Talk:To Kill a Mockingbird (film)

message: It was better off with this new article joined with the one about the novel. People could learn about both topics at the same time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.221.28 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussion at book talk page [Talk:To_Kill_a_Mockingbird#Two_Separate_Articles?] Petersam 01:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Separation

message: This article needs a lot more textual content. I'm going to try to add some over the next few months, but no promises. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rtcpenguin (talk • contribs) 03:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Elaboration

message: I will be chasing down some sources, and working on this article quite a bit over the next while. Please place suggestions and ideas here for sections, sub-sections, and general thoughts. Bellwether BC 09:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to put back the plot summary that has been deleted, otherwse I have no special thoughts on the article.JeanColumbia (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with your reasoning here. A section comparing the two would be helpful, and should be available somewhere in a secondary source. My students (middle-schoolers) have written some on this very issue, but I don't think WP would like citing the work of 12-year-olds ... ;) -- Bellwether BC 18:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A significant expansion is coming.

message: While refraining from original research, we need to pull together some material from the sources that compare the two versions. Here's a little list to start with (for me, it's too hard deciding which bits to cite, and we certainly can't just paste in the material verbatim):
* Cliff's Notes
* Film Study Guide: To Kill a Mockingbird
* Lawyers and Film - James R. Elkins
Lawikitejana (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with your reasoning here. A section comparing the two would be helpful, and should be available somewhere in a secondary source. My students (middle-schoolers) have written some on this very issue, but I don't think WP would like citing the work of 12-year-olds ... ;) -- