Jump to content

Talk:The Elephant Man (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page move

[edit]

This page was moved from "The Elephant Man (movie)" to "The Elephant Man (film)" as per the naming convention set out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) – Ianblair23 16:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sir John Gielgud

[edit]

With regard to a recent edit, it is an accepted practice within the entertainment industry that honours are not mentioned for professional credits. Besides (Sir) John Gielgud, the film features (Sir) Anthony Hopkins, John Hurt (,CBE) and (Dame) Wendy Hiller. Over the Lucky Number Slevin mistake, Sir Ben Kingsley stated, "...It's not the way we work in this profession." (See here.) Chris 42 16:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Synopsis is not in chronological order, does this matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.165.19 (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Brooks' Involvement

[edit]

The current article states that "Brooks downplayed his involvement as he did not want the project to be perceived as a comedy." This statement is followed with "[citation needed]." The statement can be verified by a portion of an interview with Mel Brooks on the DVD for "The Elephant Man." Brooks' entire statement is as follows:

"Jonathan Sanger is the producer of The Elephant Man, and Stuart Cornfeld is one of the executive producers, I being the other, without portfolio, without name, because, very simply, if I put Mel Brooks' name on it - on the posters, or even on the screen before it ran - I knew it would be misconstrued and that the audience would think that this was some kind of a comedy..."

I hesitate to add this information as a citation to the Wikipedia article, for fear of violating Wikipedia's policy regarding "Biographies of Living Persons."

Jlongpre (talk) 06:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A citation to an interview with the person in question is fine, and the fact that it's included on the official DVD extras suggests that his statements are taken seriously by the production company, so it's fine as a source. It's certainly an improvement over no source.--BelovedFreak 17:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

[edit]

Why is Rotten Tomatoes mentioned at the start of this section? Rotten Tomatoes did not exist when the film was released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete3194 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Tomatoes provides a summary of reviews, some (most?) of which will be contemporary to the film. That's not an argument for keeping the mention of RT in there, just an explanation of why it kicks off the reception sections of many articles.--BelovedFreak 17:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DVD peculiarity

[edit]

The DVD releases of this film are devoid of the usual scene selection chapter stops. I think that Lynch wanted everyone to view it from the beginning and insisted upon this. WHPratt (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which English?

[edit]

Should this article be in American English (AmE) or British English (BrE)? I just reverted someone claiming that "theatre" was a typo, but actually when I look close there's quite a lot one could change. It's an American film, but a British topic. The editor who started the article was I think American but seems to have used no nationally-determined language, and the first I can find is "theatre" spelt thus; it seems to have stayed in BrE for some time. I'm not that fussed; I am sure that it would be just as odd for AmE users to have to read the film industry bits in BrE spellings as it is for me to read the plot synopsis in AmE. Consistency is important though. So, what do you think? Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: Sorry for responding so late (people don't often read the talk pages here!). I think it's a matter of just picking one and putting a notice in the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valuable ideas! Thanks! Veronica blood (talk) 11:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Elephant Man (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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing

[edit]

a witness can talk to dr treves for kidnapping of john merrick 88.190.17.40 (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That comment made no sense. Please try again. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 22:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A witness see Jim are corrupt by Bytes who kidnap John Merrick and later a witness talk for Dr Treves and Treves fires Jim for he done. 88.190.17.40 (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You still make no sense and I fail to see how this has anything to do with anything. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@88.190.17.40: You are welcome to respond in your native language if need be. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The elephant man

[edit]

This is best film! Veronica blood (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Cultural influence" section is problematic

[edit]

Much of the content of the section is unsourced and most of it is simply trivial. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 January 2025

[edit]

