# Talk:The Sound of Music (film)

I am planning on reorganizing the "historical accuracy" section. I am going to add subsections, rearrange the information, and add a little more detail. Tbenn2 (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The "historical accuracy" section does not need to be subdivded to this extent. Per MOS:BODY short paragraphs do not warrant their own section because it intereferes with the flow of the article. Your edits also seem to be adding WP:original research to the article too. In this edit you add the following text: The characters were portrayed differently in the film in order to counter the feminist movement that was spurred by the introduction of the birth control pill in 1960. The new pill allowed women to make their own decisions on when to have children which gave women more freedom to find employment or receive an education while husbands began doing more household tasks such as cooking.

I have skim-read the source and unless I am missing something it does not mention The Sound of Music. Could you please quote the relevant part which states the "characters were portrayed differently in the film in order to counter the feminist movement that was spurred by the introduction of the birth control pill". On the basis of the above concerns I believe the editor who reverted your edits was correct to do so, at least until the concerns are addresed. Betty Logan (talk) 04:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Betty Logan. Along with OR there is too much WP:SYNTH in those sections. It is worth mentioning that there are other places on the internet (like Wordsmith) where these theories can be written about. MarnetteD|Talk 04:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Tbenn2, this is a closely watched and heavily researched article that has been refined over the years and does not require change (or very little if any change). Please do not make further substantive edits to it without first gaining a clear consensus for any change before you make it. I advise leaving the article as it is. Softlavender (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Softlavender *Betty Logan *MarnetteD I was unaware of the rule regarding subsections but, after reading the section Wikipedia provides, it makes sense why the "Historical accuracy" section of this page does not need subsections. However, I do still believe that one article I have read would be helpful on this page. I missed a citation the last time I edited this page which is why "the characters were portrayed differently in the film in order to counter the feminist movement that was spurred by the introduction of the birth control pill in 1960" is not found in the citation provided. The citation I missed is one I believe belongs on this page. I believe that the article would be made better by adding the following text onto the end of the second paragraph in the "historical accuracy" section.
"However, in the film, Maria is depicted as a loving woman who cares deeply for the children. One author has stated that the depictions of Captain von Trapp and Maria were changed in order to counter the changing gender norms of the 1960s in the United States."

