondheim's music, and that the actors will be singing. maestro 15:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Cast

Please stop posting information up here that hasn't been verified. If Timothy Spall really is playing Beadle Bamford, please add the backup to show it. Thank you. --AntiCruise 03:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Seroiusly. Stop it. Anthony won't be Beadle Bamford. He's a baritone, and Bamford is one of the highest tenor roles for Broadway (borderline sopranist). --AntiCruise 12:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Anthony has a decent singing role that shouldn't be minimized the way it is here.. change this. --Tibald159 —Preceding comment was added at 06:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, his name is Antony, not Anthony, if you watch the movie, they always say Antony, I listened very carefully all three times I saw it, it's definately Antony, I don't know who changed it back but they're wrong.

It is pronounced Antony but spelled Anthony. AJD (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Validity of article

Did somebody jump the gun in creating this article? On January 19, 2007, it was announced Johnny Depp's next film project is Shantaram, based on the book of the same name about the escapades of former convict Gregory David Roberts, co-produced by Depp and Brad Pitt for Warner Brothers. The screenplay by Eric Roth will be directed by Mira Nair.

Isn't it premature to create a Wikipedia article about a film project until it actually starts shooting, thus practically guaranteeing its release? If an article about the film version of Evita had been written every time it allegedly was beginning production, Wikipedia would have a dozen or more entries about projects that ultimately were aborted. I feel there should be some restraint in creating articles about proposed films, no matter what info might appear in IMDb, which I have found to be riddled with incorrect data. SFTVLGUY2 15:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This article was created some time after the long-rumoured film was announced in the trades. Personally i find that reasonable but i'm not sure of what the wikipedia guidelines on this are, or what other people who are watching this page might think. Shantaram (also been in the pipeline for ages) has specifically been anounced to begin filming in the autumn, wheras Todd has been touted to start filming in February (with rumours of some work beginning ever earlier). That should give Depp plenty of time to promote Pirates 3 before beginning on Shantaram.
As regards the IMDb - it is frequnetly wrong. I suppose we just have to live with that. Personally, whenever i come across an inaccuracy on there, i try to fix it, much as i would on here (although admittedly it's not as easy). That said, Variety and so on, are professional publications and do take the time to check there info, so are more reliable sources to use for the information on this film. Amo 16:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ed Sanders

Should we remove his hotlink? It links to a 60+ year old beat poet who I doubt is playing Tobias.--69.251.205.192 03:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

I have a suggestion:

There was a photo in a recent issue of People magazine showing Johnny Depp in full Todd costume. I don't know how to get photos from off-site onto it, so I was just seeing if anyone would know how, and would do it. Put it in the article, I mean.

One Fried Egg 23:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Are the photos copyrighted? If so, is it "fair use" for them to be placed in Wikipedia? —XSG 14:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate Title

i'd like to request that the title be moved to "Sweeney Todd (2008 Film)" Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.221.10 (talk)

If the film does indeed open in limited release in December 2007 as stated in the intro, then the current article title seems justified to me. --Kyoko 13:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The film only opens in 2008 in the UK and other places around the wold. Since it's an American film, (despite all the English actors) and was released in America last year, it shouldn't be moved. That's just my opinion. Mizu onna sango15 (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Title

The official title is Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, this is on the poster as well as IMDb and on its official site [1].

Release Date

The film is now scheduled for a nation wide release in December the 21st. It was annouced on August 28 , 2007. User:Movieguru2006 3:14 , 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And what nation would that be? Sorry for my cynicism, but there're more people who edit internationally than just in the USA. The Australian release date appears to be December 26th, a coveted release date. lincalinca 23:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you plan on editing the article to be less US-centric? i had a similar thought to you when i first saw the article in its current form and would be happy edit it, if you'd prefer. I think it's probably best to use the US release date in the opener, as it is the earliest release, and because the film is made by american companies. also, prioritising the "coveted" australian release is arguably as blinkered as the article stands, seeing as the significance of that date is Christian-centric. Amo 00:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is boxing day Christian centric? It's commercially oriented, based on people boxing up the goods they wanted to trade after Christmas and trading them in for things they actually wanted. Anyway, I wasn't saying that as a point to make (otherwise, I'd push for LotR and Narnia to note it as a point in their articles, but it's a locally known fact), I was stating that it was the Australian release date as a point of identification, to indicate that there are places outside America (a fact that seems to be ignored a lot on Wikipedia pages). The article's pov is a bit skewif: to and fro, it goes from being well written to poorly written. A lot of important information about te background has been cut out of the article about how the project had passed hands a number of times before being returned to Burton, and yet, then it dwells on other unnecessary points, such as a slight delay in some filming. I'm not really prepared to fix it, because frankly, the article's bound to be vandalised, and poorly edited with every nuance released about the film in the next couple of months. I think I'll wait till about February after the film's out and the dust settles to actually do anything about it. lincalinca 03:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Film is released in the UK already, article shows 25th of Jan 2008. Updated accordingly.--Koncorde (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sweeneylarge.jpg

Image:Sweeneylarge.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been addressed. InsaneNewman 20:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Cite for use

Myspace link

Does the myspace link really add anything to this article? It is a link to a fan created page, not anything official. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.225.72 (talk) 02:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It is official. Alientraveller 09:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually it says it is an unofficial fan site on the page. Quest4pi 23:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Laura Michelle Kelly

All of the information I've seen points to ger being billed as the beggar woman rather than Todd's wife. As this is what the caracter is called in the original stage musical as well, I'm changing the page accordingly.Quest4pi 23:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

She is playing Todd's wife though. Mind explaining? Cite? Alientraveller 11:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

{{Spoiler}}

(spoiler) There is a twist where the Beggar Woman is actually Todd's wife. As the Beggar Woman is a much more prominent character (Todd's wife only appears in a flashback) this is how the character is billed so as not to ruin the surprise. The IMDB page reflects this as well. Quest4pi 18:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
also found an article here: http://baltimore.broadwayworld.com/viewcolumn.cfm?colid=22127 listing Kelly as the Beggar Woman. Quest4pi 18:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Right, I wasn't aware of the story myself or that his wife becomes a beggar. Still, either way it doesn't matter that his wife turns out to be a beggar or that a beggar turns out to be his wife. Alientraveller 18:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
since there has been a precedent set with the way the character has been billed in the past (all stage productions,) I think it should continue.Quest4pi 23:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dv.jpg

Image:Dv.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Rating

Is this movie rated R? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.130.123 (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S., yes it's rated R. TakaraLioness (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Please remember this is not a forum for general discussion. Alientraveller (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Headlines

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Alientraveller

Alientraveller keeps removing reviews I've added without justifying his reason for doing so. Also, I created a separate section for awards and nominations, as I don't think these should be lumped together with critical reviews. This is the format I've seen used in many film articles. When the Oscar nominations are announced, they can be added to this list, and once the winners are announced, the section can be edited to show the winners, if any. Could we have some discussion about this before Alientraveller undoes all my hard work yet again? Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and the diff which shows you're not making any sense. Alientraveller (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
MovieMadness, Alientraveller told you on your talk page that he had re-sorted the content. When you make contributions to Wikipedia, per WP:5P, "Any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community." I would try to assume good faith about the way that Alientraveller has structured the content and not call it "vandalism". Alien, you may want to clarify why you made the changes that you did, but I can cover one point -- it's better to write prose than lists whenever possible. This was done for Awards and nominations, and I think this is appropriate. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"Alientraveller's edits are bordering on vandalism - please use the discussion page to voice your concerns before making more changes". Honestly, who says you can make edits and I can't? Who's the real vandal huh? Fine, if you want to make this article poor, by my guest. Alientraveller (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I never said you can't make edits. I have asked you politely to please explain why you keeping removing the additions I've made and you've never responded. All you do is undo my edits. So how am I the wrong one here? And how are my contributions making the article "poor"?
A far as the way I added the awards and nominations section, I just followed a format I noticed in other film and theater articles which I thought was the acceptable way of doing it. I apologize if I was mistaken.
May I please point out that Alientraveller didn't just "re-sort" content, he removed reviews I added earlier without any justification for doing so. Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Now that I've calmed down, hopefully you find my last edit summary quite explanatory. Alientraveller (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't find your removal of reviews the least bit logical. Please stop doing it. MovieMadness (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I have not deleted any reviews. Do not lie. [2] Alientraveller (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The history clearly shows you repeatedly have removed the reviews from the St. Petersburg Times I added earlier today and truncated others I added previously. I would appreciate your showing me where in Wikipedia there is a rule governing the number of reviews that can be included and specifying the length they must be. Unless this is a rigid format that must be observed, please stop deleting my work. FYI, I'll be adding more review excerpts once the film opens tomorrow. Surely the opinions of the critics for the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the like warrant inclusion here. Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly! There'll be many more reviews to choose from and some reviews will be deleted. As for policy, just use common sense as to how long an article can be. Shortening reviews is absolutely fine. Alientraveller (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
"Common sense" dictates the more critical commentary included, the more informative the article is. Once again, unless you can direct me to a specific policy governing the number of reviews that can be included and the length they must be, please stop deleting my work. No one has anointed you the one to decide what belongs in this article. Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Why do they have to be so long then? Alientraveller (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello? Oh for God's sake, this is just proof MovieMadness is just angry other people can actually edit his own work. He just wants his cut-and-pasted reviews to be there and be proud of it. Hello? WP:OWN anyone? Of course, I can edit this article freely and if I so damn wish, I can make each reviews even shorter! Alientraveller (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Please remain civil. I think MovieMadness has a point. Is there a guideline that limits the number of reviews an article can contain? As long as they are backed by citations, I don't see a big problem with it. I do however think the positive and negative reviews should reflect the ratio seen at Rotten Tomatoes. --Pixelface (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
What kind of an attitude is that??!! Based on what you've said, it appears you are the one with problems with WP:OWN, not I. Why are you entitled to edit freely but no one else can enjoy the same privilege??? MovieMadness (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
An attitude of someone who's been bullied all day. But I forgive you. Alientraveller (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think both of you are capable of resolving this issue, but there needs to be a cooling-off period. My suggestion is to stop editing (despite whatever revision it's in) and seek dialogue over a period of time. Delay your response for some time -- going back and forth too quickly will escalate the situation. Think about what the other editor says and think about what you say in response. Try to explain your stances on your edits without being demeaning to the other's edits -- none of this content is a blight on Wikipedia compared to some articles out there, so just try to compromise a setup that's agreeable to both sides. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned that the wholesale quoting from the various critics represents some kind of copyright violation; usually, some attempt at paraphrasing is made, or at least quotes are limited to the salient points, as in Alientraveller's shorter version. Is this something we should be wary of? Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 21:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it's a breach of protocol to cite a quote at a certain length. Consensus is probably needed to shape these reviews to show their specific criticisms -- like you said, Liquidfinale, the salient points. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Critical reception

As of the time of this post, this film has a score of 87% on Rotten Tomatoes and 86 out of 100 on Metacritic. I think the current Critical reception section is too positive. 7 positive reviews and 1 negative review is 87.5% and I think that ratio would be ideal for this section. --Pixelface (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I added Cole Haddon's negative review. -Kez (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
To be honest I think the critics section is laughable (no offense). There are no real criticisms of the movie. I'm not used to editing in wikipedia so I'll just post this link here to a review by David Walsh on wsws.org and hope somebody sees fit to add it to the article in a fitting manner - http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/dec2007/swee-d31.shtml - Best regards, Jakob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.224.151 (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Slight plot error -- not "imprisoned" but "transported"

The plot summary says Barker was "sentenced to life in prison" -- according to the lyrics, he was actually "transported for life," shipped to a penal colony, e.g. Van Diemen's Land, with a life-long prohibition on returning to England. Somewhat significant to the plot, that's why he was picked up at sea having traveled the world, and why he had been completely cut-off from hearing anything about his family during his absence. A simple prisoner would have been able to get news from home. Jmputnam (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Marcus Theatres

I don't know where this would fit, but I would like to add something about the issues between Marcus Theatres and Paramount to this article. To be more specific, they were not able to reach an agreement with Paramount Pictures on the film cost of Sweeney Todd and therefore, the movie will not be shown at any of its locations. Where should I do this? HeavenlyEire (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps in the Release section? These cites should provide you with enough information to go on with. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 08:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you:) I went ahead and added it under the release section. My citation was the official press release, which came directly from the Marcus Theatres web page. Press Release HeavenlyEire (talk) 08:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Laura Michelle Kelly on Broadway

I haven't found any evidence that she actually played the role of the beggar woman on Broadway or in any other form or revival of Sweeney Todd, I searched The Stephen Sondheim Reference Guide, and her website and found nothing showing she had played the role. However, she is the only one in the cast with broadway experience.

She has never played that role. What makes you think that she has? Slusho42 (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Credits errors

First, the credits say that somebody names "Christopher Wood" is responsible for the story. All the other sources I've seen say "Christopher Bond"

Second, it says somebody named John Logan was one of the writers. All Logan did, as far as I can tell, was cut some dialog and insert one new conversation in which Mrs. Lovett urges Todd to forget his wife. Basicly the script is Hugh Wheeler's Broadway book.

One other matter: there's no "differences from the source" section, but the article should mention that Tobias was changed from high tenor (adult) role to a boy soprano. This may have been to make him sound more natural, or to increase the horror (by adding the attempted murder of a child to the crimes) CharlesTheBold (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Bond wrote a retelling of the story, which was used to write the play and the musical. John Logan wrote the screenplay for the film, and yes, he used a lot of the original dialogue from the musical. As for having a note about Toby being played by a kid and not an adult, is it really that significant for this article? TakaraLioness (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
It's musically significant to have a part changed from a Tenor to a Soprano, yes. --Sketchee (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

bourgeois

This is my first attempt at a contribution, I apologize if I have done it incorrectly…..

Reading this entry, I came across this sentence… “Not distracted by Mrs. Lovett's bourgeois ambitions or attempts at seduction”… I found the word bourgeois to seem a bit POV. The Wikipedia entry for bourgeois states “In common usage the term has pejorative connotations suggesting either undeserved wealth, or lifestyles, tastes, and opinions that lack the sophistication of the rich or the authenticity of the intellectual or the poor.”

I just thought this might have been a bit better phrased with words that don’t carry with them what was essencially the language of class warfair. Thank you for consideration of this.

It's unfortunate, but someone seems to have taken your advice. Class warfare is very much a part of the plotting of Sweeney Todd: "How gratifying for once to know / that those above will serve those down below...." - Nunh-huh 01:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Should we include differences between the film and musical?

Should we list some differences between the Original Broadway Play and film? I think this would be a good idea, but I'd like to hear more input. What do you think? Mizu onna sango15 (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm wary of the word "list." If there must be an section about the differences, I think it would be so much better to start it in paragraph form, rather than a bulleted list. Joyous! | Talk 03:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I would discourage uncited addition of such differences because they can get very indiscriminate. I've seen such comparisons get as indiscriminate as hair color and background role type. I highly suggest that if comparisons are to be made, they should have real-world context -- basically, explaining why the change was made. By using verifiable content from reliable sources independently noting the differences between the two primary sources, the information will likely be discriminate. If someone compares hair colors on his or her own, the importance of such a detail can be argued back and forth with no objectivity. By using reliable sources, the scope is narrowed appropriately to what differences would be most relevant to the film article. I'd suggest taking a look at Fight Club (film)#Writing and Road to Perdition#Writing for a couple of examples. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course, a change of hair color for Johanna necessitates a whole new set of lyrics. - Nunh-huh 01:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Nunh-huh. Certain minor details do change the music - which is one of the main points of the film. (e.g. in the song 'Johanna,' Antony sings "Buried sweetly in your yellow hair," Todd sings, "And are you beautiful and pale, with yellow hair, like her," etc.) Just my two pence. Minorities can actually be important in specific cases.
So, as long as it's properly cited and the differences aren't indiscriminate, it's fine? How would I title the heading? "Variations"? "Differences between Stephen Sondheim's musical"? (Mizu onna sango15) 水女珊瑚15 19:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
"Variations Between the Film and the Broadway Musical" should do it, I wouldn't wonder. BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess 05:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. I think I shall do that, after all... Much appreciation. —Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 15:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I could really use some help with finding some sources for this, plus, I also need some suggestions of variations to put in the article. Can anyone think of some good changes made, besides the ones previously mentioned? I'm can think of a couple good ones, but don't know if it'd be enough. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 16:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up grammar

Anyone want to tackle cleaning up this sentence?

"Todd begins to accept that he will never see Johanna, as Anthony continues to search relentlessly for her, and the meat pie shop prospers fantastically, the customers and Toby clueless as to the nature of Mrs. Lovett's supply- customers attracted by the pies stop upstairs for a shave, and meet their demise."

Kwyjibear (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

plot

I was very disappointed in this page for containing a too long plot...

a plot must be brief, and should take consideration for those who wish to see the film.

it was not smart to contain every detail and yet have no warning that the page contained spoilers...

the page should just have info of the film, then have the historical content, along with different versions of the story, rather than explaining the film! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.107.147 (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER explains it extremely well; Spoilers on the Internet are sometimes preceded by a spoiler warning. In Wikipedia, however, it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail. Now you know, next time you want to see a movie, don't come to Wikipedia, you might get everything you wanted and more. Cheers. --Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 14:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, so 124.190.107.147 expected spoilers because WP:SPOILER says so. --Pixelface (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about you, but if I were to read the Plot section, I would expect a description of the plot. Personally, I wouldn't be against making less ambiguous by renaming the section Plot summary, but I can't speak for what others who have argued against you on this matter would think of that. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 09:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Well 124.190.107.147 obviously wasn't expecting the level of detail you do. --Pixelface (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you think renaming the section as I suggest might help? Conceivably, someone seeing "Plot" alone may be expecting some kind of analysis instead of a straight description; the alternate wording would certainly disambiguate matters. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 09:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Well you could always ask the newcomer instead of biting them. Regards. --Pixelface (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I think your definition of biting is somewhat more loose than mine. The italicised "have" is probably the only thing which could be read by someone as a smidgeon brusque, though that wasn't the intention. But back to the point at hand: I was asking you if you thought a different section heading might help. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 12:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I suppose it might help, something like Plot with spoilers — although that will never happen. I figure asking the user directly would be better than speculating about what to do. I'm sure the user would have appreciated {{spoiler}} but it's gone, so we're left with headings. I asked the user about it. --Pixelface (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
There's no need to be sarcastic, i only pointed out Wikipedia's position on spoilers. You should keep on discussing WP:SPOILER on it's talk page instead of trying to provoque other users into an argument.
About the "plot" or "plot summary" thing, it should be just "plot". The other one would indicate that what we have is a summary, and not the whole thing.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 13:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
You pointed out Wikipedia's new and disputed position on spoilers. The experience of 124.190.107.147 directly contradicts what WP:SPOILER says — that's what I was pointing out. The line about expectations in WP:SPOILER is unfounded. I've seen no evidence that the average websurfer expects to read spoilers in encyclopedias. If the content disclaimer wasn't buried, this might not be an issue. --Pixelface (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It can be new and disputed, but it's still a style guideline on Wikipedia and a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow. I pointed out the policy to 124 because he was new and unexperienced to wikipedia, he probably didn't understood why his edits were being reverted. It's ridiculous to assume people are somehow tricked into reading a spoiler. When reading plot and seeing more than two sentence people realizes that there is more written than just the main points, they are choosing to read the whole thing. It's not like it says Plot: IT WAS THE BUTLER WITH THE CANDLESTICK IN THE KITCHEN JA! PWNED!. 124 read 10 paragraphs without realizing that he was reading the whole storyline? PLease....--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 23:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:SPOILER is pretty much an essay written by Kusma. Saying readers should expect something because WP:SPOILER says they should is ridiculous. It's not a policy and biting newcomers like 124.190.107.147 is bad. Why are you blaming 124.190.107.147 for not knowing what he/she hadn't read yet? Can you cite another encyclopedia that reveals the entire storyline of this film? --Pixelface (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether it has spoilers or not, this plot summary is awful. Shouldn't articles on an encyclopedia be neutral and indifferent? The author of said summary dares to guess exactly what emotion the characters feel as they perform each action, and inserts his or her own opinion into the article. It's the difference between saying "Todd kills her." and "Todd kills her, and looks at her with eyes that shine with regret and rage." Come on!

And under cast, there's "Jamie Campbell Bower as Anthony Hope, a sailor who falls for Johanna. Although his role is minute and he does not get much of a singing part, Anthony's character is of the utmost importance to advancing the plot." More of that unecessary opinion. He actually sings a lot. Since I can't edit can someone please save this article from falling further into the depths of crap? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.171.32 (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Besides the point on how concise the plot section should be, it also should--in my opinion--be cleaned up, paragraph wise. In its current state, the plot is simply unreadable. It's just a mountain of text --Xiph1980 (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Visual effects

Comparison with the musical

I believe the section was unsourced and original research. Adaptations are always going to make changes, and the Music section already discusses the significant dropping of the ghosts' song. Otherwise, if there was really major encyclopedic sources on how the film is different from the play, I don't think this section is warranted. It's not like Beowulf, the article of which shows the writers' opinions and scholarly reactions to their fiddling with the poem. Alientraveller (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In your edit summary you also said that this section may lead to indiscriminate listings. This is not true because there are not that many differences. Beowulf is a thousand year old poem known by every scholar in the world, of course they have a great section comparing the poem and the film, while i'm not finding any film reviewer that has seen both Sweeney's. Johanna is completly pushed into the background and is shown as a vulnerable character all along while on the musical she's as important as Anthony and at the end is shown to be a vengeful person just like her father. The fact that some scenes have been removed is also important and it's not in the production section (yet). Yes it is 100% OR (unless the primary sources were accepted, which they are not), but you should let the section be for a couple of days, it'll get stirred, sourced, and then it'll flow beautifully into the production section.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 16:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I've read Kim Newman's review of the film funnily enough, in which he notes the younger characters are less significant than they are in the play, making the overall tone darker. To be fair though, if someone could sandbox a sourced version, ala Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, that'd be fair enough. Alientraveller (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The New York Times review discussed some of the differences. That being said, I don't think this deserves its own section, for the reasons Alientraveller cites. A passing mention of the biggest differences cited by the NYT (essentially: cutting the choral song) along with a reference would suffice. In my opinion. Nandesuka (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. As the original creator of the section, before it was perfected by others - there is NO reason for this entire section to be removed unilaterally by one editor. User:Alientraveller is free to tag or delete anything that is factually inaccurate. Ages are confirmable by IMDB or Wikipedia. Note comments by User:Yamanbaiia. I did not suggest that the characters were less important because they were played by younger actors. Personally I thought Laura Michelle Kelly was ludicrous in her role, but I would never include that in the article. How is this "100% OR" (original research), anyway, when the ages are a matter of public record at IMDb, etc.?? Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. It is original research. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. This is synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. End quote. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 20:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Btw, I made an earlier edit today under IP 71.190.27.199 b/c I forgot I wasn't logged in and I got so upset I started typing before I remembered. Sorry. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Also, having seen both the original Broadway production (yes I am that old) I can attest that more songs than the chorus ones were cut. There was a song, titled, I believe, Mea culpa, which the Judge sang while flagellating himself in semi-darkness (I was too young to fully appreciate that though at the time), which, obviously, was not in the film. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, ya win some, ya lose some. No hard feelings. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
For the record, as someone who has been musical director for a production of Sweeney Todd, there were quite a number of songs that were cut: the Ballads (i.e. the chorus numbers) are the most obvious, and the Judge's "Johanna" has been mentioned above; but the "Kiss Me/Ladies in their Sensitivities" duet and quartet were also trimmed, as were the "Parlor Songs", the "Wigmaker Sequence", and "The Letter". In addition, a lot of smaller bits were removed, including Pirelli's swansong and death music, as well as all the chorus involvement in "Pirelli's Miracle Elixir" and "God That's Good", and Johanna's singing in the second "Johanna" (sung otherwise by Sweeney, Anthony, and the Beggar Woman). I don't actually have an opinion the topic of this thread because I haven't actually seen this removed section, but for what it's worth I can attest that there were significant changes other than just the removal of the ballads. maestro (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Release Date - again

I saw the film in the UK on the 19th of January at St. Helens Cineworld...bit baffled as to why then every man and its dog has its release date on the 24th (including Cineworld...).[3]. Bizarre.--Koncorde (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

IMDB is showing 10 January as UK release date. Maybe this is more accurate?--Egghead06 (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
That was the red carpet "Premier" I think, on the actual IMDB page for the film it says 24th January.--Koncorde (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
January 24 was indeed the nationwide release date, though some cinemas will be granted a certain number of preview screenings. I suspect the 19th showing was one of these. For future reference, this is the most reliable guide I've found for UK release dates. Best regards, Steve T • C 17:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Revised Plot (draft)

Maybe the plot section should look more like this:

The film begins with a young sailor, Anthony Hope (Bower), arriving to London for the first time. His sail mate and friend, who identifies himself as Sweeney Todd (Depp), is introduced to the audience as a barber who had a beautiful wife and daughter fifteen years before. He was falsely charged and sentenced to a life of hard labor in Australia by Judge Turpin (Rickman) who lusted for his wife. Todd leaves Anthony and goes to visit the old apartment building he once shared with his family, where he meets Nellie Lovett (Carter), the owner of an ailing meat pie shop beneath the apartment. She recognizes Todd by his real name, Benjamin Barker, and informs him that his wife, Lucy (Kelly), poisoned herself after Turpin raped her and his infant daughter, Johanna, is adopted by Turpin as his ward. Assuming his alias as his name from then on, Todd swears vengeance.

Anthony wanders the streets of London, where he is smitten with a young maiden singing from her two-story window. A beggar woman identifies the girl as Johanna (Wisener). Despite receiving a beating by Beadle Bamford (Spall) for his attractions, Anthony continues to pine for her and reveals to the audience his motive to run away with her.

Meanwhile, Todd takes steps to creating a reputation as a skilled barber to the public. He does this by beating the famed barber at the time, Signor Adolfo Pirelli (Cohen), in a shaving contest. After he fashions his apartment to be a barber shop, Pirelli, who knows Todd's real identity, visits Todd and attempts to blackmail him. In response, Todd beats and murders him with one of his straight razors. Mrs. Lovett, who comes to the scene after the crime, then suggests using the corpse as meat for her pies as an easy way to dispose of the evidence. Todd agrees, and retrofits the floor behind his barber chair into a chute that sends bodies into Lovett's basement bakehouse. Tobias (Sanders), Pireli's former young assistant, is employed by Mrs. Lovett to help serve customers for her shop. The same beggar woman who encountered Anthony witnesses the suspicious behavior of both shop's but her disheveled appearance and fanatic behavior lead people to ignore her warnings.

After he witnesses her dropping her house key out the window, Turpin discovers Johanna's plans to flee with Anthony and sends her to an insane asylum. As Todd's barber shop and Lovett's pie shop prosper financially, Mrs. Lovett confesses her desire to marry Todd, moments before Anthony interrupts Todd to reveal that he has found Johanna. Todd instructs Anthony to disguise himself as a wigmaker's apprentice and infiltrate the asylum to free Johanna, offering the barber shop as sanctuary until he can escape London. Following Anthony's departure, Todd notifies Turpin of Anthony's plans, and Turpin leaves for Todd's shop.

Tobias, worried for Mrs. Lovett, privately voices his suspicions of Todd's murderous intentions to her. She invites him into the bakehouse and locks him inside, where he discovers the remains of several dead people and the meat grinder. As Lovett warns Todd of the boy's suspicions, they are both surprised by Beadle Bamford, commissioned by the neighborhood to investigate reports of peculiar odors coming from the shop. Todd lures Bamford for a shave and murders him, dumping him into the bakehouse, where a terrified Tobias flees into the sewers. Todd and Mrs. Lovett attempt to pursue him. While they were away, Anthony and Johanna, disguised in men's clothing, return to the barber shop and he leaves her to search for a carriage. Frightened by the sound of approaching footsteps, Johanna hides in a trunk as the beggar woman enters, looking for Beadle. Todd returns to the shop and, angered by the beggar woman's sudden presence and suspicions, kills her and hastens her body down the chute. Turpin arrives moments later and accepts Todd's offer of a shave. After he reveals his true identity to the judge, Todd brutally stabs Turpin's neck and sends him down the chute. He discovers Johanna hiding in the trunk and prepares to kill her, only to be interrupted by Mrs. Lovett's scream. He leaves Johanna with a warning and races to the bakehouse to find Mrs. Lovett fretting over the beggar woman's body.

As Todd prepares to help Mrs. Lovett dispose of it, he recognizes the beggar woman as his wife due to the lighting of the furnace. Lovett finally reveals that Lucy survived her own poisoning but was driven mad. Recognizing Todd's anger, Mrs. Lovett tries to persuade Todd of her love for him. Todd brightens, coaxing Mrs. Lovett into a waltz, then throws the brightened Mrs. Lovett into the furnace. She screams as Todd closes the furnace door. He then sits with his dead wife and mournfully expresses his regret. Behind him, Tobias emerges from the sewer and picks up his discarded razor, using it to slit Todd's throat before departing. The film ends with Todd's head bowed over his wife's body, his blood pooling around them.

I was just going to do this on the mainspace, but I wasn't sure if it was good enough. I haven't had a lot of experience doing these so help out if there's mistakes. I hope that fixing it here will help the plot section as it is now. Sake neko (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the entire plot section is a cut and paste from a wiki-like webpage that releases its content on GDFL (or it is a cut and paste of wiki) I have tagged the plot for tone issues and removed a couple of unsuitable phrases, but I suspect there is more to cut out. SGGH speak! 23:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
A lot more, to be honest. I've had a very quick stab at the tone and interpretation issues, but given a little more time there's still more that could be lost. The summary shouldn't be a blow-by-blow account of the film; just a recap of the major events. Steve T • C 00:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sweeney Todd - a "Horror Film Adaptation" ?

I disagree with this part of the definition of the film. The original story (as well as the story used in the stage musical) has always been a horror story, ever since it first appeared in a British periodical in the 1840's. Tim Burton didn't make this story any more "horrific" than it always has been. The killings/throat slittings are exactly the same in the stage version. The only difference is that in the movie everything is in close-up. Moreover, a film is still first and foremost a musical, if more than 70 % of it is sung. Whether it's about a love story or a horror story is unimportant. Would anyone call the film version of "Paint Your Wagon“ a "western“, just because the musical is set in the Wild West? And last, but not least: The movie is marketed as a thriller/musical the world over, not as a horror film. The definition of the film as a "movie adaption of the Stephen Sondheim stage musical“ is quite sufficient in my opinion. That the musical is based on a horror story becomes clear when reading the plot summary. Nellov5 (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't Sweeney be a horror/musical? I mean, the mad serial killer, all the grisly blood and gore, the brilliant dark comedy-- sure seems like a horror film, anyway... Since when can't it be of both genres? Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 05:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? Because the film isn’t billed as a „horror movie“ anywhere. The only reason for Tim Burton to make this movie was because of his love for the Broadway musical. He didn't set out to make yet another film version of a story of which a number of movies had already been made since the silent era (both movie and television adaptations). You could call some of those "straight" movies horror films, as the story was adapted in a way that served the conventions of the "Horror" genre. The Broadway show upon which the film is based wasn't called "horror musical" either, but "A musical thriller". As stated above, nowhere in the world is the film being marketed as a "horror movie". Also, the film won its Golden Globes in the "Comedy/Musical" category. And while I wouldn't call the film a comedy, it certainly has elements of a black comedy, which is NOT the same as the „horror genre“. If you check the wiki pages for "horror film", "slasher film" or "splatter film", SWEENEY TODD isn't mentioned anywhere. Suspense movies/thrillers may also contain scenes of blood and gore, yet aren’t called horror movies either. The „Internet Movie Database“ classifies the film under the „Crime/Drama/Musical/Thriller“ genre, not under „horror“. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0408236/

The mojo.com website - which documents the box office for this film - files the movie under "live action musicals" only. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=musical.htm

Nellov5 (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but then again, a quick Google News search of the coverage from the last couple of months alone reveals it's been cited as a "horror musical" by numerous major publications. Remove the quote marks from the search and its even more. Horror/musical would seem to fit, then. And while it's not entirely up to him, there was also an interview with Burton I saw (I'll try and retrieve it if you want), where he was asked specifically about Todd's box office potential, what with it being a tough-sell "horror musical." He answered the question as if accepting this description, without correcting the interviewer. Steve T • C 11:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "horror musical" isn't a movie genre. Reviewers can use the term all they want, but show me one serious film encyclopedia that uses the term as a separate genre. The genre is "musical", period!

Nellov5 (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Were there enough properties which were horror/musicals, I think that a genre of that name would certainly be commonly accepted. The fact is, it's a musical which is also a horror - a mix of genres if you will, rather than one genre alone. I fail to see what is controversial about this, but I'm willing to refrain from re-adding it to the main article until consensus has been reached here. Steve T • C 13:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Nellov5, "horror/musical" isn't a separate genre. It's two genres, and the movie belongs to both of them; and we should link to both of them. You seem to be demanding we link to neither of them, which doesn't help anybody. We could link to thriller (genre) instead if that's more appropriate, I suppose. And yes, Paint Your Wagon is a western. AJD (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems to be both a horror film and a musical, in spite of the strange denial by a minority.--Patrick (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
A said above, it is both, appropriately. "Horror/thriller/musical." You pick between Horror and Thriller appropriately, mate, it's your call. BlackPearl14Mrs. Johnny Depp 19:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think "thriller" is a good suggestion, all in keeping with what the movie has been called the world over. Real fans of horror movies would laugh at the suggestion of this being a "horror movie". The "blood and gore" doesn't even show until the second half of the movie. There is no more gore in this film than in, say, THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, which has also been called a thriller....another film about a serial killer and cannibalism. To the poster who suggested that "Paint your Waggon" is a "Western": Does that also apply to OKLAHOMA, another musical featuring singing cowboys? Anyway, calling this film a musical and a horror thriller is my compromise and doing the movie a much better service than relegating it to the "horror" genre.

Nellov5 (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I would not hesitate to call any film which featured singing cowboys a "western musical" or "musical western." Steve T • C 00:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Great, then Thriller it is. BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess 00:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, then it's settled; Thriller it is. But I still think "horror/musical" would have sufficed well enough.Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 15:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Now, after more consideration and reading, I think Sweeney Todd should be categorised as a 'horror' film and 'musical' film, thus 'horror/musical'. Tim Burton himself called the film "a film that is a combination of horror movie and and musical(...)" as seen in 'A Note From Tim Burton' on the fourth page of Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street Deluxe Complete Edition's libretto. Also, per the article Thriller (genre), Thrillers are characterized by fast pacing, frequent action, and resourceful heroes who must thwart the plans of more-powerful and better-equipped villains. Literary devices such as suspense, red herrings, and cliffhangers are used extensively. This doesn't seem to properly fit this film. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 18:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, "musical horror" is no genre. At least the word "film" is missing here after "horror". There was a consensus that this was the film adaption of a "musical thriller". Read the definition of "thriller" again and what movies would fit that categorization. One sub-genre of "thriller" is the "horror thriller". If "Saw" can be called a "thriller", so can "Sweeney Todd". I have no problem with "horror thriller", if that makes you happy.

