Talk:Don't Look Now

Untitled

Resolved

This article was voted on for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Don't Look Now on 17 Jan 2005. The consensus was to keep it. (10 keep, 0 delete.) dbenbenn | talk 09:37, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The consensus should also include lengthening the summary to a length of oh, The Silence of the Lambs profile. The film's a whole lotta trivia, but the trivia actually matters (does that make sense?)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.164.218 (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The consensus should also include lengthening the summary to a length of oh, The Silence of the Lambs profile. There are many motifs that should be mentioned as they are important to the climax. No, I don't mean Christie's or Sutherland's—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.71.128 (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dont look movieposter.jpg

Resolved

Image:Dont look movieposter.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 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. BetacommandBot (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Second image

Resolved

Is it really necessary to have a nude image from the film for the "Love scene" section? The section does not require illustration, and the photo doesn't illustrate anything. The only imaginable reason to put it in is to serve as titillation, which is inappropriate. It's also of extremely poor quality. It looks like a low res digital photo of someone's TV screen. If illustration is required here (and it's not), surely we can do so with a high quality image that actually illustrates something about the text, not just a nude shot of Christie straddling Sutherland. 12.233.146.130 (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Propriety is not a valid reason for removing the photo since Wikipedia does not condone censorship. I agree that the image is of poor quality though and maybe a superior image may be desirable to illustrate the section, but it may be that one isn't available due to copyright reasons. That's an argument for replacing the image though, not simply removing it, and the issue should have been discussed here first. Betty Logan (talk) 05:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced the image with a more relevant one. Betty Logan (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Mis-heard 'Internet' quote

Resolved

In the tearoom scene where they first see the two ladies, at approximately 09:35mins, Sutherland appears to say to Christie "Do you want me to put something on the internet". This would pre-date the actual first use of the word 'internet' by 9 years. However, on close listening to the context, he actually says "Do you want me to put something on the end of that". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.172.156 (talk) 11:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

References in popular culture

• The theme of the little red-clad Venetian figure is used in a dream sequence in the "Book Clubbin'" episode of television series Absolutely Fabulous, Series 5.
• This film heavily influenced Alice, Sweet Alice.
• Portions of the film are sampled in the M83 song "America."
• The film is mentioned in a portion of the graphic novel Swamp Thing, written by Alan Moore.
• The 2002 mystery/comedy "Unconditional Love" directed by P.J. Hogan features a dwarf character who in several scenes wears a red raincoat and specifically cites "Don't Look Now". In a later scene, a cop catches a fleeting glimpse of her and asks his partner "Did you ever see a movie called "Don't Look Now"."

I moved these out of the main article until we can find reliable secondary sources. It would be great if we could source the Alan Moore reference since literature hasn't been covered in the "influence" section in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The Swamp thing reference happens in Issue #20 of Swamp Thing which is collected in part one of a six part collection of Moore's run in Swamp Thing called Saga of the Swamp Thing. It is not a graphic novel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.176.192 (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Box office details

The most notable aspect missing from the article is box office data. Unfortunately Box Office Mojo hasn't any recorded, but it would be nice if we could find some either through Variety or something. If anybody can find some it would be much appreciated. Betty Logan (talk) 07:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Don't Look Now/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BelovedFreak 17:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Well written & meets GA criteria for MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   1 link inaccessible ("access denied") but the citation in question is not vital for WP:V

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Broad in coverage and focused. The omission of box offic stats is discussed on talkpage.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutral and balanced.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Can see no problems with stability or content disputes.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images are licensed and sourced appropriately, non-free media used appropriately

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This article easily meets the GA criteria. (Plus, it was very enjoyable to read.) I have a few suggestions/thoughts below, but nothing that should prevent the article from being listed. I have made a few minor edits, mostly related to the WP:MOS, so please check that you are happy with my changes.