I believe that this source is important to include on this page and would like to find a home for it in the article. If you feel that I should add more interpretations of why the depictions changed instead of just this one, I understand. If you believe that this text could work in the "critical response" section, I understand that as well.Tbenn2 (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how this is either encyclopedic, applicable, or accurate. There is no evidence that Maria was an unloving person who did not care for the children. Softlavender (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Softlavender I have found several interviews that the children have given in which they state that Maria was very regimented and, sometimes, they were even scared of her (Suzanna Andrews. “The Sound of Money.” Vanity Fair, 6/98, https://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/1998/06/vontrapp199806) which I believe is evidence that Maria was portrayed differently in the film. The passage I wrote above addresses why this change was made and I still think that it could find a home on this page. Do you believe that this edit could be made with revisions? Tbenn2 (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The Vanity Fair article [1], doesn't give a whole lot of noteworthy differences in personality (circumstances, yes; events, yes) between the real-life Maria and the screenplay Maria. It says of the real-life Maria "'She was an elegant and a very powerful woman ... way ahead of her time .... She took the reins and drove the horse.'" The only major difference there from the screenplay is "elegant", which was a difference of circumstance, not necessarily personality. “'She was very young and enthusiastic, and she loved to sing. ... She was self-made.'" All reflected in the screenplay. No popular musical depicts events accurately (although Hamilton aspires to come close except for the racial casting); they are all loose adaptations, using considerable artistic license to tell an entertaining and edifying story. Softlavender (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I'm the content editor for the student's course. The educator has suggested that this be added to the reception section and I think that could be a possibility depending on how it's written. Maybe something like this?
In a 2002 article for the NWSA Journal, Dr. Anne McLeer wrote that she believed that the characters were portrayed differently than their real life counterparts in order to counter the feminist movement that was spurred by the introduction of the birth control pill in 1960, further stating that the depiction of Georg and Maria was intended as an attempt to maintain traditional roles and keep the ideal American family. (source)
This needs some work, but I think that this is a good start. One of the important things is to make sure that it's attributed as an opinion as opposed to a fact. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I fail to find reference to use of Rainer for Maria's last name (before marriage) when in real life it was Kutschera.  Also, I`ll assemble a separate message listing the real life 7 children (of Captain's 1st marriage) and changes done for the show. Carlm0404 (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Just needed to clarify, the source that states the album returned to #1 in 2010 and 2013 is not correct and is no longer an active link. Allmusic has carried chart positions over with copy and paste every time an album re-entered. As for credibility, the #1 albums for 2010 and 2013 (on the respective wiki pages) are sourced from Billboard and none of them are this soundtrack. Please consider this.
Orion XXV (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, the List of Billboard 200 number-one albums of 2010 and List of Billboard 200 number-one albums of 2013 do not mention it. I will delete that info. Softlavender (talk) 07:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I did find the following information on the album's The Billboard 200 superlatives, in case they are not currently mentioned in the wiki article currently and have added this info into the wiki article:https://www.billboard.com/music/soundtrack/chart-history/billboard-200/song/671939https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/6762397/sound-of-music-soundtrack-no-1-anniversaryhttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-music-adele/adeles-21-deemed-billboards-greatest-album-of-all-time-idUSKCN0T22BH20151114https://www.billboard.com/articles/events/greatest-of-all-time/6760797/adele-the-beatles-billboard-200-albums-artists-all-timeSoftlavender (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC); edited 08:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Right now it only lists UK chart performance. (I'm not skilled at those chart tables so I'm letting people here and elsewhere know.) Softlavender (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: This has been taken care of now. Softlavender (talk) 08:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The Wayback-archived AllMusic Awards link [2], which had been used as a citation for the "50th Anniversary Edition, released in 2015, reached the number five position on the Top Soundtracks chart", is neither reliable nor accurate, as Orion XXV pointed out above in Talk:The Sound of Music (film)#Sound Of Music chart positions. For instance, it states that the 2010, 2013, and 2015 releases all peaked at #1 on the Billboard 200, none of which is true. I've now removed the citation. I'm afraid we're going to have to find a more reliable source than that for this claim (if indeed it is even true). Softlavender (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I've Google searched and I can find no confirmation whatsoever of this dubious claim, so I've now removed it entirely. Softlavender (talk)

IMDB and plenty of other sources say "Rolfe", even though the "e" isn't pronounced in the film. I haven't checked the on-screen credits. Softlavender (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The AFI catalog append an "e". That's good enough for me unless someone explicitly confirms the actual film credits are different. Betty Logan (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
The Rodgers and Hammerstein Library website [3] and our own article says the character's name in the stage musical is spelled "Rolf".--Thomprod (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
The stage musical and the film are different entities. If his name had been changed to "Fritz" for the film adaptation that is how he would be referred to in this article. Likewise, this article should use the spelling as given in the actual film credits. If somebody has a copy of the film it would be helpful if they could check it for us. Betty Logan (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I viewed the movie from the Blue-Ray disc and can confirm the character's name is spelled "Rolfe" in the film's end credits. --Thomprod (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

This massive puffy article does not seem to meet notability guidelines. If not, would someone please AfD it? Softlavender (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

