Talk:Hello, Dolly! (film)

message: Yes, but if it's class Start, where are the Plot and Cast sections? They were there, but were "condensed" into the intro: . Hoverfish Talk 23:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'd like to improve the plot summary for this article. However, instead of starting from scratch, I'd like to copy/paste the material from the plot summary of the original show to the plot summary of the film. I'll alter it to include the major changes. Since I wrote most of the original plot summary, and it's reasonably good quality, it seems foolish to rewrite the parts that are the same for the film. Is this ok?MarianKroy (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, as long as you make the changes right after you copy it over.  BTW, the film project likes thier plot summaries pretty short: 700-900 words usually.  Also, the film articles name the actors after their character name, like this: "Dolly (Barbra Streisand) is a brassy widow...." -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Summary Expansion

message: The following sentence is in the lede section:
Ironically, Barbra Streisand lost the 1964 Tony Award (as a nominee for her role in Funny Girl) to Carol Channing, who originated the role of Dolly Levi in the Broadway production.
Again, I don't mean to be too aggressive (only bold) but does this really belong in the lede, if anywhere in the article? It's a little bit of an irrelevant fact, because although both Channing and Streisand played Levi in versions of the musical, the statement itself really doesn't have anything to do with the film itself. Thoughts? —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 18:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As an additional note to include, the reception section should be expanded including critical commentary if possible. (Yes, I realise the film came out long before the invention of the internet, but it's probable to find something even in 2008.) What's there now is good, but it could use more detail. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 18:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I guess that sentance isn't really lead-worthy (I didn't write it!). Yeah, the reception section could use some work. MarianKroy (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, do you see Hello, Dolly! under "nominated" at the list of Barbra's award nominations? I don't seem to find it, but I'm pretty sure she was nominated for her portrayal. Perhaps this was a mistake? —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 19:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked on IMDB, and it looked like she was not nominated. MarianKroy (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, in that case it's not relevant at all. :-) No problem then. Cheers, —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 21:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence in lede section 

message: ...Just for accuracy's sake, didn't Horace actually fire Cornelius and Barnaby, but then they told Vandergelder he couldn't fire them because they quit first? I don't think it's an incredibly big deal, but it would be more correct, anyway. Cheers, —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 02:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's right. I didn't include that in the synopsis because it was getting long anyway. I think film synopses are supposed to be under 900 words unless the plot is incredibly convaluted. If you want to add it, you could either shorten some other aspect of the synopsis or just ignore the word count and we'll live with the consequences. MarianKroy (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was thinking about trimming down (and/or further cleaning up) the plot section, but I realised how hard you worked on expanding it, so I didn't want to end up tearing all that down just to remain within the general word count. Should we re-cut it down? (If so, I'm going to need help in rephrasing 'Horace actually fired Cornelius and Barnaby but then they told Vandergelder he couldn't fire them because they quit first' to sound more encyclopaedic—it's kind of an awkward sentence the way I put it. :P) Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 17:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

text: If you want to trim it down, go right ahead. I like detailed synopses, so maybe if it could end up right below 900 words it would be ok. As for the rephrasing, how about 'Horace fires Cornelius and Barnaby, but they tell him he can't fire them because they quit first'? If you don't like it, feel free to ignore it. MarianKroy (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine. I won't trim it too much, I'll merely keep it just under 900 or so (and only aproximately, and it won't really matter anyway until GAN-time). Cheers, —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 04:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's a minor point, but... 

message: I'm not sure if this would be more than trivia, but certain sets from "Hello, Dolly!" were reused in other films. I know some shots from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid were filmed on sets from "Hello, Dolly!", while other films may have used said sets as well. Orville Eastland (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A making-of Butch Cassidy explained that they only had permission to take period, sepia-tinted "stills" of the principals walking around the Dolly citystreet sets because the musical had not yet been released and they did not want Butch to steal their thunder by disclosing the impressive sets. So apparently no motion picture "filming" was done on the Dolly sets by the Butch crew. I'm not sure about other productions.GBS2 (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sets reused

message: Other editors participating in this survey should acquaint themselves with industry terminology before commenting. The concept of rentals (sometimes referred to as "distributor rentals" or "distributor gross") is described more thoroughly by Box Office Mojo (under "Gross"), Cones, p.41 and Cohen, Backstage. I must reiterate again we are not discussing home video revenues here; the "rentals" are a historic box office metric used by industry, and in the case of many older films the box office gross we are familiar with today isn't known. Betty Logan (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: Editors should indicate their preference for version 1 or version 2 of the text here.
:Version 1 is concise, encyclopedic and well referenced. Version 2 is filled with original research and POV statements. Just my opinion, but version 1 is clearly preferable. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Last week  removed poorly sourced puffery. Of the sites he removed one was a hobby site (http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com) while another was a blog (http://www.onstageblog.com/columns/2015/8/9/the-top-100-greatest-movie-musicals-of-all-time) and thus both failing to meet the criteria as reliable sources as outlined at WP:SPS, and one was a dead link (http://www.ranthollywood.com). An anonymous editor is repeatedly restoring these links to promote a non-neutral point of view. To the IP's credit they have included a new link (http://www.afi.com/Docs/100Years/musicals_ballot.pdf), but the problem is this link does not corroborate the claim. It is a ballot for the AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies, and the problem here is that it did not make the cut. I fully support Coretheapple's decision to remove this cruft because it was highly promotional and very poorly sourced. For claims of this nature we need sources to credible polls (along the lines of the AFI survey) to include claims of this nature.  Betty Logan (talk) 06:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked for page semi-protection. Coretheapple (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate sources 

message: it looks like it might be technicolour. I came here to learn about the film, why is this information absent? 80.189.191.157 (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  what film process did they use?