• 1 link to a disambiguation page has been fixed.
• 1 external link shows "access denied" so should be addressed. (The BFI link currently at #55.) I have let it pass for the review as it is not, in my opinion, vital for WP:V since the sentence is backed up by the other sources in the paragraph. There are also a couple of links which are 301 redirects to new addresses and although are working now, should be updated.
• No problems with plagiarism shown by Corenbot's tool or Earwig's tool, no problems in spot checks of sources.
• Is there any reason why the film's nationality is not mentioned in the lead or infobox? I presume it's generally considered a British film, although the IMDb describes it as British/Italian.
• I think there may be a bit of overlinking. I'm not sure that you need to link sexual intercourse or oral sex for example. Some other words that are probably reasonable to link, perhaps only need to be linked once (eg. psychic, séance etc.) I also got the sense that maybe some of the names of director & actors were being linked a few too many times, but it's subjective.
• At the end of the plot section, I was curious as to whether or not we actually witness John's death. If so, I'd be more explicit about that, as it seems a bit mysterious. If not, then fine as it is...
• There are a couple of sentences which seem quite long & unwieldy. I'm thinking in particular of sentences in the first & second paragraphs of the "analysis" section. This is probably down to taste, but I'm thinking of ease of reading.
• The repetition of the filming dates & locations seems slightly odd
• In the "reception" section, "Don't Look Now was nominated ... with Anthony B. Richmond winning ..." - this noun + ing construction is slightly awkward/ambiguous. (See User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing) it's almost implying that Richmond winning was simultaneous with the film being nominated.
• With your citation formatting, I'm not really sure I agree with your use of "work" and "publisher". For example, you have " work = nytimes.com" and "publisher = The New York Times", where I would have "work=The New York Times" and "publisher=The New York Times Company". Not so long ago I would confidently ask you to change this, but I have seen so many variations lately, including at WP:FAC, that I'm just not sure any more. Obviously, if you intend to take this to WP:FAC, this may need sorting. Either way, there is enough information included for WP:V, so it's not a problem for the GA criteria.

As none of these issues are critical to the GA criteria, I'm happy to list the article as a good article.--BelovedFreak 19:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time to do this, I greatly appreciate it. I will respond to your points:

1. Thanks for letting me know about the link rot, I will get on to this. I did a Webcite comb so many of them are archived but unfortunately not the BFI "access denied" link, so I'll track down another source for that. (I think the first reference is redundant anyway, courtesy of what follows in the paragraph. As for the other two links, I think one was the BFI top 100 list which I've corrected, but not sure the second one was. I'm guessing the Edgars because you are taken to a search page, but that's as far as a link can take you. You have to perform the search to access the film details, so I've tried to clarify that in the reference)
2. The nationality is slightly complicated, because while British cinema seems to have claimed it, in reality it is more international in production terms than the Brits would care to admit. The BFI classics book defines the film as a British/Italian production, rather than a film (it is co-produced by British and Italian companies); it was filmed in Italy, but the creative impetus is British; some of the funding may have come from Paramount I believe in the form of an advanced distribution fee. On the FilmProject, the infobox guidelines now recommend not stating the nationality if it is complicated, while the MOS states states that in ambiguous situations, the circumstances need to be clarified in the lead. Basically, I dodged the issue and you are right to call me up on it, so I will try to resolve this. Y
3. Obviously linking comes down to preference, but I will take a closer look at this. I generally prefer to link once within each top level section since readers probably go to the section they want to read about. Linking things like the sex terms outside of the sex scene section is probably overkill, but within the section they are probably topic relevant enough to retain the linking. I will have a look at this and try to reduce the linking where it is not topic relevant. Y (the most overt over-linking has been removed, there may still be some left but it's limited to context relevant sections)
4. I will clear up the ambiguous wording at the end of the plot section. Y
5. I will take a closer look at the prose. This has actually been a bugbear for me too and something I have been addressing periodically, so I more than accept it could be improved in some places. Obviously this goes to the very core of article construction, you add details bit by bit and the prose ends up slightly piecemeal. I think prose correction is a more gradual process though, you think you've written Shakespeare when you first add the content, and then you come back a month later and you see it needs to be improved.  Doing...
6. As for the "repetition of filming locations", I will take a further look at this. I was aiming to make each section self-contained, but obviously I don't want the article to come across as repetitive. Y (merged the worst offender into one sentence in one section)
7. I will clarify the prose in the noms/awards paragraph. Y
8. In fact the work/publisher distinction seems slightly odd to me in a newspaper context. For instance with newspapers, academic referencing tends to regard the newspaper itself as the "publisher" rather than the company that puts out the newspaper, so you have the author, the title and the name of the newspaper (I would be surprised to see "The New York Times Company" for instance, listed in any academic journal). If it were online, you would tend to use the exact same format but also clarify it as an online source and explicitly provide the url. The "work" parameter tends to only be utilised in academic referencing for journals where it would carry the name of the journal, and the publisher would carry the name of the company/institution putting it out, but in most contexts and referencing styles it's an obsolete parameter. Most formal referencing styles do insist on explicitly including the url for online sources so the physical location of the information is clear. On Wikipedia the url is "hidden" beneath the title, so the name of the websites where you are getting your information isn't apparent by just looking down the references, so I just use the work parameter to provide the website's address. If someone pulled it out or wanted it removed it wouldn't bother me too much because it's basically redundant (if you click on "printable version" on the article page, Wikipedia standardises the reference and attaches the full url to it), it's just a case of trying to get the references as standardised as much as possible. If I put it in for FA at some point I will clarify the policy points though with the citation boys.

