Talk:Blue Velvet (film)

message: I changed references to oxygen huffing to nitrous oxide huffing.  The screenplays on the Internet say Frank's mask dispensed helium, and several sources seem to confirm this, and claim Dennis Hopper shot down this proposal before the movie was shot.  Then some Net articles say it's an oxygen mask, but an Entertainment Weekly article claims it's nitrous oxide, quoting Dennis Hopper:
:"That would have been too self-conscious," he says. "I did enough drugs to know that nitrous oxide would be more effective."
When the camara zooms out of the ear at the end, it's Jeffery's if memory serves and not the original severed ear. The wording currently makes it sound otherwise. Also regarding the gas that Frank uses, sure in interviews, Hopper says what it is, but the movie never says exactly. Thus, the only thing we know for sure judging by the movie is that Frank gets high on some sort of gas. I don't think the article should try to incorporate information from interviews only. Jason Quinn 30 June 2005 16:41 (UTC)
I've read it was supposed to be Amyl_Nitrite. --B. Phillips 15:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Frank's drug

message: I removed the following sections, as they would seem to clearly be original research, and perhaps more appropriate to a college paper than an encyclopedia. Unless someone knows an acceptable sources for this info? --Mr Wind-Up Bird ✈ 06:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  original research 

message: I've rated the article as a B. IMO, at least the following issues should be adressed to move towards A and beyond:
* a Reception section on critical reaction and boxoffice
* while it does have references, inline citations seem to be the thing now
* pieces of trivia should be integrated in the main text where possible
Also, BV as a Lynch film could probably be expanded into a more comprehensive section on themes and symbols AdamSmithee 07:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a Reception as requested. Count Ringworm 15:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rating

message: This was pasted into the actual entry and really belongs in the Talk section. Count Ringworm 14:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (I have a historical question that needs to be put here...
Version 2 Hours. DVD VHS
Version 2 Hours 1 min. DVD VHS
Version 2 Hours 16 min. VHS 
There must be another version of this flim. For I have seen a version that had Dennis Hopper abusing the woman in front of her husband and the yellow jacket cop. He kills both the men, leaving his dirty cop buddy standing like a zombie. This is not in any of the above versions. This also is why she is naked and is found on the porch. I remember this so clearly, the impact of Dennis Hopper shooting the police officer in the head.... Can anyone verify what I am stating here? I feel the DVD edition just cut this out as being to harsh, but it is critical to why she is wondering around naked and is not in any version I have, which is now 3 copies of this film.  HELP!!!!!  )
===Really?===
I really hope I can find the version the person above is talking about. The Yellow Man just standing there with a hole in his head seemed so mysterious, and I'm glad to know that there was a scene explaining it. I hope this is true. I can't find any other info on this scene, though. I don't know if the above info is reliable, or something to just confuse us. If anyone knows where I can see this scene, please, PLEASE, reply here or write on my talk page. --Blackout0189 (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various Versions 

message: I really hope I can find the version the person above is talking about. The Yellow Man just standing there with a hole in his head seemed so mysterious, and I'm glad to know that there was a scene explaining it. I hope this is true. I can't find any other info on this scene, though. I don't know if the above info is reliable, or something to just confuse us. If anyone knows where I can see this scene, please, PLEASE, reply here or write on my talk page. --Blackout0189 (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Really?

message: Wouldn't it be better if the infobox for Blue Velvet had a original theatrical poster, rather than a Special Edition DVD image. I don't know how to upload images on Wikipedia, so if it isn't too much trouble, would they do so. I know most film pages on Wikipedia are meant to have the poster in the box. RaptorRobot 11:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can upload images here. It's the easiest thing ever. Cop 633 13:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've uploaded the theatrical poster. Count Ringworm 14:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't like the color on this new image. It's inferior to the previous one. --Steerpike 13:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poster, instead of DVD cover? 

message: I’ve updated this article, and added some further information. And to better organize the direction, music, casting, and reception and added some more citations, since the article was kind off looking messy and seemed to be repeating it a bit. How far it is from getting a peer review request and what can be done to further improve the article? Anyone got some suggestions. Discuss them or add them below. RaptorRobot 08:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: Perhaps a few for the plot section would me good. RaptorRobot 11:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a few good images...and non copyright ones to 

message: Yes, Blue Velvet in popular culture should absolutely be merged because everything in it is already in the main article and there is simply not enough information to warrant its' own article.  Please merge them. FilmFemme 22:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: So how far now is it for a possible FA review. A lot has been done to this article, so its all a matter of a request.203.57.68.20 15:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say go for an GA review first. I don't think this article is quite up to FA status yet. --J.D. 13:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ok, so how far now?

