Talk:Orphan (2009 film)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: Ontario / Toronto / Cinema Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario. This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the joint Canadian film and cinema task force Horror Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Film: Canadian / American This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

"losing a baby" is a little vague. I can't give you a cite, but the actual situation is that the couple, expecting their third child, go through a miscarriage, and then decide to adopt. Bustter (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda's ankle was broken, not her leg when Esther pushed her off the slide.

a lot of these things are out of order. like kate told john about there being no record of esther at the orphanage at the hospital AFTER daniel fell out of the tree house —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.225.110 (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier today (approximately 12:00 pm CST) and every day prior for at least the past week, the Synopsis has contained only the blurb that Warner Bros. has on the film's official site:

The tragic loss of their unborn child has devastated Kate and John, taking a toll on both their marriage and Kate's fragile psyche as she is plagued by nightmares and haunted by demons from her past. Struggling to regain some semblance of normalcy in their lives, the couple decides to adopt a child. At the local orphanage, both John and Kate find themselves strangely drawn to a young girl named Esther. Almost as soon as they welcome Esther into their home, however, an alarming series of events begins to unfold, leading Kate to believe that there's something wrong with Esther--this seemingly angelic little girl is not what she appears to be. Concerned for the safety of her family, Kate tries to get John and others to see past Esther's sweet facade. But her warnings go unheeded until it may be too late-for everyone.

But as of right now, someone has changed the synopsis so that it solely consists (and consists almost verbatim) of a bit of disinformation that has been circulating on various message boards--all attributed to "Carolina"--including the one for "Knox Rd" which (curiously) has recently been added as one of the external links for the article ("Knowing the Orphan spoiler is more fun than seeing the actual movie"). The post there by "Carolina" (on July 22 2009 at 8:51 pm) reads:

I hope you all know that the spoiler about her being a 33 year old woman with a disorder is a joke, right? Some random person said it as a JOKE and it has taken on a life of its own. I went to the premiere and, although there is a GIANT unsuspecting twist, it is not that one. Haha I still can’t believe you all believed that! I want to meet the kid who made that up, he deserves to have his own reality show. Now, if you want to know what the real spoiler is I’ll tell you: (Remember: This first part is all told in flashback at the end of the movie so we don’t actually see this happen in real time) Esther is a little girl who was taken away by social services after she witnesses her mother murder her father in a really gruesome way. She is put in foster care for a while until she is caught trying to re-enact the murder scene with a little girl in her foster home. She is then put into an asylum (the spoiler about the ribbons around her neck and wrists covering scars from restraints is true). So, here’s the good part: One night she escapes from the asylum and knocks on a woman’s door saying her father dropped her at the edge of the nearby river and left. The woman lets her stay the night and promises to take her to the orphanage the next morning. The next day they drive to the orphanage where the woman and the orphanage director speak (We don’t hear this conversation). Then, the family comes and decides to adopt her after their first choice mysteriously is no longer up for adoption (we later find out she killed him). So, Esther basically wreaks havoc on the mother because her mother killed her father. She and her father were very close so she holds a soft spot for John and wants him all to herself. And that’s the big secret! Still juicy, but not as ridiculous as you all thought. Hope I cleared up some stuff!

Yeah, none of us appreciate your little bout of fan fiction. We serious users like to keep information accurate

This is a complete fabrication which has been posted--each time by "Carolina"--on at least a dozen prominent sites that I've found. I'm guessing its someone affiliated with the studio or the marketing agency trying to cast doubt about other posts with the genuine spoiler (that Esther is a 30-something dwarf who used to be prostitute catering to pedophiles and now she's out to kill her new family save the father who she is trying to seduce, etc.). There have been reports, I know, that Warner Bros. is worried about the much-hyped twist ending being spoiled by Twitter, etc. If it's true that Warner Bros. or an affiliated company is behind it, it wouldn't be a new practice, of course, but it seems like such a concerted effort--one that has spilled over now to Wikipedia--that it almost deserves its own section in the entry *if* it can somehow be verified that such is the case (or maybe it could be part of a larger section about "push back" efforts undertaken by studios, etc., against spoilers in the entry for "spoiler" if any other cases can be verified).

It could, of course, also just be the work of someone (not affiliated with the film at all) with way too much time on his/her hands, but in any event I hope that Wikipedia can take steps to correct the "Synopsis" section--even if it's just to keep the official blurb in place--and prevent the disinformation from being reposted. Fauxcault (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update: I'm glad to see that the Synopsis has now been edited to read:

Esther is a little girl who was taken away by social services after she witnesses her mother murder her father in a rather gruesome way. She is put in foster care for a while until she is caught trying to re-enact the murder scene with a little girl in her foster home. She is then put into an asylum. One night she escapes from the asylum and knocks on a woman’s door saying her father dropped her at the edge of the nearby river and left. The woman lets her stay the night and promises to take her to the orphanage the next morning. The next day they drive to the orphanage where the woman and the orphanage director speak. Then, a family comes and decides to adopt her after their first choice mysteriously is no longer up for adoption (later finding out she murdered him). Esther soon becomes attached to John, and sees her new mother as the enemy. Esther is not a child, she is a 33 year old woman with a disease that she cant grow physically but mentally.