Nellov5 (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus to use the word "thriller" over "horror"; if anything, it was the other way around. But I'm not going to revert you, because it's not worth arguing the toss and getting het up about one word. This statement is here merely to provide backup to someone else should they decide they do want to do the revert. Steve T • C 07:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Steve on this. I don't necessarily agree with it, especially since Buton himself referred to Sweeney as a "horror", but I don't see any point in edit warring about this, so I'll just let it be. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 01:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictures from International Cut

Any pictures of the shots containing the more violent deaths in the final act from the international version (cut from the US version to get an R rating) would be really great for the American Censorship section of the article, to show people an example of what was cut out. Thank you.76.116.5.214 (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Raped?

I know in the original musical Judge Turpin rapes Sweeney's wife, but I don't remember they ever mentioning this bit of info in the film (which I just saw yesterday). I remember she got drunk and was dizzy and humilliated at Turpin's party but that's all. Maybe I missed something or are we being speculative and assuming things based on the original material?Vicco Lizcano (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC) (Hey! Listen!)

It's implied that she was raped, like in the musical. You don't see Judge Turpin on top of her or anything because of the way the scene's shot, but he loosened his coat and all and leaned down towards her, and then Lucy started screaming as the crowd obscured the two from sight. TakaraLioness (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it was implied during "Poor Thing": Song lyrics are here, if you didn't hear it. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 15:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

extras

Does anyone think we should put dvd extras on this page? I've been everywhere and found them, plus dvd cover art for the single and 2 disc dvds.Lover of the sand (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

I'm tired of being reverted based on sheer preference. Which should be used in the article, British or American English spelling? Obviously, "labour" and "labor" (etc.) cannot exsist in the same article, so we have to pick one or the other. At this point I don't really mind which, and certainly don't want to start an edit war, but somthing should be done. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 19:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

American lead actor, American director, American production company, based on an American musical which was written by an American composert= American spelling. - 172.142.54.140 (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the IP meant American spelling. Princess LeiaBlackPearl14 19:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, alright; but I'd greatly appreciate it if I'd not be reverted when I fix such errors, then. Thanks, BlackPearl. -Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 19:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) Hopefully no reverts of said manner WILL happen :) BlackPearl14talk! 23:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Mrs. Lovett's name in article

The article states that Mrs. Lovett's first name is Nellie in the film. Where is this stated? --Kaizer13 (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not, and though I think I was the one who initially inserted this bit into the article, I think it should be removed since we (i.e., I) are basing this assumption on what here name was originally. It can be presumed that they didn't change her name since we didn't hear anyone calling her anything but "Mrs Lovett," but I suppose it is still OR. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 03:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
In the stage musical, her first name is Nellie, rather like how Toby's full name is Tobias Ragg and Anthony's last name is Hope, even though in the film, none of that information is stated. TakaraLioness (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, so, should we just remove everything not asserted in the movie, lest we turn the article into a giant OR nightmare? What should be included and what shouldn't? For example, Austrailia is never mentioned in the film, though if you've seen the original like I have, you know that's where he came from at the beginning of the film. Should this be removed, as well? Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea if the stuff should be removed or left. I'm not at all well-versed in making decisions like that... TakaraLioness (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a bit of a relief; I was just wondering what it would look like without all that important information. At this point, I suggest we just keep it all, unless someone else objects. ;) Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 03:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I like that idea. :) If someone does have an issue with it or it goes against Wikipedia's policy or whatever, I'm sure they'll write something on this page anyway. TakaraLioness (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Chronological order?

The way the order of plot events has been shifted in past revisions (then changed back, then changed back again, etc.) due to how the story unfolds and is revealed does confuse me. Should it be what happens first in the plot, or what is revealed first that is more appropriate in the article? For example, by the end of the story, we all realise Mrs Lovett lied to Todd and that the arsenic didn't kill Lucy, but the question is, when do we incorporate this into the plot; The beginning, when it acually happens, or the end, when she concedes this? Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 21:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it should probably be the "way it's revealed" one. That's the way it is with a lot of articles with plot summaries, I think. TakaraLioness (talk) 01:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Once again, quite relieved. I found it rather weird that about a month or so ago, the order was all screwed up. One note, though; Albeit slightly contradictory, I think the beginning of the story should start out with the backstory of Barker getting transported to Austrailia, then returning to London, as this just gets oddly confusing otherwise. Cheers, --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 18:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC).
I agree completely - a few people found it very confusing when they read the story without the backstory of Benjamin Barker going to Austrailia. BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess 19:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, nice to know I wasn't the only one confused about the strange order. Glad it's settled. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 20:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sweeney_Todd:_The_Demon_Barber_of_Fleet_Street_(2007_film)/Archive_1&oldid=1140148091"