Talk:Firestarter (1984 film)

Untitled
To the IP editor who recently deleted a paragraph. I was not at all being "intentionally inaccurate" but was drawing on my memories of having read the novel in 1986. I may have exxagerated the hippie-ness of Charlie's parents, but there is a '60s ambience about them missing in the film. What I said about Rainbird is quite true. Rainbird in the novel is aware of his Native American background, has in the past used peyote, and does indeed believe that some mystical secret of the true nature of death will be revealed to him if he looks into Charlie's eyes when he kills her. When I can get a hold of the book, I will with cites put back a modified version. My memory of the book may be somewhat faulty, but what was written was hardly "rubbish".--WickerGuy (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Original research problem
The section on differences between the film and the novel needs a source; it reads like original research at the moment. Gusworld (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This seems difficult to avoid (specifically with regard to WP strictures against improper synthesis) in any differences section unless a third party has discussed them. This film has received so little critical attention that I suspect such third-party sources may be hard to find (as opposed to Stephen King's "The Shining" for which many such 3rd-party sources exist). Still, it seems odd that WP does not require sources for a plot synopsis of either film or novel, but does require them for mentioning even fairly mundane differences between the book and the movie. At the same time, WP abounds in such unsourced differences sections.--WickerGuy (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a big difference between summarizing a movie and analyzing differences between it a literary work. How will other readers of the article know if the analysis is correct or not? I have removed the section because the lack of supporting statements from a valid source and, especially, because the section made up the body of the article. This is supposed to be s summary for the movie after all, but there is no description of the movie. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I entirely agree that a differences section without a plot summary is egregious.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Speaking as a casual user who just saw the film and came to the Wikipedia to look it up, I found the Differences section very interesting. And when I emailed a friend to tell them about it, they couldn't find it as it's been deleted. What's up with that? If you folks are so angry about a differences section, why not add a plot summary yourself, instead of deleting the differences section? Why be destructive rather than constructive? Besides, the book has a plot summary. And as for deleting the section because it's got original research - that's pretty risible. If you deleted every wikipedia page that had original research, how much of the wikipedia would be left? Do you think that the Encyclopedia Britannica has no original research? Geez, some people really are pedants. So yeah, I'd like to see that Differences section put back, please. -Crabbylucy (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Your friend can go to the "history" page of the article and recover previous versions. Direct your friend to "https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Firestarter_(film)&oldid=370993144". Regrettably, Wikipedia policy is policy. I miss the section too. I'm not convinced it's such a horrible thing, and would like to add in a plot summary here eventually, so we can get a differences section myself. However, I disagree with you about Britannica. It doesn't have much in the way of original thinking in it, merely the distillation of previously published original thinking. Encyclopedias by definition don't publish original thought. My father has contributed to Stanford's online Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and the Encyclopedia of Unbelief. While he published a lot of original research on these subjects, he was very careful to stick to previously established ideas in his encyclopedia articles. That's what encyclopedias are for.

I do have a problem with WPs policy that extensive novel/film differences constitutes Original Research, but it is the current policy. If there was a plot section, it might have gotten away with just being tagged.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think third-party sources can exist to compare this film with its source material, I worked on the article for Apt Pupil, and it has a "Differences between novella and film" section. For Firestarter, this is what I found which can do the comparison and also add other kinds of real-world context to this small article. Here are some I found with WorldCat:
 * Hollywood's Stephen King, with chapter "The Lost Children: Carrie, Firestarter, Stand by Me, Silver Bullet, Hearts in Atlantis
 * The Complete Stephen King Universe, with chapter about Firestarter
 * Stephen King on the Big Screen, with chapter "Mind Over Matter" including Firestarter
 * The Films of Stephen King, with chapter about Firestarter
 * Hope these help! Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much!!--WickerGuy (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Should Info from the Novel Be Included in the Film's Plot Summary?
The "Plot" section's second sentence refers to information given in Steven King's novel but not in the film: the effort gives him nosebleeds (the novel revealing them to be "pinprick" hemorrhages). It's my opinion that only info from the film should be included in its summary. Does anyone object to the removal of this "pinprick" parenthetical?