Talk:The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp

message: This is a good article! I especially like the critical quotations.Rayray 09:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Good

message: I've done a copy edit and cleanup of the synopsis, which I believe clarifies some aspects of the story which were somewhat muddy in the old version.  In the process, I moved a couple of commentary passages and asides to footnotes. These either really don't belong in the body of a synopsis or impeded the flow of the story.  They can stay in footnotes, or be moved elsewhere in the article if an appropriate place can be found. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy edit and cleanup of Synopsis 

message: I've made some more changes to the Boer War duel section, because it wasn't quite accurate the way it was.*"All parties" don't agree to pretend that the duel is about Edith's honor.  We only learn about this once in the film, when one of the British officials tells Candy "It's generally assumed that the duel was ..." something or other about Edith (I'm semi-quoting from memory), and that's the only time it's mentioned.  We never know if the Germans deliberately bought into this subterfuge, only that "It's generally assumed" and the British want it to go on being that way -- so we can't say anything about what "all parties agree".*I like the addition of Theo's objection to dueling, but it's important to keep in that he was put into the position of dueling because he was chosen at random, and that the reason he volunteered was that the duel would uphold the honor of the Army -- very important at the time.I know that the wording theree wasn't the best, but it's a bit better now, I think.  It could possibly be improved, but I'd like not to muddy the two points above.Also, I removed "major" from diplomatic incident.  Clearly, from the behavior of the 2 German officers when they come to the embassy (consulate?), it's not a major incident at all -- or else it would be being dealt with at a higher level.  It's merely another blip in the continuing disintegration of relations between England and Germany prior to WW1. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boer War/Duel 

message: Should we point out how "typically British" this film is?Written by a Hungarian, filmed by a Frenchman, music by a Pole, design by a German with an Austrian as one of the leads. The other leads were Scottish and Welsh. Still, the editor and director were English :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds a bit like the trial scene in A Matter of Life and Death, when the jury is changed to one of "Americans" -- the same nationalities as the previous jury (more or less), only American citizens.Jeez, who makes films like that any more? That's a serious question, is there any filmmaker you would see as in some way -- stylistically, whatever -- the modern equivalent of Powell and Pressburger?  Because if there is, and I don't know about them, I want to.  Mike Leigh? Who? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 10:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And yes, to answer your question, I think it would be interesting to include that somewhere -- just the facts and let the reader draw their own conclusion. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 10:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't know anyone who manages to do everything they did. Some, like the Cohen Brothers or Scorsese do parts of it. But remember that P&P had a very strange setup with Rank and then with Korda where they were given total freedom and control over their films. I don't know anyone else who has had such freedom before or since. -- SteveCrook (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was think about the Coen Brothers as well, especially when they get somewhat whimsical, as in The Hudsucker Proxy. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 19:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It is a direct quote (or very close to it) but I can't remember where he said it. I'm fairly sure it was at the NFT or a similar on-stage interview before an audience. But he did quite a few of those in his later years -- SteveCrook (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Typically British

message: Isn't it worth mentioning the references to The Wizard of Oz in the Miscellany section? I attempted this before but it was declared 'non-notable'. Strange then that the mention of Conan Doyle and The Hound of the Baskervilles is permitted. According to the Internet Movie Data Base this is one of the earliest films to allude to The Wizard.
Absurdtrousers (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, then re-insert it with that information, which I think would make it notable.  However, the discussion of the color usage of "A Matter of Life and Death" is not appropriate. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Wizard of Oz 

message: "One day, he receives a letter from Edith Hunter (Deborah Kerr) who is working in Berlin, Germany as an English teacher." Yeah, well, which other Berlin than "Berlin, Germany" might it be in a film of this kind -- "Berlin, Iowa", "Berlin, Missouri", "Berlin, East Hillbillia"...? I suggest editing this to just "...working in Berlin as an...".--CRConrad (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S-centric writing style? 

message: The "Plot" tag was added recently by someone who neither leaves edit summaries nor has worked on the article to speak of. I don't think the plot summary is currently too long, considering this is an epic 2-3/4 hour film which encompasses 41 years, three major romances, three major wars, and numerous flashbacks or changes in narrative, not to mention an abundance of different themes. The WP:FILMPLOT guidelines read: 
The cited plot summary for Pulp Fiction is 1177 words -- 38 words longer than the current plot summary for Blimp. The plot for Gone with the Wind is 1751 words.
Therefore I propose that the "plot" tag on this plot summary be removed. It's hard to find a decent summary for this film, and the one here leaves out a number of key points already. Softlavender (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree: the plot can be adequately summarised in under 700 words in this case and I'd advise against removing it: try re-writing the section instead. The BFI, who manage to do these things rather well, have produced an 800-word summary, which you may wish to look at first. Could I also add that you may wish to concentrate on the edit, rather than the editor in future? -  SchroCat (^ • @) 02:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: the editor above is the editor who placed the tag and who has not worked on the article to speak of and who never gives an edit summary. Softlavender (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'll ask again: could you please address the edit and not the editor. Please see WP:ETIQ for clarity. I'm really not sure what either of those points has to do with the poorly written summary. -  SchroCat (^ • @) 04:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've worked on this article before, and I agree that it can be trimmed down without too much trouble. I've got it down to about 900 words so far. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It was 780 words when I started editing it. It is now just 723 words which I think is enough to remove the "plot" tag -- SteveCrook (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Plot" tag 

message: The final paragraph of the section on Production has the tag "Citation Needed" for the claim that the picture of Barbara Wynne-Candy was used in the file The League of Gentlemen.  This claim was originally inserted by me and is an observation of both films - you may classify this as original research but read on...  
The claim was later modified by someone else (name unknown) to suggest the painting used in The League of Gentlemen was a close copy of the "Blimp" painting.  I have not examined the relevant scenes in such close detail but have no doubt the paintings are either the same or very similar - I had no reason to change the modified claim.
The result of all this is that I cannot see how one can provide a citiation for a claim (or a modified version of it) when it is undeniably true but, as far as I know, undocumented.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.192.9 (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I've removed it. WP:OR is not permissible. - SchroCat (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

text: If you can find a reliable secondary source then of course it can go back in. Without a source it's OR - and fails WP:TRIVIA too. - SchroCat (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Then find a reliable source. If this piece of trivia is, in your mind, notable enough for inclusion, then it will be notable enough to have been included in a reliable secondary source. - SchroCat (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Wikipedia should not be confused with IMDb. DonIago (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

text: The problem is that fancruft is tucked away in a number of film articles, especially those that haven't been given a make-over to GA level. Just because unsupported material has been present on a page for a while, does not mean it should remain there indefinitely, unless a reliable source can be added. As to it being "an important plot point", again we need that from a reliable source, other wise it simply the opinion of a blog writer, which means little, when anyone can write a blog. - SchroCat (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portrait of Barbara Wynne-Candy used in The League of Gentlemen 

message: When Clive fights his duel in 1902 mention is made of a author writing of the Hound of the Baskervilles.
Of course that is Sir arthur Conon Doyle!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.242.65 (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually when Clive is talking to Col. Betteridge in London before he goes on his Berlin adventure. He mentions Conan Doyle and The Hound of the Baskervilles by name -- SteveCrook (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Arthur Conon Doyle

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp. 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/20091124053222/http://www.bfi.org.uk/features/bfi100/41-50.html to http://www.bfi.org.uk/features/bfi100/41-50.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified