Talk:Sense and Sensibility (film)

message: Why does this page about a major film not have a cast section?  I'm sure someone can point to a Wikipedia standard somewhere that says it should.  The prose buried in production section is no substitute; it should have a top-level cast section (after Plot) just like every other major film.  I went through the trouble of creating a cast section, and it was reverted within hours ; perhaps my note with the edit was unnecessarily antagonistic.  My proposed cast section (just a start) can be found in the 21:49, 8 July 2017 version of this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.166.167.129 (talk)  
: I have added the cast section again today 15:28, 16 December 2019, and it has been removed by after 10 minutes. I will revert to my previous edit. As pointed up above, all other films on here have a cast list and I can't see how this can be a matter of any kind discussion, it is the kind of basic information people use the articles for, and it renders this article almost useless in that aspect. The argument for removing the last cast list was "inconsistent with article style" which by all appearance is the same as all other film articles. I feel like this is one persons pet project to keep the cast section out. Can we please just keep it in so it is consistent with the general film article? Frogfisher (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast section 

message: S&S not being my preferred Austen novel, I'm having to plug through it to find for myself the differences with Thompson's screenplay. It would be helpful to the users if those who evaluate the script as taking liberties in order to please modern audiences were to identify what these were. For example, two differences I've noticed some one-third of the way through the novel are that Thompson "killed off" Sir John's wife, eliminating their children as well, and that the same fate met other minor characters, such as Lucy's sister. However, these don't seem changes calculated so much for modern audiences as they seem to be typical book-to-film decisions to streamline the story. So as yet, I've seen nothing that goes to modern tastes, per se; in fact, I thought it interesting that the book shows Edward spending a week at the cottage (which I'd not have expected to be acceptable for the day), mentions Charlotte's pregnancy, and shows Mrs. J alleging that Miss W___ is Brandon's "natural" (read: illegitimate) daughter. These all seem to be changes making the story seem more old-fashioned rather than less. I only really have noticed the film's use of phrasing such as "then the relationship will be over" (my emphasis) as the only notable concessions to modern ideas so far. Maybe the fact that the screenplay suggests that Marianne comes to love the Colonel before the marriage rather than only after? Lawikitejana 02:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Took liberties" 

message: :Image:Sense and sensibility.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) 07:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Sense and sensibility.jpg

message: The review isn't transposing over here and I don't want to stretch this out. Pass.  Well written, no copyright problems, seems to be broad in coverage and well focused. I say nominate to FA.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review 

message: There's a little detail about the filming of Sense and Sensibility at Mompesson House in Salisbury here: . Might it be of interest/use? 86.154.218.87 (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 22:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location filming 

message: The "Locations" section says, "Lee shot around fifty takes, with the actors becoming soaked under rain machines; this led to Winslet eventually collapsing from hyperventilation," citing the Cliff Mills book "Ang Lee" and the DVD commentary by Emma Thompson and Lindsay Doran. In the DVD commentary, Thompson and Doran actually say Winslet collapsed from hypothermia. Thompson says, "Kate had a really tough time this day, because she got hypothermic in the end, so she fainted, and Greg and I took her back to a Winnebago and she...got to take her shoes and sock off and out [her feet] into Greg's armpits to warm them up, and I just held her against me, because...when people do get hypothermia, you can't just put them in a hot bath. You've got to warm them up naturally and slowly." Cliff Mills says, "Winslet actually passed out from hyperventilation after being blasted by rain machines for some 50 takes." I'm inclined to think Thompson and Doran's account is correct because they were there, they give more details, and there's no reason why being drenched with rain should cause a person to hyperventilate.Sadiemonster (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I do believe you are right. I've changed the term to "hypothermia". Thank you for not only noticing this, but going the extra mile to compare the two sources! Ruby 2010/2013 17:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! But just to complicate matters, I listened to the Ang Lee & co-producer James Schamus DVD commentary, and Schamus explained, "Well, it was not exactly a warm day. We had the rain machines blasting on her, and in order to get that incredibly breathy and romantic scene, she was almost hyperventilating for each take, and finally she just literally hyperventilated all the air out of her system." I'm more confused than I was before. Sadiemonster (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyperventilation or Hypothermia? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sense and Sensibility (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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article/62625%7C0/Sense-and-Sensibility.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201155958/http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/oscarlegacy/1990-1999/68nominees.html to http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/oscarlegacy/1990-1999/68nominees.html
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) 02:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is interesting. A factual error being corrected is not an improvement? That is a new one that would be interesting to read if the editor can substantiate otherwise any non-effort to substantiate would seem to support prima facie unless reasonably logically otherwise? WP seems like an effort that tends to eliminate confusion and error instead of supporting it. To not correct an error would seem counter to what WP is attempting to establish. Otherwise, the editor would have us believe that WP supports errors. The fact remains that jilted cannot occur when the previously existing contract has been eliminated. To make this all the more clearer, a party cannot be left if what has previously happened is release from a contract. Yes, Edward's former fiancée has married another but being released from that contract made her no longer his fiancée therefore she could not leave him and thus achieve the state of jilting. To support anything other than correcting this factual error runs in the face of the intended purpose of WP--the truth. Re-imposition of what is false is never correct according to the aim(s) of WP.2605:E000:9149:A600:C8C7:B429:4BE5:33A6 (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no error of fact.  Your belaboured argument is merely a difference in wording, not of fact. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Edward was never jilted? How can there not be an error of fact? Are you in command of some new meaning of jilted?2605:E000:9149:A600:C8C7:B429:4BE5:33A6 (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot 

message: I notice a complete absence of 'sex' in the article. How very English! For long I regarded the Victorians as being rather prudish when it came to talking about 'sex', contrasting with their great enthusiasm for engaging in 'sex' whenever possible. I do hope this is an isolated occurrence or it could be the end of civilisation as we know it!--Damorbel (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Queen Victoria had not been born when the novel was written and had died before the film was made. Thincat (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex