Talk:The Devil's Rejects

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

Characters[edit]

Hey, what happened to all the pages for the characters? They're all still linked in this article, but you just get redirected to this movie or the first one, with the exception of Banjo and Sullivan, which links you to the old Rob Zombie characters page. There used to be individual pages for each character (or there still might be, I don't know). Whoever redirected and deleted/buried all the character pages screwed up majorly here. Achtzehn (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little confusion on one of the character names - unless I've missed an "official" Rob Zombie notes thing - in which case mea culpa - but where did "Captain Spaulding" get the name "James" ? It's not mentioned in either film. And my understanding is his nickname , not last name , is "Cutter" , when travelling in other circles. Another question also arises , since Charlie Altamont is his brother ( or half brother as the case may be ) , isn't their a slight possibilty his last name is also "Altamont" ? Just wondering , not trying to stir up any hornets nest.

And , perhaps trivia , but still a character note , "The Unholy Two" , is a reference to the film , "The Unholy Three" , Lon Chaney Sr.s' only "talkie". Harvey J Satan (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC) (no relation)[reply]

Plot[edit]

The plot section should REALLY contain a spoiler alert, since it gives the entire ending to the film. Not sure of the wiki protocol for giving spoiler alerts, so I'll let a more experienced user add it. Thanks.

I would like to add that the Devils rejects is NOT a sequel to House of 100 corpses. When Ken Foree signed on to do this movie He was told by Rob Zombie NOT to watch House of 1000 corpses because, The Devils Rejects is a compleatly diffrent movie. It just happens to have charecters from house of 1000 corpses—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.254.1 (talk • contribs)

Correction I would like to make...

Fact: When Wendy Banjo is hit by the truck, she is NOT forced to wear Roy's face... it is actually her boyfriend/husband Adam Banjo's face. This can be seen by the fact that after Otis kills Roy with the shovel, he returns to the wounded Adam to remove his face with his hunting knife, all the while saying "you wanna see bad ass motherfucker!"

Just some notes I'd like to make...

Fact: Otis is not Spaulding's son. He's not related to the Firefly family genetically. According to the official site, Otis was adopted by the Firefly family. Only Baby is Spaulding's daughter. Tiny and Rufus were Earl (the Professor from the first film)'s children.

Now onto opinions...since 'horribly sadistic' was removed, would someone kindly tell me how Wydell's actions WEREN'T horribly sadistic?

But I have changed "save the day" to "save the Firefly family" which I think is fair.

And Charlie's redemption/damnation: In the context of the film, what he did was redemption. He betrayed his family and later tried to save his niece from a horrible death. Its been referred to in a couple of interviews as redemption. In no way was Rob Zombie implying that Charlie was damning himself by trying to save his family. Case closed. CyberGhostface 20:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note, as well, that (at least in the version i saw) Otis and Baby didn't rape the two couples in the motel room. Tortured, yes; abused, yes. Or maybe it was just supposed to be assumed.--Genesis 12:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the scene where Otis forces Gloria to strip and then abuses her was implied to be a rape. Although not explicitly shown, it seemed clear that he was forcing her to perform oral sex on him.-- CyberGhostface

Very late clarification: Otis IS part of the Firefly family, according to DVD commentary. The Sid/Bill/Sheri commentary at minute 19 says Otis' mother is mother Firefly, making him step-son to Spaulding, and minute 59 also refers to Otis as a step child. MJ56003 (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article[edit]

Why does this article even exist?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.94.112 (talk • contribs)

Because it's a movie directed by a notable person, starring notable people, that is being widely released. --Myles Long 21:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't it exist? Is there anything that makes it not deserving of a wiki entry? CyberGhostface 20:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know this page isn't meant for movie reviews, but this movie was absolutely horrible. The plot, the acting, the senseless and stupidly portrayed violence. I expected better from Rob Zombie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgw (talk • contribs)

If you're going to make posts at create a username for yourself or add a signature. But just because you don't like the movie doesn't mean there shouldn't be a Wikipedia article. Others happened to like the movie, and Roger Ebert gave it two thumbs up. --CyberGhostface 17:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If we all based our film-going lives around Roger Ebert's opinion, we'd be missing out on some stellar films. The bottom line you should be stressing here to these individuals is that this is an online encyclopedia, not a movie review forum or website. It's fine for them to have opinions, but opinions aren't facts and facts are the only things that belong in any article on Wikipedia. 63.233.114.46 07:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am perfectly aware of that, which is why I said just because you don't like the movie doesn't mean there shouldn't be a Wikipedia article. But he expressed his opinion and I expressed mine.--CyberGhostface 20:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a review, it's an article about the movie. It explains who made it, who's in it, the plot, and some trivia. It isn't a review. Whether you think it's good or not is irrelevant.

Deaths[edit]

The list does not mention the death of the cleaning lady of the motel the family band is held at. While not directly killed by the Fireflys, she is driven insane and hit by a truck. If I remembered more details, I'd add it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.164.231.195 (talk • contribs)

Wendy Banjo is run over the truck, and she is mentioned in the 'Deaths' section. The maid was not killed; she is later seen talking with Wydell.--CyberGhostface 16:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1000 Victims?[edit]

I changed the identifying of a 1000 victims to over 70. The beginning of the film states that over seventy were discovered. I think '1000 Corpses' was more along the lines of a 'B-Movie' title that Rob Zombie was emulating when he made the film rather than saying that the family has literally killed over a thousand people...and it could just as well be referring to all the skeletons in Dr. Satan's catacombs underneath the ground...--CyberGhostface 20:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe at the beginning of the movie it says over 75 murders and disappearances. Anyone want to confirm this and make a minor change to the article?
For the purposes of this movie it's 75, however the sheer number of corpses in the catacombs in the first movie (not including the demented denizens) might not add up to 1000, but it's certainly more than 75. Then again, you really can't compare the two.

