Talk:Pan's Labyrinth/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

who is pan?

I believe that pan is the original name of the girl from underground before she comes up and dies in the beginning, but I am not sure. I was just wondering if the name could be cleared up, because some people might be confused because the girl is Ophelia.

Surely Pan is the name of the faun. Pan is a traditional Greek god, I believe, who took the figure of a faun.

Pan is the faun. Ofelia/Princess _________ is the girl. --Releeshan 19:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Pan is obviously the Faun (not necessarily his name in the movie, but it refers to the faun for audiences)

Pan is a mythological god/creature from serveral european legends - he's the faun, not Ofelia. There's a wikipedia article about him, I'm sure.

Pan is a faun, he's not the faun. Apparently they felt Americans would confuse faun with fawn, which is why the American title is Pan's Labyrinth, and not The Labyrinth of the Faun, which is the literal translation of the original title. No one in the movie is Pan, though. Aaronstj 05:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As was pointed out in an argument I had about this, Pan was not even *a* faun. He was a god shaped like a faun. A faun-god, at a stretch. This translation irritates me to no end (I mean that in reference to the distribution, mind, you, not irritation at you Aaron, heh)FangsFirst 05:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

plot/ending

I feel the article is a bit leaning in the story's ending. Ofelia simply died and we were witnessing, in her mind, her last fantasy. She didn't go to any other place, she simply died. Think "Jacob's Ladder". The article makes it seem as if the fantasy world was real and not just in her mind.

That's just your interpretation. One of the haunting things about the film is that del Toro leaves the ending so ambiguous: maybe Ofelia becomes an immortal princess in a magical kingdom, or maybe she just died pointlessly as another innocent victim of the fascists. That said, the plot synopsis doesn't really reflect that ambiguity at the end, so I'll see if I can improve it. Lontano 01:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The ending made me think that it was all just her imagination. It even makes the movie a lot better and more sad.

In one of the last scenes, it shows Ofelia talking to the faun and her step-father cannot see the faun. This leads me to think that its possible that the whole fantasy side of this story is a hallucination and it is possible that Ofelia has some medical condition causing these hallucinations.

It was real. After watching the movie a viewer will probably tilt from thinking 'it was real! Shes a princess!' to 'no wait, the Captain couldn't see the faun at the end...?' But the physical objects throughout the movie mean that it was real. The white flower blooming at the end where her clothes lay on the fig tree branch - the fact that the mandrake root (the root of a mythical plant) was right there in the plot events, seen and touched by the Captain and the mother and having a direct effect on events (being thrown in the fire and childbirth can't be THAT coincedental?) and finally Pans chalk. Without it, Ofelia could not have gotten into the Captins locked room at ALL at the end of the film, and he also saw and noted that it was out of place on his table. Of course I know people will debate this and still think that Ofelia was ill or crazy - thats fair enough - but these magical but pysical objects are still indesputible since they were seen and interacted with so much by others than Ofelia.

It should be noted that we never witnessed her escape from the room using the chalk in the manner that we witnessed how she used it to travel to the room where she obtained the knife. This, I believe, is to add to the ambiguity. There are a number of ways to escape from a room (particularly a room with windows). As to the point about the physical objects, note that only the objects which may or may not belong to the fantasy world were held and observed by the other characters. The root could have been any root. It is not necessarily the root of a Mandrake plant (as it was never confirmed to be by any of the characters not in Ofelia's world). The chalk is a common place enough item. The Captain, when he discovered it, simply suspected someone of being in his room. This suggests that chalks were fairly easily obtained. Objects that would have obviously seemed out of place (the strange key, the embroidered knife), however, were never seen by other characters. In fact, when the Faun was holding the knife and supposedly talking to Ofelia, the Captain did not see it. One could argue that his inability to see the Faun may also mean that he cannot see the knife because they are both magical things that only Ofelia can see. But then how was he able to see the magical chalk? 68.108.252.108 04:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

______________________________________

It seemed to me to be that way when I first saw the ending as well, but there are several things that would seem to contradict the hallucination interpretation, such as the fact that she managed to escape the guarded room using the chalk (otherwise she pulled off an incredible escape, forgot about it, and invented a story in her head of creating a portal out of chalk, kind of ruins the ambiguity of a plot when you have to create intricate explainations to support the ambiguity doesn't it?), which the captain was capable of touching and seeing. There was also the immediate correlation between her mother's state of health and the root. Also, in the labyrinth, we're shown the walls parting to allow Ofelia through and the captain following her to the dead end location where the walls parted, so that would mean that, somehow, Ofelia both hallucinated that she came to a dead end and the captain (back in reality) just happened to think that he saw her going down an identical dead end. Either that or him even coming to the dead end was a hallucination, though I can't imagine why she would hallucinate in the third person and why she wouldn't think "hey, I'm having an out of body experience". If she's hallucinating, her hallucinations have an uncanny ability to correlate with real events, and before they happen too.