   I got this checked out at the "Citing Sources" project page. They said there was no need to include the website names, but there was also no need to include the publishing company for newspapers (it is only advised for minor newspapers that are subsidiaries of other newspapers). In view of that I've just pulled the publication parameter in most cases. Y

Thanks for your copy-edit and review though. Thanks to your suggestions I can improve the article further, and hopefully it will have a shot at FA some time in the future. Betty Logan (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you'd have a good shot at FA at some point. I enjoyed reading it and am now intrigued to watch the film (although I'll have to leave it long enough so that I forget the plot a bit!) It's certainly nice to see film articles at GAN that already have a well-developed section on analysis and themes. That's interesting about academic referencing - it's been a while for me, and I'm used to different kinds of sources. To be honest, a while ago I thought I had reference formatting on WP cracked but it turns out, the more I know, the more I know I don't know! Anyway, good luck with further developing the article.--BelovedFreak 21:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

I have not seen the film and so can't correct this sentence:

In the meantime the police have found the sisters and brought them in for questioning, so an apologetic John offers to escort Heather back to her hotel to rejoin her sister, Wendy.

The police brought both sisters in and then John offers to escort one of them, presumably from the police station, to rejoin her sister?

Also, there was a long gap between the first mention of "Heather" and the sentence that has an issue. I was wondering who "Heather" was. It may help to change "Laura meets with the sisters," to "Laura meets with the Heather and Wendy." --Marc Kupper|talk 05:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done I've made the alterations you requested. Betty Logan (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Genre changes

There have been some recent edits characterising the genre of the film as a "horror" in the lead. Per WP:FILMLEAD only the primary genre should be listed in the lead. I am well aware of the film's influence on the horror genre, and even that it is regarded as a horror film in some quarters; however, this is not a universal interpretation. The highly respected American Film Institute consider it a "suspense drama", which is as good a description as any. Mark Sanderson's book about the film (published by the British Film Institute and used as a major source in the article) describes it as a "gothic thriller". Allmovie probably best sums it up as a "supernatural/psychological thriller", which is terminology commonly used to describe the film: there is a neverending array of books describing it as a "supernatural thriller". The point though is that it is not principally regarded as a "horror film", and describing it as such is misrepresenting the WP:WEIGHT of the sources. I think the article gets the balance right, describing its standing within the horror community and its influence on the genre, but overall "thriller" embraces the many different characterisations of its genre that are to be found in credible reliable sources: supernatural thriller, psychological thriller, suspense drama and—yes—even horror are invariably all types of thriller. Betty Logan (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but why remove it from the horror categories too? Clearly it's considered a horror film as well. It doesn't have to be in the lead, but it should be in those categories.Lynchenberg (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

If you agree to leave the genre as it is in the lead I can live with the addition of the horror categories in the spirit of a fair compromise. Betty Logan (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, but it must be stressed I'm not just speaking from my own personal opinion. This is Rotten Tomatoes, IGN, The Guardian, the Criterion collection among others... all very reliable sources. Lynchenberg (talk) 02:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This film falls into a group of films that defy basic genre classification. It has been labelled as many things over the years, so WP:WEIGHT is probably more applicable than WP:VERIFIABLE in cases such as these. That said it probably has had more impact on the horror genre than any other (which is discussed in detail in the article) so in retrospect I do actually agree there is some justification and historical context for the categories. Betty Logan (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Inspirations Note

Just wondering why Italian Giallo isn't cited as one of it’s influences — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirk2112 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you know of any sources that discuss the influence of giallo on the film? I would be happy to incorporate that aspect into the article if the information is available to me. Most of the inspirations section uses the BFI Modern Classics book as a source but unfortunately that book is mostly limited to British cinema lineage. I have read comparisons between Don't Look Now and Who Saw Her Die? which came out a year earlier, but those comparisons are complicated by the fact that Don't Look Now is a fairly faithful adaptation of du Maurier's novella which predated Who Saw Her Die?, so it's not really clear who influenced who. If you know of sources that discuss the giallo influence on Don't Look Now though we can probably put something into the article. Betty Logan (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Introduction

I think the stating of the genre in the first paragraph of the introduction should be changed from just "thriller" to "thriller-horror" as the article can be found on the pages "Category:1973 horror films", "Category:British horror films", "Category:Italian horror films" and "Category:Supernatural horror films", as well as the pages "Category:British thriller films", "Category:Italian thriller films" and "Category:Supernatural thriller films". This therefore shows the film to be a significant work in both genres so these genres ought to be given equal weight in the introduction.

Following on from this, would it not be better to change the structure of the first two sentences to:

Don't Look Now... is a 1973 British-Italian independent thriller-horror film. It was directed by Nicolas Roeg and adapted by Allan Scott and Chris Bryant from the short story of the same name by Daphne Du Maurier.

as this not only gives more information than can be found in this paragraph currently, but also improves upon the slightly clunky phrasing of the current opening? Hayal12 (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Hayal12

This has already been discussed above at #Genre changes. Don't Look Now borrows traits from many genres such as horror and psychological drama, but most authoritative sources regard it as a thriller, or an occult thriller. That is what the film was conceived and marketed as. Per WP:FILMLEAD we classify a film under the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified. While other genres may be applicable as categories if they can be sourced (such as horror or psychological thriller) that doesn't mean we plonk them all in the lead. Betty Logan (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Could I just add my complete agreement with Betty Logan's comments above. I see no reason to add anything to the current lead. David J Johnson (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, but whether or not we add something, the lead still reads fairly awkwardly and could benefit from being re-phrased. Hayal12 (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Hayal12

In what way is it awkwardly phrased? It obviously read fine to the reviewer who passed it at GA level. Look, the article is comprehensive and well-written and has successfully passed a Good Article review. In short it doesn't need tweaks. Your time would be more fruitfully spent on articles that are in clear need of development, such as Stubs, Start and C-class articles. Betty Logan (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Don't Look Now. 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/20110929070708/http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2009/10/viff_antichrist_a_pew_in_satan.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2009/10/viff_antichrist_a_pew_in_satan.html

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Initial release as a double bill with The Wicker Man?

Claims that both films were released together on 16 October 1973 don't seem to correspond to the sources at The Wicker Man, which seems to have been released later. This would suggest that The Wicker Man was not originally paired with this film as claimed, and was perhaps added later. Can anyone clear this up? --woodensuperman 15:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I actually have the special edition DVD (the cited source) so I can verify the claim for you this evening. There are a couple of other possibilities too: one of the dates may be incorrect (either here or at The Wicker Man article) or they may been paired later in their runs (much more likely IMO). It was very common up to the 1980s for cinemas in the UK to pair fading films to extend their runs, but the practice was killed off by video. I will check the DVD when I get home and see exactly what it says. Betty Logan (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this article explains the contradictory dates:

Don't Look Now opened at the Odeon, Leicester Square, in late 1973, attracting critical praise as well as the attention of the censors and the censorious for a lyrical but fairly graphic sex scene. When it went on general release (there was a gap then of some weeks between a West End premiere and a film reaching the provinces), Don't Look Now was the top half of a double bill ... The other film, The Wicker Man, a horror flick destined for cult status, not only hadn't been shown in the West End but wasn't even given an official press screening. Made simultaneously, the two pictures are curiously similar, both ending with the innocent hero being led to a preordained fate by a red-clad child whom he believes he's helping.

