Talk:The New World (2005 film)

Please go to

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.

I'm removing the 'underage controversy'. The cited article was printed at the time of the film's theatrical release, but doesn't give any sources other than to say that 'reportedly' some scenes were removed because of child pornography fears. This is not the Village Voice's own investigation, but simply reference to a rumor that emerged early in 2005. At the time, representatives of New Line and the film responded that no such edits had taken place; Malick and his post-production team were editing the film in Austin and no one from the studio had seen footage yet. The rumor was brought up on The View and the following week the hosts issued an apology/correction for discussing a false story. There's no evidence pointing to the rumor being of any substance and a denial from all involved, so it gets removed. --Krevans (talk) 09:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it supposed to go straight to the disambiguation page instead of to the redirect page? I will try to repair it, if I can remember how it's done.Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC) finally got it. sorry for the many triesAbie the Fish Peddler (talk) 06:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The plot section seems overly detailed. I'm thinking even if it was edited down to half its current word count, it would be good.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the historical accuracy section to include the fact that Capt John Smith was a English patriot and not a rebellious Irishman as portrayed by Colin Farrell in the film.Twobells (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of assume you're American if you think that's an Irish accent. I've removed it. Aredbeardeddwarf (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed 2/3 of the last paragraph under "Historical accuracy" for the primary reason that it is

There is an important and broader problem with the concept of historical accuracy at all. Malick is making a film, not a docudrama. He is blending fact with myth and fiction to present a series of ideas expressed cinematically. As with all of his films, those ideas are complex and irreducible to simplified POV/ax-grinding political statements. No such section exists for TM's Badlands though it is clearly a creative re-telling of the Starkweather-Fugate murders - and "historical accuracy" in film articles reaches the height of absurdity when Bergman's The Seventh Seal - a film in which a knight plays chess with a personified Death who stalks him throughout a movie whose self-evident purpose is the exploration of faith and doubt - is criticized for its lack of fidelity to history.

More might be said about the history behind the film if it is presented with balance and objectivity, though such edits would be far more appropriate to the Pocahontas article itself. Sensei48 (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References 8 is offline — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.25.70.102 (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed both the cathy burke review and the Powhatan blog because I feel both are irrelevant.

First, I'm sure Burke is a fine historian, and on her movie review website she seems to make a lot of good points on movies that deal with history. However, her criticisms of the New World are pure POV and not factual in nature at all. Other than the usual question of whether John smith is reliable or not and the idea the pocahontas was kicked out of the tribe or not she does not question one historical fact in the film.

Second, her comments about what type of chief wahunsenachaw was seem highly dubious given that very little is know about him before john smith encountered him. As for her comments about how the powhatans are depicted, all I can say is that she and I must have seen two different movies. The impression you get from her review is that malick depicts them as lazy hippies which I feel couldn't be farther from the truth. The are many scenes where they are shown tending crops and using fishing nets.

As for the powhatan blog as has been said before, there talking about the disney movie, not the malick version.annoynmous (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The New World (2005 film). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211234749/http://www.realalternativesite.com/the-new-world-a-2347.html to http://www.realalternativesite.com/the-new-world-a-2347.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104210317/http://www.cahiersducinema.com/PALMARES-2000.html to http://www.cahiersducinema.com/PALMARES-2000.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014212730/http://www.thehollywoodnews.com/artman2/publish/movie_news/DVD-Review-The-New-World-2005-11061008.php to http://www.thehollywoodnews.com/artman2/publish/movie_news/DVD-Review-The-New-World-2005-11061008.php

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.

• 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) 09:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The New World (2005 film). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101029173810/http://fipresci.org/undercurrent/issue_0206/sterritt_malick.htm to http://www.fipresci.org/undercurrent/issue_0206/sterritt_malick.htm

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.

• 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) 18:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]