This excludes the 3 children that Captain and Maria had together.  I am using information from Wikipedia articles for Captain and those 7 children.  I didn't realize that all the children's names were changed for the show, which includes the stage play AND movie, right?
Rupert von Trapp, became Friedrich in the show (and switched with Liesl agewise)
Agathe von Trapp, became Liesl in the show (and switched with Friedrich agewise)
Maria Franziska von Trapp, became Louisa in the show (leaving Maria name for stepmother only, to avoid confusion)
Werner von Trapp, became Kurt in the show
Hedwig von Trapp, became Brigitta in the show
Johanna von Trapp, became Marta in the show
Martina von Trapp, became Gretl in the show Carlm0404 (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Sound of Music (film). The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Rusted AutoParts 20:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll pick this one up. Allow me some time to analyze the page and see what needs to be improved. Rusted AutoParts 20:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Lead/Infobox
Ensure that the lead section covers all aspects of the article.
 Done Chompy Ace 05:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Add Richard Haydn, Peggy Wood, Charmian Carr and Eleanor Parker to the cast infobox.
 Done Chompy Ace 05:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Plot
Plot meets 700 word maximum per WP:FILMPLOT.
 Done 693 as of now Chompy Ace 05:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Cast
Are the characters Sister Catherine and Sister Agatha vital to the film? If not I'd take them out of the cast section.
 Done, removed Chompy Ace 05:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Background
Scale back the size of the double image of Rodgers and Hammerstein. It's a bit bigger than the other images in the article.
 Done reduced the width of 100px, hence this name Chompy Ace 05:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the pipe to 1949 in literature is necessary.
 Done removed pipe Chompy Ace 05:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
The pipe "Austrian folk songs" doesn't lead to an article about Austrian folk songs. If any piping is necessary, just take Austrian and put it unlinked by itself. Otherwise I don't see the vitality of the piping here either.
 Done removed link Chompy Ace 05:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Production
The opening paragraph I feel is largely needless, and the information can be divided up into its respective, relevant sections.
 Done opening paragraph removed Chompy Ace 04:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
"Lehman completed the first draft on September 10, 1963 and sent it to Wyler, who had no suggestions or changes" add "to add" at the end.
 Done Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 00:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
"Meanwhile, Wise, whose film The Sand Pebbles had been postponed, read Lehman's first draft, was impressed by what he read, and agreed to direct the film. Wise joined the picture in October 1963" This can be merged together. "Meanwhile, Wise, whose film The Sand Pebbles had been postponed, read Lehman's first draft, was impressed by what he read, and agreed to direct the film, joining the picture in October 1963".
 Done Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 00:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
"Plummer especially helped transform a character lacking substance into a stronger, more forceful complex figure with a wry sense of humor and a darker edge" switch out "transform" for "change".
 Done Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 00:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Release and reception
Looks good to me.
Television and home media
Should be a subsection under release.
 Done Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 00:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Historical accuracy
Looks good to me.
Legacy
Looks good to me.
References
Make sure all archivable sources are archived.
 Done Chompy Ace 04:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
@Some Dude From North Carolina: First few notes have been added. Apologies for the long wait. Rusted AutoParts 01:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Some Dude From North Carolina:  Pass, good work to you and @Chompy Ace:. Rusted AutoParts 23:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Try "in order of age" instead of "agewise", because apparently all of these characters' ages were changed, not just their names. Carlm0404 (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

An editor has made several attempts to add Rotten Tomatoes data to this article. I removed the RT score because it contributes very little to the article, and in fact is potentially misleading about the film's reception. As the critical reception section notes reviews were mixed at the time, which is inconsistent with the RT score of 83%. The problem with review aggregators on older films is that they mix current reviews with contemporary reviews, and as a result are neither indicative of contemporary reception or current standing. 
WP:AGG##Limitations notes that review aggregator scores are more effective for films released in the 2000s, and that alternative sources should be sought for films released prior to this period. MOS:FILM#Critical response advises editors to exercise caution in the case of aggregator scores that combine current and contemporary reviews. While I accept aggregators have a place on newly released films in lieu of any other meaningful encyclopedic coverage I don't think they belong on articles about older films, especially classic films where alternative sources are available. Betty Logan (talk) 09:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

 This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 30 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MyaRosie (article contribs).