At the very end when the Republicans overtake the mill and Mercedes comes to find Ofelia, there is a chalk "door" outline on the wall of the room she was confined in. This seems to suggest that she did escape using the chalk.

If you analyze this bit for bit, the only part that hints at hallucination was the end, and only vaguely, and even then inconsistently with several other occurences in the story. If it was the movie writer's intention to suggest that she was crazy, they didn't do too great a job of it, because if you look at any other movie with a similar occurence (fight club, a beautiful mind, etc), you can always rewatch it and pick up on the fact that the previous parts of the movie are entirely consistant with what was pronounced in the ending, whereas this, if intended to suggest that Ofelia was a little nutty, must've been thrown in at the last minute with no modification to the previous parts of the plot. There seems to be little wiggle room left for any ambiguity in this movie, aside from any ambiguity that you would find in day to day reality anyways (as in, when I punch the wall and a hole appears, is it correlation or causation?). If it's going to be ambiguous, the rest of the incidents involving the fantasy element should be equally as ambiguous, otherwise it kinda removes the whole ambiguity deal.--Ford

I think the problem is that here in Spain there's no tradition of fantasy films, and people seems to be a bit uncomfortable with the idea of an spanish fantasy movie. It's a little snobish thing, you know, fantasy it's not serious enough for the elitist spanish cinema industry. So if you want to make a film in Spain with fantasy elements, you make an ambiguous ending, so you can claim it was all a dream or hallucination or whatnot, and certain people takes it easier. It happened something similar with "El corazon del guerrero" some years ago. Being a big fan of fantasy myself, I hateit when they do this. Dogson.85.60.13.226 04:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldnt say its a hallucination, its a world shes created to cope with the horrible reality she lives in.

on another note, the plot summary leans far to much on ofilias fantasy world and almost completely ignores the real world. i think the real story of the movie lies in reality, not fantasy. they could have left the fantasy out and it still would have been a good (albiet less interesting) film.

user:roxysmashsir43

1) the Captain may not have seen the faun at the end because he doesn't believe in magic 2) note that the mandrake root stopped moving - that could support the hallucination idea 3) did anyone else see Ofelia's book? Perhaps after she'd been to the tree? 4) the correlation between the mandrake root and her mother's health may have been a coincidence - the onset of labour when the root was burned may have been brought about by the stress of the confrontation 60.241.245.35 20:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

---

It's meant to be ambiguous! It's a film where the viewer is encouraged to make up their own mind about what is real and what is isn't. Their isn't a wrong or right answer here people.

__

There is no right or wrong, but Del Toro purposely put in these things to make the viewers think. Do you think the fantasy side of the movie was true, or just the war side? I'm all for it being real BUT theres something important thats not metioned here yet about the faun. Did you notice his appearance change throughout the movie? When we first see him his hair is grey and knarled, he's jittery jointed and his left horn is half worn away - but by the end he has rather glossier sandy hair, stands steadier and has full horns and a much more confident, demanding manner. How come? This again can go either way - does he un-age as Ofelia gets closer to becoming her true self, as their kingdom comes closer to regaining its royalty? or is he becoming a strong hallucination as ofelia depends more and more on her fantasies as the real world falls apart?.... Theres also a quibble with the palace ending which possibly tilts to the hallucination/imagied view of things - why does the queen look like Carmen (Ofelias mother) and why is the queen holding a bundle (probably a baby boy)? And how come the faun has three fairies again? Regardless, I think she's a princess. The faun is too wonderful to not be real;) Freaky_dragonlady 15th March 2007

Article expansion

I think that this film article could use additional content beyond the plot summary and the cast. There should be production information out there about how Pan's Labyrinth was filmed. Anyone up for this? --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 15:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to take a stab at this by assembling some information, probably from interviews.