Trivia[edit]

Is it necessary to add the trivia that the character's names were derived from Groucho Marx characters? This fact is made quite clear in the movie, and isn't really a secret.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DaddyTwoFoot (talk • contribs)

Its still trivia.--CyberGhostface 16:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't fit with the other trivia, though. The other trivia is explainnig things like why Grandpa Hugo wasn't in the sequel. The Groucho characters is an actual plot point, and already explained in the movie.--DaddyTwoFoot

Fortunately the trivia section appears to be removed, since Wikipedia's Manual of Style discourages the use of trivia sections, but it would be a good idea to not this information in a "characters" sectionMmyers1976 (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive Review?![edit]

I reverted a recent edit which removed comments from film critic James Berardinelli's review of the movie. The editor objected to the inclusion of the review, because it "personally insult[s] the fans." I'm inclined to entirely disagree. Berardinelli's review is a useful addition to this article because it is an example of a critic who vehemently disliked the movie. It provides balance to Roger Ebert's rather glowing review. Any scathing review (and this review is scathing) has the potential to offend die-hard fans. But such is the nature of criticsm -- one's opinion is likely to offend if it differs from the closely held beliefs of others. One man's waste of $9 is another mans Citizen Kane. Remember, Wikipedia is not censored. We should not be removing valid information just because it offends the delicate sensibilities of the readers. Sixtus LXVI 00:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The line in question was "Of course, that kind of advice would lead to e-mail death threats and other assorted nasty comments from those who spend money on The Devil's Rejects." It would have been nice if you could find a negative review that doesn't insult the fans like that.--CyberGhostface 00:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It only goes to show just how bad Berardinelli felt the movie was. He believes that a movie this bad would only attract a certain type of crowd. Though I disagree with him (hell, I LOVED the movie), I feel his review is a good balance to Ebert's. I didn't insert the quoted material in the first place, and as such, I feel I have no burden to find a replacement for it. If you object that much, I suggest you find another negative review to put in its place. Sixtus LXVI 00:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at rotten tomatoes tomorrow for a review that's negative but isn't spewing venom.--CyberGhostface 03:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How's this review? [1] Its pretty negative but he's for the most part pretty polite about his views.--CyberGhostface 03:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The review you found looks fine to me. However, I personally think your current revision of the article is fine as is, but if you want to switch, then be my guest. The only point I was trying to make is that it is foolish and counter-productive to remove perfectly valid information because of a supposed insult. Lots of articles on wikipedia are insulting to a great many people -- check out the talk page for the Muhammad Cartoons to see for yourself. Also, articles on homosexuality and evolution are no doubt insulting to the fundamentalist Christian, in that the articles portray lifestyles and ideas that are contrary to their beliefs. The article does not claim that his quotes are fact; it simply voices the opinion of a rather well-respected film critic. The "insulting language" is proof of just how deep his feelings of dislike and repulsion are, and it serves as a effective counterpoint to Ebert quotes. As opposed to being insulted, I take it as a point of pride that folks like you and I exist, thus proving that Berardinelli is wrong in assuming that all of the film's fans are raving, death-threat happy lunatics.
So, to wrap up, I think if you can put together quotes that are as effective as the Berardinelli quotes in portraying the so-called "opposition position," then by all means, go ahead. However, I think doing so is a waste of time. Sixtus LXVI 03:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'm not sure that this is actually intended as an insult to fans of the film. As I read it, Berardinelli says he wouldn't call it "something that must be seen to be believed", because he doesn't want outraged mail from people who read or misread that as a good reason to see the film, and subsequently don't like what they see. In other words, he doesn't want people to pay money to see a film on his word and feel cheated. -BlackTerror 05:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Of course, that kind of advice would lead to e-mail death threats and other assorted nasty comments from those who spend money on The Devil's Rejects" I mean, come on now. Not exactly a compliment.--CyberGhostface 20:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Figures[edit]

Wait, are the figs right on this, because on the "House of 1000 Corpses" article it states that the production budget was 7 million and the film earned over 16 million....Same as this movie, just wondering if someone didn't get something confused since the "House" article states that "Devils" was "better received". How is it possible that the same fans who saw "House" all went to see the sequel? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wickedxjade (talk • contribs) 08:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I don't know, but I do recall that in terms of being 'better received' its probably referring to the critical reception. House was widely panned, and although Rejects got a number of mixed reviews, the general consensus was far more positive.--CyberGhostface 22:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

Taking a quick look at the trivia, a lot of it was either non-notable (like who tried out for Candy, or Bela Lugosi's cameo) or found on other articles (like Dr. Satan's absence or Otis's skin color). So I removed it.--CyberGhostface 19:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Thissummergotohell.jpg[edit]

Image:Thissummergotohell.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 02:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles[edit]

to use with this article.--J.D. (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion[edit]

This article i9s incomplete and needs to be expanded in more detail than it currently has. The production section feels incomplete and needs more information on the film's development, casting, and filming with proper citations from reliable sources added to the article. The soundtrack section is also incomplete and unsourced and either needs to be expanded and given proper citations from reliable sources or removed from the article. Information on the film's home media releases is absent from the article and needs to be added with proper citations in a release section under the sub section "Home media". The box office sub section can also be expanded in more detail than what it currently has as well. Finally, the image used for the film's poster can be changed to the official theatrical release poster. This article as potential, it just needs more attention made to it. Hopefully someone comes along and give the article the attention it needs to fulfill its full potential.--Paleface Jack 17:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Secondary Soundtrack Album[edit]

Rob Zombie produced a Banjo & Sullivan “greatest hits” album, as a companion piece to this film. 75.107.41.198 (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Devil%27s_Rejects&oldid=1208322578"