Talk:Amélie

message: A reference to the close similarity to a british short film of 2 years before- 'the photoman', was removed, the reason given that the verification was not reliable. The verification was this link http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/654709
to the british film institutes website that describes 'the photoman's plot. in what way is this not reliable? could information about a film be any more reliable than from the bfi?  thecavster
:It's original research, so I would say it doesn't merit inclusion.-DMCer™ 22:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The point isn't the fact that the BFI link includes the plot of Photoman, it's the action of drawing a link between Photoman and Amélie, without a reliable source that does the same. The BFI link does not, I did a quick search, and I didn't see any either.—DMCer™ 10:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The link directly presents the exact same plotline, so you have to consider it fact, and not wait for somebody to opine that the fact is present --84.208.113.245 (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let me put it this way: I wondwer whether Britannica would fail to put something in if they could document that it was fact, for lack of opinion expressing the connection. --84.208.113.245 (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

text: The garden gnome travelling the world and sending postcards is also nicked from somewhere else, but I can't remember where offhand.  It certainly wasn't original to Amelie. 86.133.213.152 (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot similarity 

message: Re: "But while she is looking after others, no one seems to be looking after Amélie, and internally, she recognizes that this unrequited devotion to the other people in her life is going to lead to her eventual death from despair." Could someone, perhaps the author of the above statement, clarify whether Amelie died in this film from despair? 
::I think this refers to a brief clip where Amélie is watching the news and, somewhat surreally, sees an old-fashioned news report of her death, where it praises her achievements in helping people but points out that she died lonely. I do reckon this could be altered a bit, though, as it is a bit confusing.--Joseph Q Publique 07:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this movie is about a girl who was helping others trying to fix their lives but she couldn't fix her own. Amelie could have lived and died that way if she did not overcome her own "issue" with life. She's like a fixer and figured that maybe she's going to die that way just trying to fix other people's lives and she had to give up her own when in fact it didn't need to be the case. I think she was just this girl who couldn't get out of her shell and lived vicariously through others by doing what good she tried to do for them. But of course in the end the reverse happened because she was able to allow the man she fancied to step into her world.(Jonarvs 08:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Death

message: Aren't there clips of the TF1 bulletin giving the news of Princess Diana's death (before she finds the box) and a Tour de France (added to the video for  Raymond Dufayel). If so, why aren't these in this list? I was going to add, but I was worried they might be deleted. Having watched the French version twice, Im sure I saw this DannyM 10:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't from the Tour de France but from Critérium International video here. Anyone know what the tumbler and the dog is from which follows this? (Emperor 00:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: According to Death_of_Diana,_Princess_of_Wales, “On 31 August 1997, Diana, Princess of Wales, died as a result of injuries sustained in a car crash” so perhaps the statement in the Plot section, “On 30 August 1997, startled by the news of the death of Princess Diana, ...” is a day wrong Jwpat7 (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film clips 

message: i just removed two wikilinks from a completely blue sentence.--trueblood 10:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikilinks 

message: This article is pretty much just the narrative of the story. Doesn't this violate some sort of rule?--WHS 13:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so as the words as written are original to this article (as far as I can tell from a bit of Googling on samples of text). Also, in the Copyright article, it says "Copyright law covers only the particular form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, the "form of material expression". It is not designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work. Copyright law provides scope for satirical or interpretive works which themselves may be copyrighted." My interpretation is that a "form of material expression" would mean the actual words and sentences used (or ones very close), and doesn't apply if you're doing a freshly-written synopsis. If you were to hawk this synopsis round film studios as an idea for a screenplay, then I reckon that would be different. Anyone else got any views? --A bit iffy 14:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By narrative of the story, I meant that the words that the narrator is saying in the story. I apologize on my part for the lack of unclarity. Most of the synopsis, while not quite word for word with the script, follows the lines recited in the narration throughout the movie extremely closely, which I'm pretty sure must qualify as a copyright violation of some kind.--WHS 21:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no similarity whatsoever, sorry! Anyway, isn't the narration in French?! └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 00:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to the subtitled English, at least in my copy of the movie. But if no one else agrees with me then I suppose I'm wrong. Here's a copy of the script, just for reference. --WHS 07:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I'm not quite sure at what point something becomes a copyright violation, and I wouldn't have a clue how to determine it. So I'm only going on my gut feeling which is that, as I'm sure that the writing of the sysnopsis here is original, then there isn't a copyright violation. I'm sure that the writing here is original because I can see from the history it's been built up gradually. It's possible some contributors have used the script to construct parts of the article, but the texts are quite different in my opinion. The sequence of events described in this article and occurring in the film appear to be the same, but I doubt if reporting a sequence can be construed as violation of copyright. So sorry, WHS, I still don't agree! All the best, --A bit iffy 07:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the same, that was just my initial feeling upon reading the article. Thanks for giving your input. --WHS 08:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation? 

