Talk:War and Peace (film series)

message: Having seen this film back in 1969 Wiki's page for it took me back in time. In fact, I still have my ticket stub from part two as a bookmark in my copy of the book. The fact that some memories of seeing it had faded sent me on a search for more info. Unfortunately the nets articles were confusing and conflicting. So a little trip to the Denver Public Library to head into the microfilm files of the Rocky Mountain News ensued. The chapter titles cited were a part of the print ads for the film and the run times were given in the review of the film by Francis Melrose in the paper dated Thur. May 1, 1969. 
Other changes that I made to the page today were mostly style changes to make the article a little more readable to me, but, I am not perfect and I look forward to any changes othere wikip contributers make to enhance what is already there.
My research brought up a couple of other things that I could not put into this page at the present time.
#I remember that sometime in the early to mid 70's ABC had a well advertised, four night showing of the film that was a ratings disaster. If anybody comes across the exact dates of this before I do please feel free to add it to this article.
#Ms Melrose, in her review, made an interesting (to me anyway) comment. She stated that, aside from the narration, this film had the least amount of dialogue in a film of the modern era since Mr Hulot's Holiday (Les Vacances de Monsieur Hulot). I did not feel that I could find a place to add this to the article as it stands in its stub form nor have I learned how to make a wiki footnote yet. If an editor down the road finds a way to add this, again, feel free to do so.
My thanks to wikipedia for sparking memories, for sending me out to do research away from the net and for giving all of us a place to create learning for others who will come here.User:MarnetteD | Talk 23:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: April 2006 Additions

message: I was about to point out that the russian name of the film (as clearly seen in the image for the movie poster) is "Война и мир", not "Воŭна u мuр", as it appears in the intro, but then I looked into the actual wikicode for it, and it appears that "и" actually becomes "u" when italicized (example: ииииииииииииии)...
So, eh, is this proper?
T. S. Rice 02:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Russian cursive hand writing, the lowercase И is rendered exactly like the Latin lowercase U. 173.206.87.170 (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian name of film in intro 

message: Added "It is estimated that a film of this magnitude would cost over 1 billion dollars today, making this arguably the most expensive film ever made." with a link to Amazon as a source.  If anyone can find a better source for this, feel free to replace it. 
--Kaikaapro 16:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the List of most expensive films article gives the inflation adjusted figures as $560 million today.  The $1 billion figure could be the cost to reshoot the movie (with all of the extras) but that's pure speculation: after all CGI might make it cheaper to shoot nowadays.  The point is, that inflation-adjusted numbers are varifiable as opposed to estimates. Makgraf 22:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comparable costing might be found in media discussions about Napoleon (2023 film), which report moderate use of CGI for big scenes. Errantios (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most expensive film ever? 

message: Unlike other films in the List of most expensive films, there is no record of box office receipts for this movie. Does anyone know whether it was a box office hit or smash? --Nonstopdrivel 14:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick look thru the net found little info. I suspect that figures will be difficult to come up with. This is due, at least in part, to the episodic nature of the film. As noted on the main page in Russia it was released in four parts iver several years and in the west (or at least here in the US) it was shown in two parts with part one running for one week and part two the next. This one week time span may have varied from city to city but I feel somewhat sure that the runs were fairly short in most venues (though a search of each cities newspapers could prove me wrong) and this fact alone will have meant that box office receipts will not have been massive. The huge nature of the project garnered some noteriety for the film and after it won the Oscar for best foreign language film ABC was spurred to give it a television airing which, as I noted above, was a ratings disaster. The film then disappeared until the age of VHS and later DVD. Well I have gone on too long here and haven't really answered your question, but I hope that I have helped explain why the info you are looking for may be hard to find. MarnetteD | Talk 15:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Box office receipts

message: Why is the film length stated as 484 minutes long? The DVD release is 403 minutes long, but even with the PAL speedup discarded, the film still wouldn't be longer than 420 minutes, ie. 7 hours. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.250.41.125 (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Various websites list the film at various lengths. There are some interesting discussions about this at this IMDb message board . You may wish to take this discussion to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films page and get the project to come to a consensus on what run time should be listed. MarnetteD | Talk 16:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: :Image:B0000778887.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:B0000778887.jpg

message: :Image:Voina Mir.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Voina Mir.jpg

message: Not having seen the film myself, I can't really tell why it would be so expensive. I mean, okay, 120 thousand soldiers in a single scene is huge, but considering it's the Soviet Union, I don't think that accounts for a whole lot. I think this is a part where the article could be improved. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expense 

