Talk:To Have and Have Not (film)

message: I would like to see a synopsis of the reaction of movie critics to this film. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.107.103.186 (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critics Summary Request 

message: :Image:Tohaveandhavenot.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) 06:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Tohaveandhavenot.jpg

message: Are the two subsequent films actually remakes of this film, or just later, independent adaptations of the same source novel?  It looks like their status as remakes may have just been assumed.  Postdlf (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't speak for the second film, but the Audie Murphy film is definitely an adaptation of the book, not a remake of the original—it's much more faithful to the original novel's plot.  Binabik80 (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Remakes"? 

message: In this article, it states that Hawks told Hemingway that the novel was a "bunch of junk." But in the article for the novel it's the other way around; it's Hemingway who tells Hawks that the novel is junk. Both articles cite the same source, the Joseph McBride interview with Hawks. Can someone who has access to the source take a look and fix whichever article has it wrong? Mad Thinker (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bunch of Junk? 

message: From: "To Have And Have Not"
I have been trying to find the name of the song that Hoagy Carmichael begins a few bars of, I think it's after Johnson is shot.
I have heard this song in it's entirety, in an old Max Fleisher Cartoon, featuring a 'down and out' Olive Oyl, sitting on the curb in front of her house, weeping (due to losing everything).
I have been playing this sad melody for many years, but have known neither the name, nor the author.
Can anyone help with this? josephkepe56@rocketmail.com 68.43.144.131 (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few bars of a sad song... 

message: @User:Grandpallama, hello, I noticed your edit to this article. In reference to your edit summary "unexplained genre change", I was unsure if you were referring to my addition of "adventure" to the film without explanation. Allow me to explain: according to WP:Manual of Style/Film, you determine the genre of the film by the consensus represented by a majority of sources. Most of the sources I see actually refer to the film as an adventure film rather than a war film, but I didn't feel justified in removing the war genre. Along these lines, I think your addition of the romance genre is very justified so thank you for your contribution! Skyes(BYU) (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: @User:Skyes(BYU) Thanks for following up. I wasn't targeting your edits (and feel free to restore or amend anything that seems problematic that I might have altered). I was instead bothered by this edit, one of many such by that editor that I was examining and/or reverting, which had originally removed the romance designation. If anything, it's more appropriate than the war designation, although I also agree with you that it seems tangentially enough of a war film that it would make sense to leave that genre, too. Grandpallama (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre

message: yes that section on the main page.. it's ok.. but, and this is only my two cents.. REALLY, even more powerful is the little? but highly telling 'speech'? given by Frenchie (a real-life, native-born Frenchman), in response to what Harry said.. "I like you... I don't like them." Also adding "you know they probably come back here and burn down the hotel". "Let them come", sez Frenchie w/ verve and determination of the French Resistance, "They (Vichy) may burn down the hotel, but it only be a little fire compared to the big fire we give them"... In perspective, film production ended May '44, only ONE MONTH BEFORE D-DAY. viva la France!
:*Thank you for those suggestions. Unfortunately, Wikipedia policy prohibits editors from doing original research in their writing, especially if I was to go as far to add that to the analysis section for anti-fascist themes. I would have to find a reliable source to support those statements, if I find one, I will gladly add that to the article. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  anti-fascist themes