message: It's a light-hearted romance, but is it really a romantic comedy? It doesn't seem to fit the definition given in that article. But perhaps that's just a bad definition (it certainly seems to be overly specific).--Shantavira 18:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem is the romantic comedy article, not this one; that article has a ridiculously narrow definition of the genre. Cop 633 21:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Being that I generally hate romantic comedies but LOVED Amelie, I hope it never ends up with that genre label. But that probably has to do with my own ridiculusly narrow definitions. :) --68.239.232.19 20:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romantic comedy? 

message: Under the mistakes section, it mentions a car model that was not around at the time the film is set, but that the director knows this and left it in on purpose.  If the director left it there on purpose, is it really a mistake? Pnkrockr 18:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistakes

message: *I was just curious what everyone else thought the meaning of the Princess Di subplot had to the story, it's a recurrent theme that gets brought up a lot. I know that the Glass Man hated hearing about her all the time. I thought it was commentary that modern society is superficial (the comparison with Mother Theresa's more overlooked death during that time) and gives undeserved worship to pop iconography rather than to milestones of deeper significance.  Maybe there's more to it, and I'm curious what others thought. --68.239.232.19 20:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Princess Di Significance

message: Right now, the text of the page reads "A 'kissing scene' during which a bug, apparently unnoticed by the filmmakers, crawls across the screen behind the two lovers and appears to enter the woman's mouth." I'm not sure it's really fair to say "apparently unnoticed by the filmmakers", because my understanding was that Truffaut noticed this but left it in intentionally.
:I always understood that it was unnoticed by the maker of the original film, but that it was noticed and pointed out as part of the plot here, as that's one of Amélie's 'quirks'. ghostmoonEVPhauntings 00:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truffaut Clip 

message: I removed the following piece of text, as it made the page much too wide:
("If the director was trying to create an idyllic vision of a perfect Paris, the critic argued, he seemed to think that it was necessary to remove nearly all black people from the scene in order to do so."  Jeunet dismissed such criticism by pointing out both that the photo collection contains pictures of many different people from numerous ethnic backgrounds, and that Jamel Debbouze, who plays Lucien, is of North African descent"
Can someone rework this into the article? 82.5.94.8 (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that too, very annoying; however I'm not sure why it changed the width. Simple rewording w/ simplified punctuation should do the trick.-DMCer (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed piece of text 

message: having just read this article Parallel Play by Tim Page from the new yorker http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/20/070820fa_fact_page
and watched Amelie it reminded me of the way the two protagonists view the world is different from everyone else. Here is an excerpt from the New Yorker article:
My second-grade teacher never liked me much, and one assignment I turned in annoyed her so  extravagantly that the red pencil with which she scrawled “See me!” broke through the lined  paper. Our class had been asked to write about a recent field trip, and, as was so often the case in  those days, I had noticed the wrong things: "Well, we went to Boston, Massachusetts through the town of Warrenville, Connecticut on Route 44A. It was very pretty and there was a church that reminded me of pictures of Russia from our book that is published by Time-Life. We arrived in Boston at 9:17. At 11 we went on a big tour of Boston on Gray Line 43, made by the Superior Bus Company like School Bus Six,"... 
see what I mean? Alextheblade (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: autism?

message: I've tagged this article as having an overly-long plot "summary". The summary as it stands is more like a screenplay. Rather than just being bold and cutting lumps out of it, I'm inviting comments here on what should stay. 81.159.0.142 (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it ok, now? It's such an unusually complicated film, it would be interesting to know how it could have been concisely explained to potential producers! 98.210.208.107 (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long plot "summary" 

message: The movie's opening narration from the off introducing the main characters echoes Roland Barthes' list of like/don't like; worth adding to "influences" section? --Webmgr (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because there are similarities between the two, it does not immediately mean that it is an influence. For this to be added to the article, a reliable source explicitly stating that Barthes' work  influenced Amelie needs to be provided. Otherwise it is just original research. - kollision (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barthes reference 

message: there is a commercial I just seen involving Godiva chocolates with reference to Amelie. Narration the same and character (amelie the same) if anyone has more on this reference please advise however I am certain that is what the commercial was conveying/illustrating.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taboooooooooo (talk • contribs) 04:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Godiva chocolates 

message: I removed material from the Influence section that did not have to do with the film, but a generic object within the film that appears in other work. Unless someone says "I put object/word/concept X in my film because I saw it in Amélie, then it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles can't be cross-references to every use of a object/word/concept in the media, particularly when the creator of the media didn't say they did it intentionally, but it's original research speculation on the part of the editor. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion about what is related to article topic

message: The infobox says that among the languages in the film there's Russian, and the article is categorized as a "Russian language film". I don't myself recall when we hear any Russian in the movie, but if there is, surely it's only a few sentences at one forgettable moment. Similarly, there is English in the movie as well (perhaps more than Russian), for example when Amélie tapes a program on TV with a handicapped black man dancing, he's speaking English, or when she's in the cinema watching an old American black and white film. So should we also categorize this film as an "English language film"?--Munin75 (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall either, but it's been a long time since I've seen the film, and IMDB cites the languages as French and Russian. —sroc (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it from the infobox. There's no Russian as far as I can tell, and if there is, it's clearly very brief and not of significance to the film. The infobox guidelines state we should "Insert the language primarily used in the film" and enter more than one "Only in rare cases of clearly bilingual or multilingual films". IMDb is, I think, in error here, and is not considered a reliable source in any case. Jellyman (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the TV clips is in Russian (it's just after Amélie dissolves into water).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.192.188 (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian language film? Really? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Amélie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140226153927/http://www.variety.com/ac2005_article/VR1117915901?nav=lenser&categoryid=1804 to http://www.variety.com/ac2005_article/VR1117915901?nav=lenser&categoryid=1804
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't see any trace of Germany in this.--Ezzex (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand where you are coming from E. One of the production companies was German. In this day and age the main way that films like this get made is through multination financing and German company is mentioned in Amélie#Production so the inclusion in the infobox is proper - though I can understand how it seems "not quite right." MarnetteD|Talk 02:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  So what is german here ? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Amélie. 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/20120323105658/http://www.filmlinc.com/film-comment/article/the-amelie-effect to http://www.filmlinc.com/film-comment/article/the-amelie-effect
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) 10:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm not sure why the Kaganski critic is included. The "...bygone French society..." is like saying a superhero film is bad because it is unrealistic or a science fiction movie is bad because we really don't know what the future looks like. I'd hazard a guess that we have a large percentage of unrealistic films such that this isn't a meaningful critique. It seems more like marketing for Kaganski and Les Inrockuptibles. 
198.2.81.60 (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  discussion - removing Kaganski critique planned 

message: The current article specifically mentions the film's take in the US. However, in the cited source, that number is the Domestic Box Office, which is the US and Canada. Especially considering this film may have had an outsized reception in Canada where there is a large French speaking population, referring to the Domestic (US and Canada) box office as 'In the US' is inaccurate, and should be changed. 
03:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  North American Box Office