• Channel 4 Film - Guillermo Del Toro on Pan's Labyrinth
• Eat My Brains: Exclusive interview: Guillermo del Toro, director of Pan's Labyrinth - 19/11/06

abdullahazzam

Can someone please research some more information on this movie. I`ve heard that it is meant to have numerous symbolic messages and interpretations intended for the viewer. So please, if someone could add that on to the article, that`d be great.

Aaaaaah...

So the creature that was pictured in the paintings eating babies, and that eats the two fairies, is that supposed to be Saturn/Cronus? I was wondering if that character was based on mythology or not. Interesting.

I also noticed some references to the Greek myth of Persephone in this scene. Wonderbreadwop 17:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The character of The Pale Man was based in part on the Goya painting 'Saturn eating his children'. Guillermo is fascinated with surreal art in all its forms, although The Pale Man went through several designs before settling on the one that is seen in the film. Originally intended to be a very old man with sagging skin, the design morphed slowly into a character with eyes in the palms of his hands - an idea that came to Guillermo del Toro as he sat watching TV with his wife. He had often drawn outlines of his hands as a child, turning the outlines into characters by doing just that - putting eyes in the fingers and palms.

The prosthetic design for Pale Man (as well as The Fauno and the toad) was done by Barcelona Special Effects shop DDT Efectos Especiales, led by David Marti and Montse Ribe. They are at present being considered for Oscar nomination for Best Make-up by the Academy. Hellmistress 07:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That's really, really interesting! Just thought I'd leave a note to say thanks for the background info. -Elizabennet 23:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Classification

No-where in this article does it say the classification. Could someone please rectify this please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.240.131 (talk • contribs) 08:38, December 17, 2006

It says fantasy film in the lead paragraph. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that person meant the rating, like 18,16,12,pg etc, I think this varies by coutry and I dont know if we normally put this kind of info on about films so Im not going to do it myself. --Timmywimmy 23:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been rated 15 by the BBFC (Pan's Labyrinth) - 90.192.77.201 22:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

15 in the UK. I liked the film, but it does contain scenes of torture and execution, and a lot of blood, and really might have warranted an 18. Although the central character is a child, and it contains fantastical elements, this is NOT a children's film Indisciplined 22:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually imho it was correctly classified as 15, as these were not gratuitous and key parts of the plot. I'm squeamish, and there was only point I had to look away. An 18 certificate would have given a misleading impression that the film was more violent than it was. I completely agree that this is NOT a children's film. Thryduulf 02:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would rate this film an 18 certificate. The violence, while not wall-to-wall entrails and eyeballs, is extremely disturbing -- maybe because it's not gratuitous. I would put the violence on the same level as Hannibal, which (here in Australia) had its rating changed from MA15+ to R18 after the first week. Lontano 11:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Opening the portal

{{spoiler}} The opening the portal scene reminds me of the similar ones in Buffy. Xiner (talk, email) 04:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC) {{endspoiler}}

While true, I'm pretty sure using blood to open any sort of mystical doorway/portal/whatever is far from an original Joss Whedon concept. Cthomer5000 09:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ofelia's age

The article says she is 12 years old, but I don't remember seeing that in the movie. Where is this said? PlatformerMastah 01:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The actress at the time of filming was 12 years old. The original script called for an 8-year-old girl, but after seeing her audition del Toro had it rewritten for an older character. This tidbit was in a recent HBO special. I can look for a source if you need. 72.183.12.164 10:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Moksha

I've just watched the Guardian Interview at the NFT on the DVD where Del Toro calls her 'an eleven year old girl'. I can see that someone has already altered her age in the article, but I thought it was worth mentioning here in case someone needs a source for this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liquidcow (talk • contribs) 14:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

"filmization"

Is this really a word? It's in the last sentence of the influences section, as of --Mongreilf 11:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou to whoever changed it--Mongreilf 23:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

thats not a word.

The English Title

I don't exactly get why it is called Pan's Labyrinth. When I saw the movie I didn't know that it was going to be in Spanish but as soon as I did all I could think about was that Pan was spanish for bread and bread must be related to the plot some how. But it wasn't, not really anyways. I guess bread appeared in the rations but that didn't really mean anything. Then when the movie ended it was revealed that the orginal Spanish title was "La Labyrinth de Fauno." Faun(fawn?) is an english word that has the same meaning. Is there any reason the english title wasn't simply Faun's Labyrinth? 68.126.214.156

It is my understanding that they were worried the American audience would confuse faun and fawn. And it looks like a lot of people are still confused. But Pan is pretty unambiguously a faun, which is why they chose that title. But the faun isn't supposed to be Pan. Other than the FAQ for the movie on IMDB, though, I'm having a hard time finding a cite. Aaronstj 06:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. I think this is what happened:

• In the original Indo-European, "faun" and "Pan" are derived from the same root.

• The Greek god was called Pan in Greek (but originally this was Paon).

• The Romans used the word faunus as a generic term for the race of half-goat half-human creatures, but they also recognized a single god named Faunus and goddess named Fauna. They probably equated their god Faunus with the Greek Pan.

• In English, we use Pan to refer to a specific individual god, while we use faun to refer to any member of a certain species (who, like Mr. Tumnus, are usually not seen as gods at all).

• In Spanish, the words Pan and fauno both exist, but they are seen as synonyms. (This part I am not sure about. But the Spanish Wikipedia seems to suggest that Pan is the Greek name and Fauno is the equivalent Roman name, like Hermes/Mercury or Aphrodite/Venus.) See the first sentence of [1].

If this is correct, then the question is whether Guillermo de Toro intended the character in his movie to be the god Pan, or to be just one member of a race. If the former was intended, then "Pan's Labyrinth" was the correct translation, but if the latter was intended, the title should have been translated as "Labyrinth of the Faun".

Does anyone know enough Spanish to clarify this? Or for that matter, can someone simply clarify whether the Spanish "del Fauno" would be used if Fauno was a proper name? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 07:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm spanish, and can tell you that if you say "del fauno", then you are refering to fauno as a generic name, if "fauno" was a proper name it should have said "de Fauno". So the literal translation should have been "The Labyrinth of the Faun", but I guess they thought it sounded better this way. Don't worry, you should see what we do here with the titles of the american movies :-D . Dogson.85.60.13.226 04:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Putting aside the implications of the English-language title, which simply sounded better than 'The Faun's Labyrinth', I really needed this creature to be ambiguous." From del Toro himself in the BFI article (external link) I live in South Texas about 5 minutes from Mexico and am fluent in Spanish (FWIW). That said, the latter was intended -- it should translate as "Labyrinth of the Faun" and the Spanish dialogue (and English subtitles) corroborate this. 72.183.12.164 10:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Moksha

The faun says that he's had many names, so he could legitimately have been called Pan at some time.60.241.245.35 20:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

the insurgents

How do we know they were Republican? I remember Capt. Vidal found some literature that had a very Bakunin-esque title 'No god, no state' or somthing. I assumed they represented the last of the spanish anarchist resistance (FAI/CNT). Was the 'republican' designation in the movie? Thanks. -Freddie

Yes, it's designated in the movie and production notes (see "About the Story" at the movie's official site). By the site's account: "Many ordinary Spaniards, along with communists and anarchists, joined the government's Republican Army" to oppose the Nationalists. 72.183.12.164 10:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Moksha

Just as a note, insurgents were called 'maquis' in Spain. They fought in Civil War against Franco and refuse to give up when war ended. They did what in Spain is called 'echarse al monte', something like 'go to the woods', and continued their activity fighting against Nazis in France in WWII and against Franco in Spain until the ´60s. [[2]] -Al

"good" reception?! COME ON

"The film has received a good reception from critics around the world, earning a 97% on Rotten Tomatoes, with 105/108 positive reviews"

Come on, give credit where it's due. That's amazing reception. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.139.212.155 (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Fortunately, and ironically, almost no one Panned it. Wahkeenah 03:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"Mistake"?

I think the "mistakes" section is a little ridiculous. While the Labyrinth housing the Minotaur had only one route through it, it's fairly nitpicky to say that del Toro "mistook" the term "labyrinth" for "maze", as common usage of the word leaves the two interchangeable.

{{spoiler}} (Plus, if you want to get really nitpicky, there WAS only one way through. The trees that opened up for Ofelia.) {{endspoiler}}

In my opinion, the "mistakes" section should be removed (or filled in with actual mistakes) Rootyb 00:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed.--Releeshan 00:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Besides, how can modern academics redefine the word "labyrinth" to mean something with just one path, when the most famous ancient use of the word clearly referred to a maze? Next thing you know they'll be claiming that "weight" and "mass" aren't synonyms.... — Lawrence King ^(talk) 06:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

They aren't? ;-) --Releeshan 00:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a shame --User:ArtVandelay27 00:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the there is only one translation for labyrinth and maze in the Castilian/Spanish language, which is laberinto.

