Talk:The Orchid Thief

message: I haven't read this book. But it seemed to need to be added linking from Susan Orlean and Adaptation. If anyone has read this book and would like to expand the article and start something on Laroche, I certainly encourage it.Colby Peterson 06:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources.
 That's funny :)
The book is the source!!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.3.229 (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 64.169.3.229: Doesn't using the book as the source mean that you are doing original research? To make the article encyclopedic, you need to record facts about the book and author as published in reliable sources by others. Wordreader (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: =

message: "The film is a satire on the process of adaptation, in which Orlean's book is turned into a formulaic Hollywood thriller." What exactly is the formulaic thriller that is being referred to? Surely not the film 'Adaptation' itself, unless maybe when you artificially divide it into 'meta' and 'proper' parts, which I don't think you can. Having just seen the film, I have no idea what this sentence refers to. Some clarification is necessary, in my opinion. 193.190.253.146 (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This query properly belongs in the article about Adaptation, the film. The brothers discuss various aspects of film writing through much of the film. One gains notoriety by writing the formulaic-type films and tries to convince the other to do so as well. They even discuss deus ex machina before the alligator pops up. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooops! make that Adaptation (film). Wordreader (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

text: The book is based on an article released in January 1995. Thus it is possible that  an unpublished version of the article was the basis of the film project in 1994. The film rights being negotiated before the book was written is covered in a scene in the film. NisJørgensen (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: NisJørgensen - Keep in mind that the film is a fiction, based only lightly on the non-fiction book. You cannot trust any of those scenes to be accurate portrayals of any of the real events. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Indeed, I would be surprised if the negotiation of film rights were covered in the book. My main point stands - the text which eventually became the book probably existed as early as 1994, and thus there is no proven discrepancy.  NisJørgensen (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Adaptation

message: The Adaptation (film) page claims the film was in development since 1994... but this page claims the book wasn't even released until 1998? Something's off.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.176.9.254 (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The book is based on an article released in January 1995. Thus it is possible that  an unpublished version of the article was the basis of the film project in 1994. The film rights being negotiated before the book was written is covered in a scene in the film. NisJørgensen (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: NisJørgensen - Keep in mind that the film is a fiction, based only lightly on the non-fiction book. You cannot trust any of those scenes to be accurate portrayals of any of the real events. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Indeed, I would be surprised if the negotiation of film rights were covered in the book. My main point stands - the text which eventually became the book probably existed as early as 1994, and thus there is no proven discrepancy.  NisJørgensen (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Release Date Discrepancy