The article's section "Historical accuracy" does not compare the film with the real history, but mostly with Maria's "The Story of the Trapp Family Singers", which more often than not is fantasy rather than an accurate representation of the Trapp family's biography up to 1939. By adding fiction to Maria's tale, the film becomes a completely inaccurate presentation of the real Trapps.
Georg von Trapp (Ludwig was never one of his given names) was not an anti-Nazi; while he likely didn't support national socialism, he didn't mind enough not to try to solicit business in Nazi Germany in 1937 and, perhaps, early 1938. It is not obvious that he "opposed" the Anschluss, although he likely preferred the Austrofascist regime to the Nazis. There is no evidence that the German Navy offered anything to Georg; it is, in fact, quite unlikely.
Maria had never been a novice; at best she had been a postulant, and even that has never been proved. Questioned by a German newspaper in 2008 about whether Georg and Maria had had a "happy marriage", Maria Franziska, Georg's daughter, replied: "Yes and no. I don't want to say more."
The Trapps didn't lose their money because the "Austrian national bank" folded, but because the private Lammer Bank went bankrupt, following a combination of mismanagement, fraud, and external circumstances. Georg had invested the family's fortune because, as he explained at Ms Lammer's trial, she had promised him a high rate of interest.
Georg's "embarrassment" about his family singing publicly didn't prevent him from leading the group in the beginning. (He literally played the first violin.) Only with Wasner's arrival did he fade into the background (management), which he may have resented.
Georg was not "entitled" to Italian citizenship but became Italian when Triest, the place which was "responsible" for him, was annexed by Italy. He then chose to stay Italian and not to become Austrian. (Which shows how much he cared about that country post-1918.) And the Trapps did not emigrate to the US in 1938, nor, technically, in 1939: both times they used visitors' visas. The exception was Rupert, who had become Austrian in 1933 and thus German in 1938, and who had an immigration visa in 1939.
Source: Frederick S. Litten: Notes on the Trapp Family in Austria - From Maria's grandparents to summer 1939. Norderstedt: BoD, 2023. ISBN: 978-3-7528-3507-6.
F.S. Litten 2003:EC:970A:C276:7403:DDD0:7067:89AD (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment; you could edit the article itself provided that you quote the book with page numbers per statement. Kind regards,  Ziko (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, my addition to the lead was removed by @Betty Logan, with the comment that "The lead is for summarising notability, not lack of notability". In my opinion, that interpretation is not really backed by "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section". The Manual says: "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." The fact that the movie is not prominently / well received in the German speaking countries is an important point and a kind of controversy. Mentioning the other movie (popular in the German speaking countries) is establishing context. Ziko (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Most of the paragraph you added was mainly about another film, which is very much a minor background detail in this article. Other works should only be mentioned in the lead if they are key component of the article, which isn't the case here. The fact that another film is better known in several other countries is tangential to the topic. It might warrant a mention in the reception, but it is not important enough to elevate to the lead. Also, films enjoy varying degrees of success in a wide range of countries, and this should be summarised in the reception section. What was noteworthy about the film's reception was that it was a tremendous global success, and that provides the context for a more localised breakdown under the reception section, where its under-performance in several countries is noted. In short, I thought the paragraph you added to the lead did not adhere to the guidance of WP:LEAD. Betty Logan (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I do not think that it is "tangential" if the movie is set in a particular country, and if the movie is not well received in that country because it is fostering stereotypes about that country. This is not any third country. Ziko (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I should make a ping, @Betty Logan, because I did not react earlier. My fault. Maybe we find a shorter textual solution. Ziko (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
The common format for the lead in film articles is to briefly summarise its native and global performance. I have never come across any article that summarises the box-office performance of a film where it is set. The level of detail is correct based on how other articles summarise box-office. It became the highest-grossing film of all-time in the UK—a record it held for at least a decade—and we don't even include that information in the lead. What you are proposing is a disproportionate level of detail for just a single market, which was not a key market for the film. The performance of the film in individual markets is detailed in the box-office section. If you want to add sourced commentary about its performance in Austria this is where the information should be added, alongside the information for UK, France, Germany etc. Betty Logan (talk) 09:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)