So basically Don't Look Now was released in the West End in October 1973, and when it went nationwide it was paired with The Wicker Man. Betty Logan (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks! That makes sense now. --woodensuperman 08:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Stupid formatting

Why on earth does Wikipedia bother to have MOSFILM when it's patently obvious it means nothing?

Who thought sticking the cast into a crappy table half way down the screen?

Has anyone ever bothered to view this on a mobile device? Poor very poor. 81.141.33.6 (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

The cast list is fully compliant with MOS:FILM which states that "a table or infobox grouping actors and their roles may be placed in the plot summary or in the "Casting" subsection of a "Production" section". Also, Wikipedia is not designed to be read on a mobile device; it is designed to be read at a minimum resolution of 1024x768 pixels per WP:RESOL. Betty Logan (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

remake

This article doesn't mention the remake attempt. Given that we haven't heard anything about it for four years I think it's pretty clear Donald Sutherland's scathing comments killed it in its crib, but still, the idea of a remake should probably be mentioned. Serendi^podous 15:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The remake has been on and off for over a decade. So far it has just been rumours and there is nothing tangible to say about it. WP:NOTRUMOR states that "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." If something concrete comes along I'll be the first to add it. Betty Logan (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

How about simply saying, "the rights to remake the film are currently held by StuioCanal, and numerous such attempts have been made, though none have yet been successful."? Serendi^podous 01:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Because it would not actually be telling us anything encyclopedic. The remake rights to every film are held by somebody and there has been no serious activity worth documenting. At this point it is just rumors and trivia. Betty Logan (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Re reverted edit that hyperlinked the first mention of Venice in the plot section

I checked three other major films (at random) with Venice locales - Death in Venice, The Tourist and Everyone Says I Love You - and all three have an early reference to Venice hyperlinked. I checked Nic Roeg's page - sure enough, first reference to Venice is hyperlinked. I looked up Midnight Run (again, a random choice, first movie I thought of); the plot summary hyperlinks the initial mentions of NYC, LA and Chicago.

If consistent style is to have any meaning on this website, one can plan on spending most of 2021 editing plot sections on Wikipedia movie pages - or one can let the only hyperlink to Venice on the Don't Look Now page stand, and move on to more worthy uses of one's time. Porterhse (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Just because something is linked at other articles doesn't mean it should be linked here. None of the articles you have linked to have been rated "Good Articles". This article has been under review and its compliance with the MOS has been reviewed also. MOS:OVERLINK is explicitly clear on the subject of what not should be linked: The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of ... locations (e.g., Berlin; New York City, or just New York if the city context is already clear; London, if the context rules out London, Ontario; Southeast Asia). The MOS seems fairly unequivocal on this issue. Betty Logan (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Porterhse: You are now edit-warring a clear MOS violation into the article. Why do you think the MOS does not apply here? This looks like a very straight-cut application to me, and presumably David J Johnson too. If you think an exception is warranted then please explain to us what distinguishes this particular case from typical usage. If arbitrary MOS violations are introduced into the article without justification (and usage in non-GA rated articles do not provide such justification) then the article's GA status could be ultimately jeopardised. Betty Logan (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Stop pretending that one minor good faith edit that improves the page is somehow defacing your Golden Calf. I do not intend to waste any more time on this beyond a final explanation and defense of my edit. It was done in good faith for those who have seen the movie, want to (as I did) learn more about the city, Venice, that played a key role, and appreciate the opportunity to arrive at the page via one click - a wonderful convention of Wikipedia that attracts users - instead of having to type it in. The policy cited in defense of the edit is ambiguous, obscure, open to wide latitudes of interpretation, and flagrantly ignored or outright disobeyed on myriad pages. Your time could be spent much more productively on improving the policy, and/or on making useful, welcome edits on pages that really need it, including literally thousands more egregious violations than the one you are edit warring over. I could care less about the ramifications of an edit war, including being blocked. If it's more important to you to win a picayune edit war than avoid alienating a user with 2000 edits and 0.1% reversions of them, Godspeed. I read the talk pages; it wouldn't be the first time a Mrs. Grundy turned a friend of Wikipedia into an enemy by picking petty squabbles like this. The choice is yours.Porterhse (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Your initial edit was in good faith, now you are editing in poor faith. My time was well spent developing this article from a stub into a MOS-compliant GA-rated article, and you clearly aren't going to answer my question for why we should be making an exception for a well known geographic location. See you at ANI. Betty Logan (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Daily Mail

Twice now ([1] and [2]) David Gerard has removed text noting the response of the Daily Mail to the controversial sex scene, citing WP:DAILYMAIL. The RFC only prohibits the Daily Mail as a reference. It is not a licence to remove sourced commentary about the Daily Mail. This section does NOT use the Daily Mail as a source; the source is the Sanderson book, published by the British Film Institute. The book is essentially an academic critical study of the film, and Sanderson highlights the Daily Mail response as an example of the media reaction at the time. Neither would I classify it as an "undue opinion" by virtue of the fact it is singled out in a serious scholarly study. Betty Logan (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree with Betty's comments above. David Gerrard please note. David J Johnson (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Betty as well. David's conduct in this matter has been repeatedly overzealous and may warrant action. He is acting as if the restriction is a ban on the Daily Mail, in direct contradiction to what WP:DAILYMAIL actually says. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Erik, I trust you are referring to David Gerrard and not me? Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Whoops, it did not register that there were two Davids. Yes, David Gerrard. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Erik commented on this subject last year in his May 6 postings at Talk:RoboCop (2014 film)#WP:DAILYMAIL. Betty Logan joined that discussion May 20 and I entered on May 23 in the hope of convincing David Gerard that exception should be made for Daily Mail arts coverage, but all such arguments have obviously continued to be unsuccessful. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I have been quite taken aback by how this Daily Mail guideline has been deployed. I am all in favour of factual integrity but it has evolved into a purge. How can Wikipedia have a serious ambition to democratise information when it purges voices it doesn't like? The Daily Mail has occasionally fabricated stories so we should definitely seek to replace it in those instances where factual veracity is potentially an issue, but removing it as a "voice" is over-stepping the line. It is the UK's second best selling newspaper and has an important role in the national conversation. In this particular case we don't even use the Daily Mail as a source; literally, an academic briefly discusses a Daily Mail review (from 50 years ago no less) as an example of the media reaction to the film and now even this is being targeted! Betty Logan (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

From 4 March 2017 until 16 July 2020, a Daily Mail article on this subject was part of the talk page template, but this anti-Daily Mail crusade is relentless — from targeting articles, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daily Mail Inspirational Woman of the Year, to what one contributor called "indiscriminate, overreaching, and unnecessary deletes", it has become a heedless search for anything that contains the words "daily mail", especially entries listed at Daily Mail (disambiguation) — such as references to the defunct American newspaper Charleston Daily Mail. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

A PETER KATZ and ANTHONY B. UNGER Production

This section header depicts the first on-screen card in the opening credits (the second on-screen card depicts "JULIE CHRISTIE DONALD SUTHERLAND in"). Since the opening credits begin with the names "PETER KATZ and ANTHONY B. UNGER", rather than with the names "JULIE CHRISTIE DONALD SUTHERLAND", it would seem that the film must attach high value to the two production names.

However, in the Wikipedia article for the film, only the name Peter Katz appears in the article's infobox because, at the end of the opening credits (and in the closing credits), Anthony B. Unger is billed as Executive Producer and Peter Katz is billed as Producer. The American Film Institute entry states that, "Producers Peter Katz and Anthony B. Unger were Americans then based in England".

Since Unger's name appears so prominently in the credits, I attempted to find an intuitive manner of including him in the article, while making it clear that the reason his name as producer was not in the infobox alongside Peter Katz is that he was actually the executive producer.

The current form, "Don't Look Now was produced through London-based Casey Productions and Rome-based Eldorado Films, by American producers Peter Katz and Anthony B. Unger", leaves unexplained why one producer's name is in the infobox and the other producer's name is not.