message: I'm afraid for the time being I have to speedy fail this article's GA nomination. Primarily, this was due to a substantial number of fact tags throughout the article. The concentration of these in the "Themes" section was especially worrying, and the whole section would appear to be OR unless sources for the allegations made can be found. Sorry. --Lenin and McCarthy  |  (Complain here) 17:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA failed

message: English is not my mother tongue, but in the sentence "Jeffrey Beaumont (Kyle MacLachlan) returns home from college after his father (Jack Harvey) suffers a stroke." in the first line of the synopsis, should not be: " after his father (Jack Harvey) suffered a stroke."?
--192.33.238.6 18:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar

message: I wonder if there's a connection between this movie and the game by infocom, as Frank Booth is the default name of the character if you don't select a name at the beginning.  The dates match up, as the movie was released in '86, and the game was released in '87.  Of course, it probably doesn't matter very much.--Vercalos (talk) 10:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe there is a "connection" with the game, or maybe the people who created that game were simply inspired by the character of Frank Booth. The movie was released in 1986 and Zork was released in 1987---so the dates match, do they? Nope. You mean to say the game was released *after* the film, and therefor the two may be connected somehow. Yeah, really perceptive stuff (not). But since by your own admission it probably doesn't matter, and by extension --- nobody cares --- please do something people find useful. Geekwad Wikipedians make me fuckin' puke!Arbo (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beyond Zork 

message: High Tension is an exploitation film, not an "exploration" film.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.107.86 (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor nitpick 

message: #Is it reasonably well written?
#:A. Prose quality:  
#:: 
#:B. MoS compliance: 
#:: 
#Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
#:A. References to sources:  
#:: 
#:B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
#:: 
#:C. No original research: 
#:: 
#Is it broad in its coverage?
#:A. Major aspects:  
#:: 
#:B. Focused: 
#:: 
#Is it neutral?
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#Is it stable?
#: No edit wars, etc: 
#:: 
#Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
#:A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
#:: 
#:B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass or Fail: 
#:: 
Congratulations! Blue Velvet has met all the criteria to become a good article. Thanks to all who contributed! Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 14:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Successful good article nomination 

message: While I should be flattered that someone lifted text directly from Mulholland Dr.: "The filmmaking style of David Lynch has been written about extensively using descriptions like "ultraweird","[21] "dark",[22] and "oddball".[23] and "An author of a book on Lynch wrote, "One cannot watch a Lynch film the way one watches a standard Hollywood film noir nor in the way that one watches most radical films", I am not. I quite understand that many articles I've written have already been plagiarized by thousands of students, but the articles I write are an expression of honor for the subjects. I would be most ashamed of being so lacking in creativity or ability. This inclusion does not honor Blue Velvet, but rather says something about how little the editor cares about being thorough and original.
I cannot impose my own moral standards on articles I do not edit, unfortunately. But if you are entertaining the idea of bringing this to FAC, I will oppose strongly until that material is changed. Read your own resources and find your own quotes. The second one is from a book full of information about Lynch. --Moni3 (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text lifted directly from Mulholland Drive 

message: Having provided a minor edit to the introduction I now see the article has been voted a good article and see that I'm possibly messing it up.  I think the casting of this film indeed proved that casting outside the norm can have tremendous impact not only on a production but also the careers of those involved.  Of course, Lynch was attempting to cast within the norm but failed to attain goals in this area due to the subject matter (Rossellini appears to be the exception here, but she did manage to negotiate and maintain a career with Lancome in an exceptional career move).  That does not change the impact that the final, more creative casting had for all concerned.  Can anyone help support this notion and bring in line with Wiki guidelines?  If the item were removed I would fully understand given the current regard for the article, but I feel an important element of the film's impact might be overlooked as well. Finally this film contains more than a little "black comedy" and "kitsch" yet it is not even mentioned in passing.  Having sat with audiences of friends and strangers through multiple viewings, I can tell you the film usually initiates horror on first time viewers and fierce, uncontrollable laughter in repeat viewers (often on the exact same scenes!). Also, reactions tend to veer wildly in direct relation to the level of artistic education of a viewer.   Surely this bears some kind of introduction into the analysis of the films reception, though finding an academic source for the notion may prove difficult given the authenticity of the varied reactions in everyday human beings.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.44.202 (talk) 08:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gulp! 