I'd like to point out that there is in fact a labyrinth that fits the description of only one path in this movie. That labyrinth lies at the foot of the Faun's Statue inside the center of the "maze". That thing with circles of Water? To me it looked very much like a labyrinth of the single path definition. Although I suppose I could be wrong. I don't think I am. Also, I totally agree that the mistakes section should be taken out. I was going to remove the section myself but it's already gone. :) User:planeofdreams 01:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Symbolism and Recurring Themes

The article would probably be richer with some more analysis/ discussion on the movie, rather than a mere description of the plot. Has anyone seen any source discussing things like the parallels between Ofelia's undergroung world versus the real world? Some potential examples are: - When in ther real world Mercedes steals a key, in the underground world, Ofelia obtains a key; - the captain devises a plan of tempting the insurgents by food and supplies (if they come to eat it, they risk their lives); the Pale Man tempts Ofelia with food (if she eats if, she risks her life); - the doctor at first obeys authority and then decides to disobey by standing up to the captan and he pays with his life (bringing up obeying without question in his last words); Ofelia agrees to obey the Faun without question and then disobeys, paying with her life; - both the Pale Man and the captain are brutal torturers - the faun was at times a disciplinarian, who wants the rules to be followed (and to be obeyed?); the capitain is a disciplinarian fixed on rules and schedules (e.g., the first thing he tells Ofelia is to shake with the correct hand) and wants to be obeyed. - The real baby (inside the pregnant mother) is mirrored by the mandrake, shaped like a baby, sitting directly under the real world (the underworld sitting literally under the real world). Both the baby and the mandrake feed on milk and blood. (Not exactly symmetric, but a possibility: the mother destroys the mandrake baby and the real baby destroys the mother) AnandaLima 10:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

yeah i agree im pretty sure there are supposed to be some messages of some sort intended for the viewer

I highly suspect this to be original research. Anyone agree? --Releeshan 02:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is! (which is why I didn't even attempt to put this in the main page, rather than in the discussion page). However, I doubt that the movie lacks possible links of this sort, so this posting was merely a suggestion in case people want to look into this further by looking for sources which are better established.

I have changed the heading to make them the same as I think this was a reply to my posting, if you don't mind. Feel free to put them back under separate topics if you like.AnandaLima 07:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Original research or not, you've hit on something that completely passed me by as I watched the film. Well done! I'm sure this echoing (hmm, was there not also an echo in the portal chamber? ... curious!) must have been intentional, though I need to ponder on why.... Rednaxela 00:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

ERRORS ON THIS PAGE

Page currently says, "The three fairies Pan gives to Ofelia to guide her along the way." <--who the heck is Pan???

All of the little [Edit] links on this page open up the wrong section to edit! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nova101 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Pan. Is. The. Faun. 75.26.174.53 04:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And will you quit whining? It's annoying. 75.26.193.104 23:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"Pan's Labrynth as a Critique of Catholicism"

This section either needs to be removed or cited thoroughly. Reeks of speculation and original research. I think the author might in fact have some valid points, but this wouldn't be the venue in which to propose them.Vafthrudnir 21:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

If this film ever gets a trivia section I have one thing we can add to that. In the scene where we first meet Faun there is the floor from a set from the film Hellboy. They both were spirals of a sort, and both ended up with blood in them. I say this with certainty since Hellboy was also directed by Del Toro.

interpretation

Why does everyone keep deleting my section? I have valid points! The movie touches upon some really interesting ideas. Let there be an interpretation section as long as it's referenced —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Way4thesub (talk • contribs) 11:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Unless you can give a reliable source that verifies your infomation, it's original research. It seems that your section, no matter how valid you believe your points to be, is purely your opinion. dposse 13:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought the purpose of the discussion section was to enable people to expres their opinions about the article, which contains the original research - Jan-Da-Man

Spirited Away

I deleted a section comparing Pan's Labyrinth to Spirited Away. It appeared to be original research. If someone has a reliable reference for this, please add it back Cogswobble 17:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Revisions