Two possible alternative forms were the long "The initial on-screen card in the opening credits states, "A Peter Katz and Anthony B. Unger Production". Although the final card in the closing credits states, "An Anglo-Italian Co-Production", producer Peter Katz and executive producer Anthony B. Unger were Americans based at the time in London who produced the film through London-based..." and the streamlined "Producer Peter Katz and executive producer Anthony B. Unger were Americans who produced Don't Look Now through London-based..."

Perhaps the streamlined sentence might be more acceptable if presented in this slightly rearranged form — "Americans Peter Katz (producer) and Anthony B. Unger (executive producer) produced Don't Look Now through London-based..." —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't know why the nationality of the two men is so important to mention here. It seems largely incidental to me. We explain where Casey Productions and Eldorado Films are based to explain the nationality of the film, but it's not as though we say the film was directed by British director Nicolas Roeg, and starred fellow Brit Julie Christie and Canadian Donald Sutherland? Do you not not think you are attaching too much weight to the nationality of just two people who worked on the film? That said, I don't object if there is a way to incorporate it organically into the article, which brings me to my second point.

You are structuring the second sentence to make the nationality of the two producers the primary point of the sentence which is at odds with how the rest of the section is written. When the article is about the film it is slightly jarring to make the two producers the object of the sentence, rather than the film itself. If you take a look at the lead for example, we start the paragraph by saying "Don't Look Now is a 1973 English-language film directed by Nicolas Roeg", not "Nicolas Roeg directed 1973 English-language film Don't Look Now". The reason it is written this way is because the article is about the film. Please don't take this the wrong way (I really don't mean it as an insult because I have always regarded you as a good editor) but is English your first or second language? If it is your second language perhaps that would explain why your sentence reads fine to you but not to me.

As for your final point, I really don't think readers are going to ponder why the executive producer is missing from the infobox, although if this is a concern then perhaps the executive producer could just be removed from the section altogether? I do not agree with your-rewrite because it leads to an unnatural sentence structure that makes the producers the object of the sentence rather than the film. If we could drop the nationality of the producers then an alternative would be "Don't Look Now was produced through London-based Casey Productions and Rome-based Eldorado Films, by producer Peter Katz and executive producer Anthony B. Unger." Betty Logan (talk) 09:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed English did not start out as my first language, although I do write primarily in English now. My great appreciation for your help in the search for a solution and for taking the time to read my extensive posting and to compose an equally extensive reply. Your suggested alternative does have an intuitively sound flow to it and I would support its use as a replacement for the existing sentence. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 10:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thriller film

PatTheMoron implemented this edit in the article. Is it just me who finds the phrase "thriller film" clunky? While I have heard films described as "thrillers" I never hear them described as "thriller films", unlike say "horror film". I appreciate we have an article called "Thriller film" but the term just doesn't read right to me plonked in the middle of a sentence. I have always believed that good quality writing should reflect how people actually speak. Betty Logan (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

You may well have a point. The film encyclopedia source which purportedly supports the expression "thriller film" in the very first sentence of Thriller film in fact does no such thing. Konigsberg 1997, p. 421 has an entry for "Thriller" ("Any film that creates excitement and suspense..."), and does not use the expresssion "thriller film" anywhere within its 469 pages. If you want to check, the book is available for free short-term loan from the Internet Archive. I would suggest, actually, that Thriller film should be moved to Thriller (film). MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry for the late reply - it's just that I have seen other articles use "thriller film", albeit often with a subgenre attached (as in Psycho (1960 film) or any number of Hitch movies). I didn't want to change the genre per what has previously been discussed in the talk page, but was just trying to make the introductory sentence consistent with other articles - if clunkiness is a concern, could something like "English language film in the thriller genre" be a worthwhile alternative? Using simply "thriller" might be similarly odd to readers - ie. "Is it a play or novel?". PatTheMoron (talk) 05:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, appreciate you coming to the talk page. I think your proposed compromise wording is a good solution and hopefully it might create a precedent here on Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 06:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Cast list

Is there a reason for the absence of a cast list? DuncanHill (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? Betty Logan (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Soundtrack

The first six bars of the soundtrack are practically identical with the opening tune of the German TV news "Tagesschau." Nobody ever made an issue of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyGmFvO0KE0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05n8yr9Vz-o --Turan MUC (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)