message: Regarding this edit, a review our guidelines on reliable sources and in particular self-published sources suggests the inclusion of Watkins' work is inappropriate.  Message boards are inappropriate sources for articles, and such content requires publication in reliable, secondary sources.  For a director of Lynch's stature, random webpostings are inappropriate fringe sources that are below the threshold of scholarship that is suitable for such a developed page and noteworthy film.  If Watkins has published reviews of Lynch's work in scholarly journals or books, please feel free to cite them instead.  The webjournal appears to have been published exactly once, in the summer of 2009, and therefore lacks any sort of scholarly attention or citations that would indicate an adequate level of scholarly respect.  Watkins is also the primary author in nearly all the publications, and based on a brief google scholar search, appears to have few relevant publications.  I would even venture that Mr. Watkins may be trying to improve his profile in the on-line community through a judicious use of Wikipedia, a site of well-known visibility on the internet.  In addition, merely being a poet does not make one a film critic; again, lacking reliable sources documenting his expertise and recognition in this area means he lacks the relevant authority to be included on the page in such a transparently self-published manner.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  R. W. Watkins 

message: *  ... plot synopsis, review, cast, production credits, awards
Reference available for citing in the article body. Erik (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allmovie 

message: Although a lot of effort has gone into the plot summary and I read it through agreeing with it, there is an innate weakness in these sections as quite a few I've seen tend to sound like school assignments. Summarise the plot in 500 words or something like that. Another problem is how can each event in the film be referenced. No ingratitude at all from my part I think we all appreciate the hour or so that a person spends of their own time editing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.130.92 (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The nature of plot summaries 

message: Merriam-Webster notes, "Recent criticism of the use of myriad as a noun, both in the plural form myriads and in the phrase a myriad of, seems to reflect a mistaken belief that the word was originally and is still properly only an adjective.... however, the noun is in fact the older form, dating to the 16th century. The noun myriad has appeared in the works of such writers as Milton (plural myriads) and Thoreau (a myriad of), and it continues to occur frequently in reputable English."[1]μηδείς (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: myriad

message: Alright guys, I know Lynch has a reputation as a surreal filmmaker and one could argue he's made surrealist films, but honestly this isn't one of them. Read the artcile on surrealism, or better yet, actually go out and research surrealism, then come back and watch Blue Velvet. Yes, people behave strangely in this film, but there's far more to surrealism than just strangeness. None of the sources here that list Blue Velvet as a surrealist film even attempt give any reason for why it is surreal, instead just using it as a shorthand for odd or because it's David Lynch.Ash Loomis (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surrealist? 

message: Uhm, this is certainly not true since Dune was released on Bluray in the States in 2010.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.145.101 (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Lynch film on Blu-ray in the US? 

message: The Michael Atkinson reference used several times in this article is incorrect.  It seem apparent that somebody copied and pasted this:
:Atkinson, Michael, BFI Modern Classics: Blue Velvet, British Film Institute, London, 1997 Maxfield, James F., ” ‘Now It’s Dark’: The Child’s Dream in David Lynch’s Blue Velvet“, The Fatal Woman: Sources Of Male Anxiety In American Film Noir, 1941-1991, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, Madison, 1996, pp. 144-155
and then butchered it.  The Atkinson book is BFI Modern Classics: Blue Velvet, British Film Institute, London, 1997, the rest is another title altogether.  This needs to be fixed, and if I could I would fix it myself. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the error and fixed it.  Two different titles were combined under  which created gibberish. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 17:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Atkinson ref. 

message: There's an image on Flickr of the building in Wilmington, DE that is used for Dorothy's apartment. Here it is. and yes, it does meet Wikipedia copyright guidelines --Noah¢s (Talk) 01:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great image on Flickr 

message: Is it psychological horror or crime film or mystery film or mixed genre film?
31.223.141.37 (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is genre of this film? 

