Talk:Sid and Nancy

Untitled

Removed this dubious sentence:

There was real chemistry between Gary Oldman and Chloe Webb on the set, and it was apparent in the movie that this romance was real.

Needs to be reworded to be NPOV, at least. --Lexor 02:16, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

a great movie, one to definently watch

Yep, it is... only watch out for the little inaccuracies, there are many :) Wyss 08:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

well, there's always inaccuracies, for example the Doors movie could be regarded as fiction too, as theres more inaccuracies than actual facts

True, movie biopics are in general not very accurate. The Doors movie was IMHO at least a third pure fiction and greatly distorted their history but that's Oliver Stone for you.

The uncited source for eating nothing but steamed fish and "lots of melons" is in "With Nails", the film diaries of Richard E. Grant - he is a good friend of Gary Oldman's and was asking his advice on how to lose weight for Withnail and I. I would cite this myself but I don't really know how to. Divinedegenerate 14:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"Factual errors"

Does anyone mind if I remove the "Factual errors" section? It really is just OR. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 07:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

OR, trivia, goof garbage befitting of IMDb. It was added again today with weak cites (primary and/or patently unreliable), and so I removed it at once. 82.132.226.198 (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Similar title, theme, era?

Anyone remember another punk,nihilist English film whose title contained two first names as well? Not "Naked". But of that type. There was a fire or an explosion in the opening scene.Bostoneire (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Plot

What the hell is wrong with the plot section? It just leaves out most of the events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.137.124 (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Erroneous quotations

A user called FlightTime insists on taking issue with an edit I made correcting erroneous quotes in the article attributed to Alex Cox; although a source- Cox's own book- is cited, the text differs from that included here. FlightTime however demands some kind of proof of this, although I would have thought that given the existing citation merely looking at the page would clarify matters. I've attempted to help him understand the situation but after a brief back and forth was given 'Too busy for this, continued addition of unsourced content by this user will eventually be handled. This discussion/section is closed'. The problem is, I'm not ADDING 'unsourced content'- the source is the existing citation! If anyone takes a look at the book they will see my edit is accurate. I'm not really understanding the reason for the bee in the poor chap's bonnet, but for the record the 'discussion' (ahem) is here, outlining the source and the differences between the actual text and the misquotes here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FlightTime#Reverted_constructive_edit 78.144.71.58 (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing your concerns to the article talk page. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)