Did some revision work, cleaned up redundancy, more references, more sections, talkheader on discussion page. I hope I can contribute positively in the future. --Beanssnaeb 02:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

great revisions so far everyone. we should maybe work to get this GA status. --Beanssnaeb 21:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no mention of production information for this, especially for creature design. The director has called this a personal project of his after his commercial releases, but there's no mention of that here. I think there's a lot of information that could be included in this article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree --Beanssnaeb 17:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it could mainly do with a Production section, more information on Cast (which I'm working on), and an expanded Synopsis. There's work to do, but an abundance of sources online. Trebor 18:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what citations I can dig up. I haven't seen the film yet (as it's not out in many theaters), so I want to hold off any of my contributions to the article until I do. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

When you go see it, could you make notes on the plot and put them in the article ;-) It's a great film, but ain't half confusing in places. Trebor 18:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Capitain "certain" of his child being a boy

This really bugs me. When the doctor was questioning Capitain of how he knew it was going to be a boy, it definitely questioned a potential parallel to Ofelia's journey. Was it just a mere matter of arrogance on Capitain's part, or a "certain" reason that the child was going to be a boy? 08:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I put it down to just plain arrogance. Remember, his response to the doctor was a frank "Don't fuck with me." I haven't seen anything to prove it was foresight and not ego, but very interesting hypothesis. :) María: (habla ~ cosas) 23:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

A real man breeds boys, etc, etc. That's all there is to it.

-G

Allegory

Removed. Needs references before it can be put back in. Looked like a large strings of original research. --Beanssnaeb 03:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You should tell the editor directly on his/her user talk page. Don't have to report every content dispute here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I did so in case there would be contributors who would like to dispute it so everyone can read but I'll be sure to contact the editor directly from here on in. --Beanssnaeb 15:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(2-23-07) I didn't get the dinner part because i thought that women was carring her 1st husband child!!??

-§65.37.105.122 18:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Interview with Guillermo del Toro

Michael Guillén (2006-12-16). "PAN'S LABYRINTH—Interview With Guillermo Del Toro". TwitchFilm.net. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Citation for use. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Plot

I cleaned up and rewrote a little of the plot. I have also removed the cleanup tag because I think you all have done a great job with summing up the plot. --Beanssnaeb 02:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the plot is quite well described. However, I don't think that Pan is the character's actual name, it only appears in the English-language title (see the discussion above about Pan vs. faun and the English title of the film). Also, should there be more mention of the 'reality' side of the plot (the conflicts between the rebels and the Republicans, the conflict between Ofelia and the Captain)?69.95.232.127 21:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with not using PAN, i thought i removed all references during my last edit. --Beanssnaeb 03:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah sorry about the plot. I wrote the major bulk since I saw it on the first weekend of its release and wondered if there was anything about it on wikipedia: There wasn't,since it was JUST being released that week, so I wrote what I knew. Sorry it wasn't too hot. Also I used Pan a lot as the Fauns name because of its UK title. Btw If anyone can get a copy of makeup artist magazine, its Nov/Dec 2006 issue had a big article on the make up (latex etc) of the movie. It's a hard mag to track down here in the uk but if someone finds a copy, please put the info on the wikipage, it looks like a good read! http://makeupbooks.com/bis63n06goop.html freaky_dragonlady 2 February 2007

The term "meanwhile" is used far too often in the description, IMHO, especially since this movie is by all appearances linear. "Meanwhile" suggests that it's happening at the same time. Unlike a Quentin Tarantino movie, there is really no reason to believe we aren't watching a linear plotline. 68.44.1.34 08:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In reference to the last edit, please NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH OR plot analysis. Only verifible information pertinent to the plot should be in the plot section. Also, does anyone else think the plot length should be reduced. --Beanssnaeb 03:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I edited the plot summary to shorten it; it was way too long. I wish we could mention the film's ambiguity, though. --Jitterro 22:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The Pale Man

I just saw this movie last night. Was the Pale Man ever actually named as such in the movie? I don't recall it. (Though I did watch the English subtitled version and don't speak Spanish.) --Fang Aili ^talk 16:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the name wasn't mentioned anywhere in the movie. If you think about it though, a lot of characters' names aren't mentioned in a lot movies, but the fans find out the names from websites or interviews. Take Star Wars--the fans know Aayla Secura's name, but I don't think it is ever mentioned in the movie. --Arwen undomiel 01:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Uhh... I watched this a couple weeks ago, and the faun most certainly did mention the Pale Man by name.--24.22.147.202 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Where? I didn't hear it. Arwen undomiel 01:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