message: The article says it takes place in the 1960s, but it sure seems like the 1980s: clothing, hairstyles, beer, plastic squeeze ketchup bottle, personal sized Doritos bag, most of the cars in the back ground, etc. Is there a source that says it's the 1960s?
"In Dreams" is played on an 80's style cassette player at Ben's and then again in the car. It's definitely the 80's. I'm changing it.
Jeffrey drives a 1973 Oldsmobile; Frank's car is a late-60s Dodge. The clothes and hairstyles are definitely 80s. This movie evokes previous decades to an extent, but definitely isn't set in the 50s-60s.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C:4881:EFB0:59DD:9AFE:B356:ED (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Time Period

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Blue Velvet (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 https://web.archive.org/20081017161603/http://bventertainment.go.com:80/tv/buenavista/ebertandroeper/chat/transcript-ebert-070802.html to http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/ebertandroeper/chat/transcript-ebert-070802.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080422130704/http://weblogs.variety.com:80/thompsononhollywood/2007/07/top-100-film-li.html?query=%22pulp+fiction%22+1994+tarantino to http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononhollywood/2007/07/top-100-film-li.html?query=%22pulp+fiction%22+1994+tarantino
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 15:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I only just saw this film  - in 2017. Better late than never.
I'm surprised that neither the article nor this page mention one of the most obvious (to me) film references: The Wizard of Oz. It cannot be coincidence to have Isabella Rossellini's character called Dorothy and wearing red shoes. Any doubt is dispelled by the closing scene with its strong parallels to the 'it was only a dream - or was it?' closing scene of OZ, with the characters that Dorothy has seen (or dreamt of) in the Land of Oz being re-seen as neighbours back in Kansas. Not to mention that Jeffrey lives with his Aunt Barbara, just as Dorothy Gale lived with her Aunt Em. (We can also note that the Wizard, hiding in his Booth, was played by Frank Morgan and the original book was by L. Frank Baum). There are other parallels and references.
This only serves to accentuate that the film is surreal and dream like, and may indeed be all a dream. Jeffrey has a nightmare about what he has seen - or is the whole story only in his imagination? For sure, no one could take a beating such as Frank gives Jeffery and not end up in hospital with injuries such as broken ribs, ruptured spleen, broken facial bones and so on.  The extreme violence that Frank inflicts on Dorothy, and the blow that Jeffery gives her, leave not a mark, strongly indicating that this is in the realm of the sub-conscious or dream world. The choice of Roy Orbison's 'In Dreams' to accompany some of the more violent and sexually ambiguous scenes, such as where Jeffery is hit by the effeminate Ben, and later by Frank who is smearing bright red lipstick on himself and Jefferey, cannot be just because David Lynch liked the melody.
However, the ambiguity of dreams does not mean that real crime and sinister events may not be hidden just below the surface of the ultra-normal looking suburban American setting, as well as just below the consciousness of the seemingly normal American male.
One of the other obvious film references is to Grease, with Blue Velvet's Sandy, looking extremely like her good girl namesake originally played by Olivia Newton-John.
I wonder why Dorothy Vallens' apartment block, where so much sinister sexual violence takes place, is named the Deep River apartments? Simply referring to the deep river of the subconscious? Or referencing Ike and Tina Turner's massive hit, River Deep – Mountain High? Given the well attested physical and sexual abuse to which Ike subjected his wife, this is not beyond possibility.
Finally, there is quite a lot of playful sexual innuendo which has not been commented on in the main article, such as the local radio station 'W-O-O-D, the mighty wood - there's a lot of wood out there' (quoted from memory), the recurrent sight of massive tree trunks, Jeffery's surname meaning 'good mount', the 'hardware' store and more. Or maybe I am revealing too much of my own sub-conscious!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selimap (talk • contribs) 11:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film references, influences and interpretation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Blue Velvet (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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080317001135/http://www.premiere.com/features/1539/the-100-greatest-movie-characters-of-all-time-page2.html to http://www.premiere.com/features/1539/the-100-greatest-movie-characters-of-all-time-page2.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sloth.org/samples-bin/samples/source?summary
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) 05:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It is redundant to replace "Jeffrey also starts a sadomasochistic sexual relationship in which Dorothy encourages him to hit her." with "Jeffrey also starts a sadomasochistic sexual relationship in which Dorothy also begins to have an affair and encourages him to hit her." (or very similar wording)   , unless Dorothy is starting an affair with someone other than Jeffrey, in which case this new sentence is hopelessly poorly worded. Meters (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  redundant change 

message: Per the article, the woman cried--not Lynch himself. Another source is needed or the language should be amended.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.38.237 (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lynch's experience with the naked woman