Talk:The Stepford Wives (2004 film)

Neutrality
The changing of the ending definitely shows POV using weasel words like "gross". Personally, I thought it was a decent movie. Then again, I think Nicole Kidman is to acting what milk is to Corn Flakes, so I might be a little biased. I agree, the article needs cleaning up to reflect a more neutral POV.  Don MEGĂ | 60645  12:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Removed the following blurbs, they appear to be nothing more than the opinion of the author:

"This film is a departure from other versions of The Stepford Wives in that it is a comedy although the feminist themes are still present. The only real moral to be gleaned from this film is perhaps that both gynoid superfeminism and old-fashioned male chauvinism are inappropriate extremes."

"The movie was mostly criticized for departing too far from the underlying feminist message of Ira Levin's original novel and the 1975 adaptation."


 * Bantosh 21:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Not a Movie Review
This "article" hardly reads like an encyclopedia entry! Rather, it sounds like someone's personal opinion. As a movie review it's fine; but wikipedia is not a soapbox to present your opinions. The following sentences strongly smell of POV and Film Review to me:


 * "Motivated by what they surely hoped would strike audiences as a witty twist, this movie's abandonment of the original film's feminism leaves it without a clear message"
 * "the end ... is preachy, politically correct, and unsatisfying to those who have read the novel or seen the 1975 film"
 * "the entire message of Levin's work is lost due to the Disney-fying of the ending"
 * "This tenor is a full pendulum-swing away from the original message of Levin's novel, and is an overcompensating bow to political correctness and the sensitive-man movement"

This article needs a big cleanup to establish neutral POV. Remember: we're here to write an encyclopedia, not to preach opinions or warn audiences about box office bombs. Keep it neutral. 66.17.118.207 15:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Plot Inaccuracy?
The plot synopsis says the real women were trapped underground, but in the movie I saw (and I am currently watching it on cable as I type this), that never happens. Matthew Broderick deactivates the computer chips and all the people at the party begin acting normally again, as if they were never robots, just being controlled. (oh no they don't - e.g. they crush the remotes with their bare hands. Robots with brain-program implanted and modified maybe - there should be a link to the brain-in-a-vat category of philiosophical conundrums, cause it all leads to those) This has led many critics to dislike the movie because it's not certain whether they are robots or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.83.29 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay I just read the rest of the synopsis, and it says Glen Close's character dies at the end - but that never happened either? WTF? Did whoever write this even watch the movie?!? 24.196.83.29 23:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)rglong

In the square dance scene, Faith Hill's character has a malfunction and sparks up. Walken "resets" her by doing something to her back, implying they're robots.

Later, Midler's character (who is now a Stepford) has her hand catch on fire and doesn't react nor does her hand discolor. In a deleted scene, she reveals herself to be, in fact, a robot, but that may be non-canon.

The remotes could be explained away as controlling the nano-chips, but I think it's from the abandoned plotline that their brains are transplanted.Ciderbarrel (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It may be worth noting in the synopsis that the plot direction changed during production. The plot is basically a confusion of two different underlying stories due to test audience-induced changes, and it reflects that confusion. It's clear the plot line that was supposed to win out had to do with neural implants, not robotic replacements with brain transplants, but much of the robot plot line remains anyways (ATM woman, Joanna's unused stand-in, for the most obvious examples). The current synopsis reads as the original plot direction while lacking mention of neural implants instead of what was committed to film. 99.129.27.34 (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously they (writers) didn't know what direction they wanted to go. If you're a Doctor Who fan then think of the Day of the Doctor in which the aliens had to keep their victims alive to copy their forms and something similar could have been done in an extra scene where the real wives (and Roger) were kept in vats with their minds being controlled and their thoughts projected into the robots. When the chips failed the real personalities came through the robots but eventually the real wives (and Roger) were released from the vats and the robots destroyed. Of course that would be the easiest way to get around the huge plot hole the writers got themselves into. I'd love to see this move remade with a similar ending. 66.191.11.76 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried editing the page last night about how the workprint version of the film is more widely accepted and is a more coherent film. But, my source wasn't good enough I guess. I know what I said was true, and I think it shouldf be noted, it is part of the history of this film: the workprint was just fine and then it got all mucked up with reshoots, causing the plot inaccuracies. Daleylife (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Expand
As some of the posts above indicate, this article reads like a film review and is lacking a general synopsis of what the film is. I would expand it myself but I have not viewed the movie. -Rolypolyman 22:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Plot synopsis has been expanded. Hope it is satisfactory. Zhukora (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Type of movie
Perhaps Dark Comedy would be a better description of the type. Afterall, The topic would be horrific (people replaced by robots) if it wasn't made light of so much. Jon 04:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Formatting
Am I the only one seeing errors in the page's formating with Clean up and straying boxes bleeding into the sidebar with the information on the film? Dragonranger 20:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I see it too, the formatting is horribly effed up. I don't have the skills to fix it, though.  Hopefully someone who does will stumble upon it and tweak it. Captain Infinity 02:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sw02.jpg
Image:Sw02.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 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) 06:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on The Stepford Wives (2004 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090304010558/http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=227846 to http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=227846

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)