I'm not sure how precise that is, but it's a lot better than both the swill that was just there a little while ago and the official blurb. Fauxcault (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some serious issues all over this page. The writing mechanics are screwed up - I would edit it, but the grammar and syntax are so bad in places that I actually have no idea what the person who wrote it was trying to say. 69.247.196.32 (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that's why it's on my to do list for this weekend. I've made one pass to trim it down but I'll do a complete overhaul by Sunday. Millahnna (mouse)talk 13:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed 'gasoline' to lighter-fluid' in the part where Esther burns down the tree house. I also fixed several writing errors that seem to have been written by someone who knows English as a second language: confusing phrases like Esther spreading fire with "the" gasoline, when gasoline had never previously been mentioned. It still needs work though. 98.89.39.146 (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"cast and crew are American" -- cast, sure, but filmmakers are not allowed to import an entire crew into Canada. Besides, where would the cost savings of a Canadian shoot go if you hired and transported the crew from LA? The reference for this statement says nothing about an American crew. Perhaps "Production staff and cast are American" is what is meant here? Bustter (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit about the controversy going on about this film- it seems interesting that there would be an anti-movie book on facebook, so I added that as well. The article link has all the info, but I added the facebook link as well.

It is ridiculous though. The orphan 'girl' turns out not to be a girl at all. So this thing about adopted people being offended is just silly. Leave it in because its sourced, but you can find anti-anything on Facebook, so that is why someone else has removed the Facebook thing.--EchetusXe 14:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about this that has been added? "However no complaints have been made by the dwarf community, who seem happy to be portrayed in films as murderous psychopaths (for instance Don't Look Now and Snow White and the Seven Dwarves." 72.187.69.245 (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am told by a local newspaper that the image of

Its there, any objections from anyone on putting it into the artcle once someone does a plot synopsis? the movie does give the buidling alot of coeverage Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, but keep in mind such discussions would belong in a production section, not the plot summary, and of course would also require proper third-party citations. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 05:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Id like to find a better source to place in the article about the college. Its interesting because the collage was destroyed by arson last year (trivia) but im wondering if that had any motivation for the directors to refer to the college in the film Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to point out the the entire plot section is gone, even the brief summary.Booksrule9 (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it has anything to do with what I just posted under "Synopsis" (above). Fauxcault (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad...guess I shouldn't be too hasty.Booksrule9 (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no--I didn't mean that to sound sarcastic... I saw that it was missing, too, and I was hoping it was being edited. I only saw the changes in "History" after I posted, too. Fauxcault (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, yeah I read that wrong.Booksrule9 (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a synopsys. That's a spoiler. I would be extremely pissed if someone spoiled the movie for me when I read this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dowboy98 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do not avoid content when placed in an appropriate section simply because it might contain a spoiler. Please see

WP:SPOILER. Additionally, the content you replaced the summary with appears to have been a cut-and-paste copyvio, which is a no-no. However, I agree with you that the current version has moved beyond being a simple synopsis, so I have retitled the section as "Plot". –Fierce Beaver (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

If it were the entire movie plot + the spoiler, I don't see the problem.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.71.169 (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "respectfully" in the following paragraph needs to be changed to "respectively" - I can't change it for some reason (I guess whoever wrote it isn't a native English speaker):

The film was the #4 film at the box office for its opening weekend, making $12.77 million total, behind G-Force, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and The Ugly Truth respectfully. Lilytaz 19:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well sinebot, if u didnt want to spoil the movie, why look it up on wikipedia? [[Special:Contributions/68.195.43.207|68.195.43.207 (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)usagi[reply]

Here is the link to the production notes if anyone would like to work on fleshing out this article. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody besides me think that the movie was inspired by the horrific Mary Bell case? --194.81.33.10 (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From IMDB: "The film seems to have been loosely inspired by the case of

Treva Throneberry, a woman who conned social services from various states into believing she was an orphaned teenager well into her late twenties." Though, I have read one or two places that it's a remake of a foreign film. I can't find anything to back this up. Some people say it's a remake of El Orfanato, but this is incorrect. 132.235.12.92 (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Considering that this "proof" only showed up after a reversion war broke out on the Treva Thorneberry page, it isn't wikipedia or noteworthy at all. People can add whatever they want to the IMDB trivia pages & they only added it after I said that it was unfounded research based on opinion. Thorneberry never killed anyone & she sure as heck didn't pass for someone that young. Until we have someone from the movie crew (even the guy who stocked the toilets would be good) confirm this, it is only someone's personal theory & nothing else.

talk) 01:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply

]

The deception is similar to that of Natalia Grace Barnett. However, the timeline doesnt seem to be a plausible inspiration. https://www.purdueexponent.org/city_state/article_182c23b6-05ee-11ec-a77a-cfbe946d82d2.html Her adoptive parents, the now-divorced Kristine Barnett and Michael Barnett, left Ukrainian-born Natalia Grace at an apartment in Lafayette, Indiana in 2013 before moving to Canada one month later and breaking off contact.... Along with lying about her age, the Barnetts claimed that Natalia attempted to poison them, stood over their bed with knives and tried to push Kristine into an electric fence — accusations Natalia denied when she went on "The Dr. Phil Show" in 2019. Mang (talk) 05:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone find out the budget for this movie? I was curious on if it made money or lost money.

