Talk:Frost/Nixon (film)

message: Is it appropriate to add http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi2519466009/ to the external links section? It's a preview.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by IReceivedDeathThreats (talk • contribs) 23:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preview 

message: It seems odd, but entirely like Wikipedia, to have an extensive write-up about the movie but to have no article at all about the source material.  Nixon going on tape post-Watergate was a major news event during the 1970s, something that was never even considered possible.  I guess for most of the writers here, this was too long ago,  Surely the original series deserves better than just being a cross-reference in this article and the article about the play of the same name.  69.14.38.16 (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Needed 

message: *Dawes, Amy (November/December 2008). "The Limelight and the Wilderness", Creative Screenwriting, Inside Information Group 15 (6).
*Block, Alex Ben (November 18, 2008). "Getting 'Frost' bite", The Hollywood Reporter, Nielsen Business Media.
Bradley0110 (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: *Ron Howard Revisits Frost/Nixon, November 25, 2008
Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headlines 

message: *According to this article at cnn.com, the phone conversation didn't really exist between Nixon and Frost.  Shouldn't this be mentioned somewhere? Excise (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Patrick (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drunk Dialing 

message: *Section removed until someone can do a comprehensive review on this. The section removed stated that the telephone conversation between Nixon and Frost was the only fictional part of the movie - which isn't accurate. The article it used to cite this indicated quite the opposite, saying that the movie was at least "10% fiction". 87.65.156.69 (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Accuracy 

message: *it is nominated for best picture , how could be mixed reviews  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.68.32 (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All movies receive some negative reviews, but the term "mixed reviews" on Wikipedia usually means the film received a middling overall score on aggregate sites like Rotten Tomatoes. It currently has a 92% rating there, which means the reviews are overwhelmingly positive. To give you an idea, 'Jurassic Park III' is described as having "mixed reviews" with a score of 50%, and so are 'The Iron Lady' (51%) and 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' (53%). Other movies with a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 92% are generally described as receiving "critical acclaim" including 'Birdman,' 'The Grand Budapest Hotel,' 'Philomena' and 'Silver Linings Playbook.' Sadiemonster (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  mixed reviews  

message: A few articles based on historical events have good sections comparing how the real thing compared to what actually occurred.  While most viewers realize that this is a movie (a good one at that... sorry for POV), some may think its exactly what happened --or turn to Wikipedia for what was different.  In writing up the article on Jack Brennan, Nixon's Chief of Staff, I've found a few good articles about the subject that show people who were involved generally liked the movie, but that it was surprisingly off on key issues: most notably, Nixon's side actually wanted him to apologize and claim some responsibility.  To call it different than the movie would be an understatement.  Here are some good items from credible sources: Daily Mail, Diane Sawyer remembers, Jack Brennan's recollection (Brennan actually consulted on the film). Anyone want to take a stab? --Bobak (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like some good material on the adaptation process and viewing experience will continue to appear. Editors should review Film Style Guidelines for Adaptations for help before adding material. Also, please don't focus on an "accuracy" section since the film is fiction; instead weave the material into the Production and Critical Reception sections. Of the three articles listed above, the Diane Sawyer one doesn't appear to be especially relevant since it's commentary by Lynn Sherr and some interviewing of Diane Sawyer; unfortunately, Sawyer hadn't seen the film at the time of the interview, and her comments are based on seeing the play and what she's "heard" about the film. Other articles which appear to be good fodder for the Production section, though, are: Dating David Frost and David Frost on Frost/Nixon. Of course, enhancing it with comments from Morgan and Howard about the adaptation would be even better than relying primarily on third-parties.Jim Dunning | talk 06:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bobak has a good point. This film is being portrayed as textbook-fact -- "this is the way it went down" -- which is not the case. I would support stressing this more in the article, and I'm willing to take a whack at it in the coming days. Happyme22 (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just keep in mind that the film is recognized as "fiction" and reliable sources should be used, not WP editor synthesis or analysis.Jim Dunning | talk 06:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I understand that, and sorry if it seemed like I implied something. Happyme22 (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No prob. I might be overly-sensitive to the numerous "differences from" or "historical inaccuracies" sections I see that add little to a film article, when the valuable material could be used to enhance the Production sections.Jim Dunning | talk 06:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting section: Fact vs. Fiction 

message: I have added a review of the New York Times and the Box Office results.Sha-Sanio (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical Reception

message: I see there is no article for her, or mention in the "David Frost" article. Is she a real person? 118.165.204.220 (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Caroline Cushing"

message: The plot section was flagged as too long, so I've reduced it by about half. I kept as much of the original prose as possible, just edited out extraneous information. I hope it's okay. Sadiemonster (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Frost/Nixon (film). 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20120820010834/http://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/movies/reviews/story/808259.html to http://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/movies/reviews/story/808259.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Frost/Nixon (film). 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  tag to http://www.movingpicturesmagazine.com/Default.aspx?DN=c049ff6b-f947-4ec3-86c8-17005d4ebc46&month=10&year=2008
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110127011012/http://talksport.cerosmedia.com/1R496782495aad0012.cde/page/27 to http://talksport.cerosmedia.com/1R496782495aad0012.cde/page/27
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) 11:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified