Talk:The Black Dahlia (film)

message: This is one of the bulleted entries in the differences section:
In the novel, Blanchard's confrontation with Bobby DeWitt occurs in Mexico, while in the film, it occurs in Los Angeles. The culmination of this conflict is discovered later by Bleichert when he tracks Lee's movements to Mexico. In the film, Bleichert is present for this incident, which occurs in Los Angeles. Georgie Tilden (who wanted to kill Lee) and Lee fall over the railing and die.
Georgie Tilden (who wanted to kill Lee) and Lee fall over the railing and die. What? If we leave off the second sentence (after the and), we are left with "Georgie Tilden (who wanted to kill Lee)." What about Georgie Tilden? Was he in the area? Did he try to kill Lee but accident got him first? What?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.152.194 (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What you wanna be leaving out of the sentence is the bracketed part, so you're left with "Georgie and Lee fall over the railing." It is a convulted sentence, nonetheless. TomorrowTime (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Incomprehensible? (Differences section)

message: "Common complaints are that the movie was disjointed, lacked continuity, plot, or substance, and that much of the film was inappropriate given the supposed subject matter"
Such complaints would only be correct if you expected De Palma to make a movie about the murder of The Black Dahlia, which he obviously hasn't. He has made a movie about Bucky's character, his way of reacting and viewing the world. The plotline is indeed continuous if you accept this premisis: Bucky goes from being a nobody to having a carrier, falls in love with his best friend's girlfriend, then best friend is in danger and dies, and Bucky blames himself, is attracted to a femme fatale, but ends up an impotent murder and escapist of fatal mental flaw with said girlfriend. It could hardly be more continuous, appropriate, joint and substantial. I would say the movie is very successful for De Palma. CARSTEN LANG-JENSEN
I was actually really confused during this movie which pissed me off. Never have i been more confused in a movie.
"Such complaints would only be correct if you expected De Palma to make a movie about the murder of The Black Dahlia" - De Palma has made a movie of the the James Ellroy novel.  I've watched it twice now (I couldn't believe just how bad it was the first time) and it's so disjointed because of the omissions from the original novel as to be almost incomprehensible.  If Carsten really believes the plot is continuous how would be explain such instances as a  reference to people that the three main characters met on New Year's Eve despite this not being shown in the film or any mention of the gangsters that own the building wit the incinerator?.  It may be possible that the storyline was destroyed in editing and the the cutting room floor could furnish a version the makes sense. --Kro666 22:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Black Depalmahlia 

message: :Image:Black dahlia ver264.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Black dahlia ver264.jpg

message: I have removed this section as unreferenced original research.  If there are reliable sources that have discussed the numerous changes made to the story when it was adapted into the film, said sources can be quoted in such a section.  But, what we had here was an editor doing that research himself, and that is not appropriate. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not signed in, but I was reading over this and found the differences between to the two to be very interesting. Is there a reason why they were removed? You said above that it was research an editor did, but as this is factual evidence I don't think there is an issue with it. I can only assume you are referring to No Original Research In which case I think you are wrong. There is one very verifiable source that there are differences between the book and the film. That being the book. "you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." is taken from the nor article. In this case citing the book itself shows that there is a reliable published source. Whats more it is directly related to the topic of the article, and it does directly support the material of there being differences. As long as this doesn't provide opinions, but straight differences then I am pretty sure it would be a great addition to have in the article. All he needs to do is add the reference as being the book, along with page numbers according to the using sources section of the nor. Unless this is an issue of advancing a position. 76.123.149.130 (talk) 07:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Secondary references are needed. We're presenting a sub-topic here about what makes the film different from its source material, and we're engaging in original analysis. There are guidelines here: MOS:FILM#Adaptation from source material. An example of an acceptable "Differences" section is Apt Pupil (film)#Differences between novella and film. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences between the novel and the film 

message: I wrote the section of the differences between the novel and the film. The final statement in this section is not mine, is unsourced, and does not belong in the section, so I'm taking the liberty of deleting it for the time being. The statement also strikes me as incorrect, considering that the venue in question was an underground gay bar, which is not anachronistic. Saying that there were not nor could there have been clandestine gay bars in the 1940's is an unsupportable assertion. The novel itself also contained this venue, which makes the statement wrong in the context of the section, and the author of the book can hardly be accused of employing "liberal themes." Outside of the differences mentioned in the section, the film is largely faithful to the novel. I would have noticed any significant efforts the screenwriter or director made to inject any liberal themes above and beyond the text of the novel, and this certainly isn't an example.
  
The intial cut to this film was 3 hours. James Ellroy viewed the 3 hour version and even called it a masterpiece! Once the studio cut the film by 60 minutes and butchering the movie James Ellroy had no comment to make being gagged by the studio and producers! It's time for the studio to release the 3 hour version on blu-ray where audiences can see the intended film by Brian De Palma!Harry Georgatos  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.120.18.134 (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced and incorrect assertion in 'Differences' section