Talk:Little Children (film)

message: I have removed the term  bisexual from the description of the character Sarah.  I just saw this film and I don't recall any evidence that Sarah had ever been bisexual. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
162.6.227.176 01:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the original editor may have been referring to the book's reference of Sarah's bisexuality; in the novel, her character had a relationship with a woman while in college.  This was not mentioned in the film, so you were correct to remove it from the article.  María: (habla ~ cosas)  17:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: bisexual

message: Shouldn't there be a page about the book? Zigzig20s 08:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is. --Soetermans (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambiguation 

message: As I pointed out above, 1. There is no commentary on the US DVD release; and 2. The reference in the article documenting this does not document it at all -- the supposed link to an alleged NY Times article by Peter Nichols about the DVD actually links to the review of the theatrical release.
It does, however, seem likely that the no-frills release is at the diector's insistence, as there is a Nichols-written NY Times article about the "no frills" release of his previous film "In The Bedroom" , in which Todd Field is quoted, "Once a film is made available to the public, the right of interpretation belongs to the viewer," Mr. Field said this week. "Unless it's something historical -- like 'Citizen Kane' or 'Raging Bull' -- it seems really silly to have that kind of thing." The Times further states that the director feels the absence of extras makes more space available on the DVD for picture quality.
It seems that someone was trying to make that Times article seem more cogent to Little Children than it actually is, and then some separate hand then revised it to a review link. While I'd say it's 90% likely that Little Children is "no frills" at Field's wish, 90% just doesn't do it without a proper reference. Bustter (talk) 08:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the "no-frills DVD" information. Like you said, the article in which Fields says this was published in 2002 and was referring to In the Bedroom. There is no source that says this is the case for Little Children. - Kollision (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  no-frills DVD 

message: This whole section seems to be OR. Needs citations or will be subject to deletions. Bustter (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  adaptation 

message: I saw Little Children and, in my opinion, the climax is when Sarah realizes that Brad isn't going to show up; not that she shouldn't leave her husband.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.125.253 (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sarah wasn't sobbing at the end. She actually realised her daughter is what can make her life happy. Lazy610 (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct ending 

message: "Brad ups the ante and plants a kiss on her lips. While the other mothers freak out and take their children away from the playground..."  I don't think that "ups the ante," "plants a kiss," or "freak out" are appropriate (WP:MOS). -LesPaul75talk 18:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Possible alternatives: "boldly kisses her on the lips" and "mothers react by taking their children away". Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: Seems pretty important to include that this movie was a box office flop, grossing only 14 million bucks compared to its budget of 26 million! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 14:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Box office flop