The Elephant Man (film) → The Elephant Man (1980 film) – The Elephant Man (1982 film). WP:NCF doesn't allow partial primary topics. (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Film has been notified of this discussion. CNC (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Station1. The sitewide guideline WP:INCDAB allows for partial primary topic where there's an overwhelming primary topic between the topics in that specific area, and there's no reason why films should be exempt to that. Per WP:CONLEVEL, the contention that films specifically can't be disambiguated that way is unconvincing when the community has expressed a general view that they are fine for cases such as this one.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Erik, Station1, and Amakuru: This RM has been listed at MR at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 January. Additionally, I urge Station1 and Amakuru to reconsider their !votes per WP:PRECISION, which explicitly permits subject-specific naming conventions to give exceptions to the general naming conventions. This is explained at WP:NCF. INCDAB and NCF are both guidelines and thus have the same level of authority, as this is not merely a WikiProject page; PRECISION, meanwhile, is a policy. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All 3 possible titles meet the requirements of WP:PRECISE. The current title is more WP:CONCISE than the proposal. WP:NCF, like all guidelines, does allow for common sense exceptions. It does not have the same level of authority for disambiguation of article titles as WP:DISAMBIGUATION because a) DISAMBIGUATION is the broader guideline specifically about disambiguating article titles, while NCF is about titling film articles generally; b) DISAMBIGUATION has far broader WP-wide consensus, with over 10 times as many editors, 7 times as many page watchers, and 40 times as many views; c) a WP-wide RfC resulting in the inclusion of WP:INCDAB did not make an exception for films because there is no logical reason for such an exception. But wikilawyering aside, there's simply no benefit to readers by creating a false equivalence between the film everyone wants and a relatively obscure TV film. Why force the large majority of readers searching for "The Elephant Man (film)" to a dab page when the the difference between 1980 and 1982 is not obviously disambiguating and the tiny minority already have a hatnote anyway? Station1 (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, WP:PRECISION and WP:ATEC, which are policies, provide grounds for subject-specific exceptions to the general naming conventions. For example, MOS:MED requires that scientific names be used for medicine-related articles rather than the COMMONNAME, resulting in titles such as myocardial infarction instead of the far more common heart attack. The fact that WP:PFILM exists as a guideline indicates there is consensus for an exception because editors deem it to be beneficial; if you disagree and would like to challenge the merits of the guideline, the appropriate venue is the guideline's talk page (where this provision has been discussed and upheld many times), not in a random RM that seeks to carve out an exception to a guideline.
    As I noted at MR, we have had many high-profile RMs for films such as Titanic (1997 film) and Parasite (2019 film) that resulted in PFILM being enforced (and numerous other examples such as Avatar (2009 film), Iron Man (2008 film), Independence Day (1996 film), etc.); we shouldn't sneak in a guideline-breaching RM just because it has attracted less attention. If editors believe PFILM is not a good guideline, then every article that follows it should be moved, not just a single outlier. We don't choose to selectively enforce guidelines, especially when there is precedent with cases stronger than this.
    InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No layperson reader searches for anything with disambiguation terms, which are a completely internal Wikipedia conceit. Experienced editors should not assume that the average reader looks up terms the same way they do. Not to mention assuming that such a reader will "know" that The Elephant Man won't point to the film article. The focus should be entirely on the name/title. Erik (talk | contrib) 19:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Station1 sums up my thoughts on this matter exactly. There is nothing in what InfiniteNexus has written above that applies specifically to films that wouldn't also apply to any other topic on the project, for example Thriller (album). I will therefore not be changing my !vote above. WP:COMMONSENSE and putting our readers first are my guiding principles here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – INCDAB trumps NCF. The extremely small number of viewers searching for the 1982 film already have a useful guiding hatnote. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 17:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not correct: INCDAB does not trump NCF; see comments below. The policies WP:PRECISION and WP:ATEC are clear that subject-specific naming-convention guidelines override general naming-convention guidelines, not the other way around. For example, the WP:NCMED guideline dictates that scientific names should be used for medical articles rather than the COMMONNAME, resulting in articles such as myocardial infarction ("heart attack"); similarly, the WP:PLACEDAB guideline dictates that U.S. city articles should include a comma-separated state name, even if disambiguation is not needed, resulting in articles such as Nashville, Tennessee. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support – To summarize my comments above and at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 January:
    1. The WP:PFILM guideline (not essay, explanatory supplement, WikiProject page, or local consensus) states that film articles should not use partial disambiguation regardless of the pageviews ratio.
    2. The WP:PRECISION and WP:ATEC policies state that subject-specific naming-convention guidelines override the general naming-convention guidelines.
    3. Therefore, WP:PFILM trumps WP:INCDAB.
If there are concerns with the PFILM guideline itself, the appropriate venue to address this is a mass-advertised RfC to amend or repeal the guideline, not in a random RM that will only create an outlier. There are numerous ogher cases more extreme than this where INCDAB would certainly apply if not for PFILM, for example: Titanic (1997 film), Avatar (2009 film), Parasite (2019 film), Frozen (2013 film), Psycho (1960 film), Independence Day (1996 film), Iron Man (2008 film), The Ten Commandments (1956 film), etc. Previous RMs for several of these films have upheld PFILM.
Furthermore, WP:RMCIDC states: Any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it. Given that this RM seeks to rectify an obvious violation of a naming-convention guideline (PFILIM) and policy (PRECISION and ATEC), arguments that INCDAB trumps PFILM are fallacious and should be summarily discarded.
InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there are concerns with the PFILM guideline itself, the appropriate venue to address this is a mass-advertised RfC to amend or repeal the guideline, not in a random RM that will only create an outlier. (emphasis added)
WT:NCFILM#Proposed allowance of PDABs for films, which I created, already exists; so, why should a new RfC be created? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was not an RfC, nor was it mass-advertised. In any case, there was near-unanimous consensus against it; other informal proposals in the past have had similar outcomes. If editors would like to initiate an RfC to repeal the guideline, as I have suggested multiple times as a means to address these complaints/concerns, I will not object to that; I am merely opposed to refusing to enforce a guideline as it is clearly written. (If there is to be RfC, however, it would need to be carefully planned and conducted after this RM has concluded, and only if there is sufficient interest in one.) InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Elephant_Man_(film)&oldid=1275751310"