message: I have some questions about the translation of these sources.
http://www.kino-teatr.ru/kino/history/3-14/160/ states: 
Согласно ему расходы по картине должны были составить сумму в 8 миллионов 165 тысяч 200 рублей – the cost of filming was 8,165,000 rubles.  Is this the cost of filming the first two parts or the planned cost of all four parts? If it is only for the first two parts, then is it possible to find out the cost of parts 3 and 4?
http://www.kino-teatr.ru/kino/history/7-21/161/ states: 
Съемки третий и четвертой серии киноэпопеи «Война и мир» начались 9 августа 1965 года – filming for parts 3 & 4 started 9 August 1965. 
Работа над третьей серией («1812 год») закончилась 28 декабря 1966 года – filming on part 3 ended 28 December 1966
А съемки четвертой серии («Пьер Безухов») продолжались до августа 1967 года. – filming finished on part 4 in August 1967
Are these dates correct?
Is it possible to get the filming dates for part 1 and part 2?
Obviously since these sources are Russian it is difficult for us to find the information and translate it.  If there are Russian editors on here I would appreciate it if the information above can be clarified.  Thanks. 
Betty Logan (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, all translate made right. This cost is cost of all parts of film. And dates translated correctly so. If I can help you more, I'm ready for you :) Yours faithfully, Greenland Cat!  :) 05:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Dut I have some doubts at exact cost of film. http://www.kino-teatr.ru linked to book of Feodor Razzakov, "Наше любимое кино". And in this book, in this estimate does not include any costs that occurred in the Ministry of Defence of the USSR, has traditionally comes free extras for battle scenes. Also, because different sites tell different cost: 8 000 000 rubles, $29 000 000 , $100 000 000 and more . Now I have not reliable sources about this info, but I trying to find anything. Yours faithfully, Greenland Cat!  :) 06:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "kino-teatr.ru" sources 

message: I did a little digging and the film poster was removed almost a year ago here . I don't know why as the ins and outs of image rules are a mystery to me. If it can be restored that would be great as it better represents the film but the screenshot added today isn't a bad substitute - unless it doesn't meet NFCC rules either. MarnetteD | Talk 20:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, the second edit summary explains things perfectly. Thanks for your vigilance Betty. Do you think there is any hope of restoring the Russian poster? So often these get removed because some justification was missed or the wording isn't quite right. MarnetteD | Talk 20:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why it was deleted to be honest, although it was obviously a copyright problem. Most film articles use the theatrical poster in the infobox so I would think it would be ok to do that here unless there is some weird Russian copyright thing going on. Betty Logan (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Film poster

