Talk:You've Got Mail

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

References to use[edit]

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

Fiddes, Paul (2005). "When Text Becomes Voice: You've Got Mail". In Fiddes, Paul; Clarke, Anthony (eds.). Flickering Images: Theology and Film in Dialogue. Regent's Study Guides. Smyth & Helwys Publishing. ISBN 1573124583.

Remake?[edit]

The article (and the wikiquote one) is tagged with Film remakes, but that doesn't seem to make any sense. Is it? --GargoyleMT 03:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the article says "It is a remake of the film The Shop Around the Corner (1940)". Jayme 13:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently saw "The Shop Around the Corner", and the only similarities of the two films are the plot device of two people who detest each other, who at the same time have a romance via anonymous mail, and the café scene, which is a direct transposition. Everything else is different. StefanoC (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, "The Shop Around the Corner" is the name of the bookshop in the movie...--Jack Upland (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The film explicitly cites The Shop around the corner as a source. At about 00:02:37 the credits read:

Based on "The Shop Around the Corner"

Screenplay by SAMSON RAPHAELSON

from the play by MIKLOS LASZLO 2A02:6B67:EA41:BB00:54CE:103E:529E:DDE9 (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Btw I wasn’t aware of The Good Old Summertime, but the Bock & Harnick musical play and movie “She Loves Me” were also inspired by Parfumerie… ELSchissel (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Palin[edit]

Any further details on the part that was cut out? -- Annie D 15:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of best American film.--Paukrus 11:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was gonna ask what that was all about. It's not referenced and is a bit random. What was his part?! And "It's one of the best American film" is not reaaaally a reply...Arthur7 (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:You've Got Mail.jpg[edit]

Image:You've Got Mail.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 Wikipedia: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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack[edit]

How is the Soundtrack section helpful and encyclopedic? It basically just says, "some of the songs are original and some are not." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.198.118.250 (talk) 18:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Product Placement[edit]

A few sources that discuss it:

The film has heavy product placement in it and should have a section about it.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article really needs more of everything. :) Hopefully someone with an interest in the film can implement these links. Another reference to use, though not related to product placement, is this, with a chapter, "When Text Becomes Voice: You've Got Mail", by Paul Fiddes. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture[edit]

Regarding the recently-added popular culture section, is it really relevant that the characters in this film were unaware that, in the near future, the internet would have a negative impact on the retail book trade? Not to be rude, but so what? These were fictional characters living fictional lives, surely they were unaware of a great many things. Do we really need this in the article? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know some editors object to "In Popular Culture" sections on principle but assuming that isn't the issue I can certainly accept that section was badly written, and was trying to draw some strange odd conclusions from those sources.[1] It would be nice though if the article looked at the Legacy or cultural influence of the film.

The referenced BigThink article [2] was written fifteen years after the film came out (~2016) and is interesting in some ways as a retrospective review. The suggestion that the film didn't address the already imminent rise of online retailing (particularly Amazon.com) seems beside the point, I think there are much more interesting points made in the article such as the statement: "It’s actually remarkable how little the movie is about the Internet, and how much it’s about books. It’s almost a Trojan horse in this regard; Ephron deserves credit for smuggling a plot about [books] the oldest of old media into a screenplay that ostensibly concerns the new." Also the note that Cafe Lalo has become a tourist destination as a result of the film might be worth mentioning somewhere.

The Onion article from 2013[3] is funny and gently satirizes the film and the likes of Barne's and Noble, but it is difficult to think it is really relevant to this encyclopedia article except for the fact that film is still remembered enough to be worth the effort of satirizing. -- 109.79.161.49 (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberpunk?[edit]

How in the world is this a cyberpunk film? It is described as such but i have no clue how this is a cyberpunk movie 2601:300:4580:58C0:30F1:37EF:B2F8:ACD5 (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling. Vandalism. Keep reverting. The only right genre for this film is romantic comedy. If you were trying to be difficult you could argue that the use of "electronic mail" and "the internet" somehow makes this cyberpunk, but that ignores the true secret story of this film: it is a story about books and bookstores. -- 109.78.200.247 (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]