OK , No Original Research

I get it. Someone still needs to go through and fix several typos. Tyner Tinsley 04:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

INCORRECT NAME IN PLOT SECTION

In the plot section, it says that Vidal tortured and killed Pedro. THIS IS TOTALLY FALSE! Pedro is alive and Mercedes meets back up with him towards the end when the rebels save her in the woods. THE STUTTERING REBEL was the one who was tortured and killed. I cant believe how wrong the person was who wrote that. Did they even see the movie?! Vidal made that whole seen where he said the stuttering rebel could leave if he could count to three! That, and Pedro and the suttering rebel look nothing alike. SOMEONE PLEASE FIX THIS RIGHT AWAY! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.38.223.243 (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Trebor 11:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Surreal Film

Could some please add this to the Surreal Film category? Also it may be considered a cult film, to be out for such a short time it's garnered a big folowing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.63.204.126 (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

The film isn't surreal, nor is it a cult film, in that its appreciative audience is rather large. And for the record, it isn't a horror film either. --Yath 06:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

DVD

The dvd is due to be released on May 15. I dont see why this shouldnt be included.

need a reference, and if it there is one where it has been officially announced by a reputable place, there should be a DVD section created as well. --Beanssnaeb 04:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a copy of the UK DVD in my posession, so I have confirmed that the list of special features is correct. Also changed 'Trailers' plural to 'Trailer' singular as there's only one. Not sure if this needs a citation, but the citation would be the DVD itself obviously. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liquidcow (talk • contribs) 14:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

The Pale Man

(2-23-07)

I think that the pale man is hilter because he killed so many women and children.

I think this because in the movie you see a big pile of children's shoes and on the mural you see him eating the children(killing)

§65.37.105.122 18:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

WHAT

Please SIGN YOUR COMMENTS with ~~~~. Also, that is original research, and cannot be included. Disinclination 04:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Artistic Influences

The visual appearance of this film, as well as a large extent of the subject matter and setting, are alarmingly reminiscent of the work of artist Gottfried Helnwein. Can anyone confirm that he was cited as an influence or had anything to do with the film? I don't believe he was anywhere in the credits, which in my opinion constitutes plagiarism by the filmmakers.

Borges' influence?

"Some of the works he drew on for inspiration include Jorge Luis Borges' Labyrinths". I'd like to know very much which work of Borges this Labyrinths is. I maybe wrong, but I don't remember any book of his with that title. Unless it is a poem (pretty sure it can't be a tale)... Nazroon 10:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[Labyrinths] is not a poem or a story, but rather a collection. Arsonal 17:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Awards info redundant?

Isn't this bit of info:

"At the 79th annual Academy Awards on February 26, 2007, Pan's Labyrinth was nominated for six Oscars and ultimately took home three: Achievement in Art Direction, Achievement in Cinematography, and Achievement in Makeup."

redundant with the whole Awards section? Wich one should we leave? Vicco Lizcano 18:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC) ^{(Tell me where I'm wrong)}

Since no one ojected, I'm going to remove the bit in Reception as it was the latest added and I've seen list of awards in other film articles. besides, it already mentions that it's an award winning movie in the first paragraph. I liked the reference, tough.

Here's what I'm deleting:

At the 79th annual Academy Awards on February 26, 2007, Pan's Labyrinth was nominated for six Oscars and ultimately took home three: Achievement in Art Direction, Achievement in Cinematography, and Achievement in Makeup.

Vicco Lizcano 23:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC) ^{(Tell me where I'm wrong)}

Biblical Similarities

This may qualify as my own research. But the similarities are too striking to disregard between the story of Abraham and Issac, and Pan and Ofelia. It touches on this very controversial story, one that is an extremely controversial topic in ethics, and it really does deserve at least a mention of the biblical narrative and a link to the topic in general. If someone wants to re-write what I did, that would be fine.--66.117.174.98 16:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)lucas

Sorry, this counts as original research. It is your opinion that the similarities are striking; others might disagree. It only belongs here if you can find a published source saying the same thing. Cop 633 17:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

so i found an article discussing the similarities between the two, but I don't know how to format the citation correctly. Can you fix it? the website is: http://frimmin.com/2007/02/12/pans-labyrinth/

thanks--66.117.174.98 21:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)lucas