message: Who wrote such nonsense about the restoration of the film? 
There has never been a 35 mm original negative with 1,37:1 aspect ratio. It is true that originally the producers planned to simultaneously shot 35 mm anamorphic version, but in reality it was never done. Just imagine the logistics and expense of using a second rig of cameras on such a large and demanding production. Then imagine the cost of additional film development, negative assembly and soundtrack synchronization. By the time of film's release the techniques of reduction optical/ selective optical printing from 70 mm negatives were well established in the USSR and there was no need for additional camera and crew.
There were 3 interpositives  made from the original assembled camera negative: 1 - a 70 mm interpositive with 2,21:1 aspect ratio ( possibly not survived), 2 - a 35 mm anamorphic interpositive with aspect ratio of 2,35:1 and 3 - a 35 mm "pan-and-scan" 1, 37:1 interpositive. 
The DP Petritsky's quotes are usually mistranslated or misunderstood. He never mentions using 35 mm negative film during the production of War and Peace. In fact he talks  about using 70 mm Soviet negative film throughout the production.
When MOSFILM decided to restore the film, the assessment of all original film elements was made, and the original negative was unavailable at that time as it wasn't even in Moscow. It was actually sent to Kiev (Ukraine) in the early 1980s for restoration and remained there after the disintegration of USSR. The newly formed state of Ukraine refused to return the materials, and it was not before the early 2000s that the negative was returned to Russia. 
There was a 35 full coast magnetic 6-channel analog recording of the final sound mix, and a 35 mm surviving color positive anamorphic print. The film was restored using those elements.
Aspalex (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: At least by January 2024, all four parts of the the 2017 restoration, subtitled in English, have been available for free on YouTube. Errantios (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on War and Peace (film series). 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/20101204172126/http://ttk.625-net.ru/files/605/531/h_45eac6de29116a08d11cc932436d2759 to http://ttk.625-net.ru/files/605/531/h_45eac6de29116a08d11cc932436d2759
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101124174348/http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1968 to http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/year/1968
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) 19:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on War and Peace (film series). 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/20121013160227/http://www.rodgaz.ru/index.php?action=Articles&dirid=25&tek=27096&issue=429 to http://www.rodgaz.ru/index.php?action=Articles&dirid=25&tek=27096&issue=429
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010223826/http://www.nbrmp.org/awards/awards.cfm?award=Best%20Foreign%20Language%20Film to http://www.nbrmp.org/awards/awards.cfm?award=Best+Foreign+Language+Film
*Added  tag to http://osiris22.pi-consult.de/userdata/l_7/p_72/library/data/woina_i_mir.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131214100402/http://cinema.mosfilm.ru/films/film/Vojna-i-mir/voyna-i-mir-1/ to http://cinema.mosfilm.ru/films/film/Vojna-i-mir/voyna-i-mir-1/
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) 18:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I see the New York Times is still unfortunately perpetuating this "$700 million budget" myth. This $700 million figure unfortunately results from Soviet propaganda. It was widely publicised the film cost $100 million back in 1967 to make, which using a standard inflation calculator comes to about $765 million today. However, Soviet records clearly show it cost 8,291,712 rubles, which was equivalent to $9.2 million back then. Adjusted for dollar inflation this comes to $70 million, which is fairly close to the ruble inflation figure of $50–60 million.
I appreciate this puts Wikipedia into a difficult situation: it is supposed to represent sources with due weight, but this is extremely problematic if those sources are spreading debunked propaganda. We know how much the film cost to the ruble. The cost of the film was vastly reduced because the Soviets saw it as a propaganda opportunity so supported the production with man-power that the producers didn't have to pay for. But that is the key point—they didn't pay for it! 
I am going to try to re-work the prose a bit to make this clear, but it is simply incorrect to say that the cost of the film is equivalent to $700 million today—the debunked cost of $100 million is equivalent to $700 million today but that's a different thing entirely! Betty Logan (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe contact the journalist Joshua Barone to request further review and clarification? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the NYT got their figure from a 2007 article they did about its 40th anniversary, which in turn came from the film's distributor. I have altered the prose slightly to make it clear the $700 million figure is in relation to the spurious $100 million estimate, not the actual amount that is recorded in Soviet records. The article is basically a fluff piece that has just regurgitated older articles, with no new insight (a telling sign is that the NYT's inflated figure hasn't increased over 12 years). I think Marnette is right that we should address the $700 million figure because it keeps getting reported, so it's just a question of context. We need to find the correct balance between what is substantiated fact and what is being reported. Betty Logan (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your work on this . This brings to mind my college class in historical research where we had to allow for "spurious documents" by acknowledging their existence and make sure to note (in prose or in a footnote - and yes this means I am so old I had to use footnotes in a paper :-)) that the documents existed but had been debunked. Some might not think that this is a bit of minutiae but, for me, that number is such a part of the legend of this film that I think it worth noting the problems with it in the article. MarnetteD|Talk 21:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I guess in a college essay or a thesis or any work you author basically you can apply discretion. I don't see these edits as a compromise though, because I think providing the context for a figure that is widely associated with the film is actually an improvement. This is the power of Wikipedia and why it is such a unique knowledge base. Betty Logan (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems questionable whether the budget can even be converted into dollars at the official exchange rate of the time. In the Soviet Union there were no market prices, but political prices, and apparently soldiers were made available as extras free of charge. Now, however, one must bear in mind that a film production company in a socialist state is virtually a "subsidiary" of the state. One would have to calculate the material used, including costumes, etc., according to world market prices, then convert the wages and salaries of those involved into dollars according to their purchasing power. All other ways are incorrect an to capitalist thought, as they did far less care about money but at material, menpower and so on in the eastern bloc. But don't forget the hordes of horses had to be rised, feed, and they  may have been missed in the agricultural producers corporatives, where the horses may have done their actual work. That (the soldiers and the horses) is budget, too, because the filmmakers had it at their disposal. Since there were no clear differences between the state and the film production company, the support of the state (army) cannot be ignored. If one had demanded full payment of wages and other support, the film would have been significantly higher. The actual budget is too capitalistic thought if the state itself is a producer and part of the expenditure does not go through the books. Probably one would get a better result by calculating what the film would have cost in the United States with this effort and then adjusting the salaries to the lower standard of living in the USSR. A capitalist economy is more based on expenditure and income, prices are built at a working market, in contrast in a soviet type economy it's at it best an orientation as everything is centrally plant and internal wins or losses are not so relevant as the state owns alsmost everything and thererfore less carefully calculated. They probably didn't even had a process for compensation angainst the film-factory which made the bad filmstock as it would most certainly have been the case in the western world.--Blaubeermarmelade (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Having researched this aspect of the film extensively I know you are correct on many of these things. In the Soviet Union money only had nominal value anyway; the true currency was your connections and knowing how to leverage them. That certainly played a role in the production of this film, especially when the Government saw the propaganda value of it. The bottom line though is that the adjusted $700 million is an adjustment of the mythical $100 million, which was almost certainly propaganda. The nominal value put forward in this article perhaps misunderstands the economics of Soviet film production, but it is the only factual figure we actually have. I think postulating figures of how much the film would have cost in a Western economy is a pointless academic exercise, because for obvious reasons budgets in Western economies had to account for market forces and the probability of recouping the costs. Betty Logan (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budget