Isn't the line "I'm not your fucking mommy!" a reference to American version of Ring 2? Not vital but I think it could be mentioned --Yaytsa (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. It's a total coincidence and the filmmakers wish they had known that THE RING 2 used that line first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.37.160 (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this film described as a "Horror" film in the lead? It doesn't seem to qualify as "horror", and IMDb doesn't include "horror" in its description either. "Mystery thriller" would be more accurate and appropriate. Opinions?Shirtwaist (talk) 09:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the reviews I've read referred to it as such so I'm assuming (can't recall) that it was billed as a horror film during its initial release. Millahnna (talk) 10:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through 25 critic's reviews on Metacritic, and only 8 of them call it a "horror" film. Also, only 4 of the 24 User Reviews call it "horror". That tells me there's some ambiguity as to which genre it falls into. Even if the studio billed it as a "horror" film, that in itself wouldn't make it so. Is there another reason you think it should be called a "horror" film?Shirtwaist (talk) 11:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the studio billing it that way (again, I'm still only assuming on that) no, not really. I've personally always thought of it as horror/thriller, myself, though I can certainly see why you'd think of mystery. If I remember right a lot of reviewers went with thriller, too, right? A lot of horror based fan sites have it listed in their archives so there seems to be some popular sentiment for calling it a horror flick but not in any way we can source. If we can find a source that notes the genres the studio labeled it under we should definitely include that I would think. You want to get some extra eyeballs over here so we can figure out a consensus or see if others know of some other sources? I know there have been some genre discrepancies on other films lately (and some discussion on how to source genres) so some folks might have some good links to check that I can't think of. Millahnna (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have altered the genre slightly to note that it incorporates elements of the horror and mystery genres, as simply listing it as a psychological thriller film is slightly misleading, as many clearly see it as a horror or mystery film, and it is important to inform people when a film contains horror elements particularly due to the sensitive nature of this genre when people go about deciding whether to watch a film. More broadly, however, including all three genres covers all bases and provides an ultimately more accurate description. I hope this is ok. 7 September 2015. Willowandglass ((User talk:Willowandglass|talk]]) —Preceding undated comment added 09:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people continually say that Leena was simply sent back into the pond and that we really don't know if she dies or not? She DIED! No one, and I mean NO ONE, could survive being kicked that hard in the face and falling back into a frozen pond. Her neck was broken, based on the angle it snapped back, and no one, especially a person with a 9-year-old body, could survive that. Even if they did, sinking into a frozen lake means death within minutes.

Leena DIES!!! That needs to be put into the plot permanentely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobr1020 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. All the film shows us is Leena sinking back down. The coroner doesn't pull her lifeless body out of the pond and exclaim "SHE'S DEAD!" Declaring a fact in the plot summary that is not explicitly shown to be a fact can be construed as

WP:FILMPLOT: "If there are differing perspectives of a film's events from secondary sources, simply describe the events on screen as basically as possible in the plot summary and report interpretations in another section of the article." This means you are free to add interpretations, reviews, commentary from reliable secondary sources elsewhere in the article, but not in the plot summary, that say they think Leena is killed, not killed, whatever. Shirtwaist ^chat 23:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, if we don't know if Leena died or not, then I guess we don't know if JOHN died or not, do we? What about the lake? Even if she survived the neck break, there is no way in hell that she would survive being completely underwater in a frozen lake for very long. What about just saying "Presumed dead"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobr1020 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would also be speculation on our part, and

WP:SYNTHESIS as well since we would be looking at the "facts" presented in the film and essentially coming up with a new fact that was not presented in the film - that is, someone in the film presumed her to be dead. Nothing and no one in the film tells us she is presumed anything. Shirtwaist ☎ 11:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

which guitar hero game they are showing is difficult to tell but based on the footage it appears to be guitar hero world tour.84.213.45.196 (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not allow

T@lk 03:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Apart form this, at the same time, you did not remove the alternate ending in the article I Am Legend (film), although you worked on it just today. It so appears to me at present that this is not coherent. Hence, I would be deeply obligated to you if you were to explain your actions in detail. Many thanks in advance. Very truly yours, --Abzo (talk) 10:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a relevant discussion ongoing at

reliable sources to cover the alternate ending and they should be moved down to the production section if there's any sources that discuss it. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]