Sorry to disappoint you, but this is a blog, and they don't count as reliable sources. We only include interpretations that have been through proper publication with an editing process, i.e. newspapers and magazines. Anyone can write a blog, press a button, and have the world see it, and we can't include everyone's opinion. Cop 633 00:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverted deletion of another user's comments

I reverted to an older version because someone deleted another user's comments, I don't think that's right. No matter how dumb or out of place their comments be. There mus be some Wiki Policy to back this up. Vicco Lizcano 23:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC) ^{(Tell me where I'm wrong)}

Influences

Is this sentence: (remember the labyrinth image on Hellboy?) in the Influences section a quote? if so, there should be a citation, or else it should be deleted as it seems very un-encyclopedic. Vicco Lizcano 17:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC) ^{(Tell me where I'm wrong)}

"the film is heavily influenced by Hayao Miyazaki's Spirited Away and Jim Henson's Labyrinth" - Is there a source for this? If not then I think it should be removed as it's rather debatable and hence a matter of opinion.86.144.56.33 16:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes

I have condensed the awards section as well as moved the soundtrack to a new article. if there are any concerns or issues please discuss them here. --Beanssnaeb 04:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole second test thing?

Am I the only one who thinks it was compleatly unecesary? I no way it is neccesary as a plto the device and the knife that she gets wasen't even needed to draw the blood (it was later drawned from the gun). I'm thinking this is a mayor plot hole and should this be in the article, but i didn't want to do it right away without discussion because altough i think this is an accurate statement it's an observation made by me alone. Any comments?Nnfolz 05:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Pan, though, was ORIGINALLY going to use the dagger to get blood from Ophelia's BROTHER, but she, refusing, sacrificed her own blood to save her brother. Pan decided to not use the dagger, then. So it was necessary originally. 75.26.174.53 04:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's what I mean. They make it look like the dager is super necesary when it really isn't. All that trouble to get this 'magical' dagger to get the blood and then a bullet did the trick. I mean, why not just get a knife? heck, why not just scratch it with your nails? It makes no sense.Nnfolz 06:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The task had more to do with Ofelia proving who she was than any inherent importance of the dagger. The dagger, and by extension, the key, were not that important by themselves. The important thing was seeing if Ofelia could get them. Geoff B 06:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Comparisons to other films

How could Pan's Labyrinth, a movie that was premiered in may of 2006 have been compared to Bridge to Terabithia, a film that was released in february 2007? WookMuff 11:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not defending that section (I think it should be set on fire before it spawns), but a comparison between films can take place at any time. Obviously, there was at some point a comparison made between the two films, just not before BtT was released. Geoff B 12:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I think I misunderstood, and thought people were comparing them in a negative light, like saying that PL is copying BtT and I thought that was silly. I guess a comparison can work both ways. WookMuff 23:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hallucination OR theory

It is hinted at during the film that the fantasy world Ofelia enters is, on her part, a hallucination designed to escape from the world of violence from which she comes.

Several hints throughout the film include the fact that Vidal cannot see the Faun when he enters the labyrinth, and that Ofelia is still alive when she sees herself reunited with her family in the underworld.

However, some things contradict this, in that Ofelia would not have been able to escape the room where Vidal has men guard the entrance and tells them to kill her if she leaves, if it weren't for the chalk which can cut through walls that the Faun gave her.

There is a great deal of controversy and discussion among fans regarding this theory.

All this seems like OR and/or POV. I suggest we delete it or if you think it should stay, you can state your reasons here.Vicco Lizcano 14:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC) ^{(Hey! Listen!)}

It should be deleted, unless sources can be found on the matter. There is no controversy, but there is discussion. Geoff B 14:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been removed. Any critical commentary over the purpose of the film should use attributable sources. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Box Office

Do we know how much money it took on release? Mindstar 17:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried to add the box office onto the infobox, but i can't make it work. can someone else have a bash? Mindstar 16:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Does box office info go in the infobox? I thought it went into the 'Reception' section. Geoff B 17:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

does this come in an english translation version other than in sub titled form?

does this come in an english translation version other than in sub titled form? i mean i watched the spanish version with the english sub title and enjoyed it very much but i could have gotten more if i didnt have to read and could just watch the movie.

mike

You mean dubbing? Dubbing is very rare nowadays, foreign films are almost always subtitled so it's unlikely. Cop 633 00:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)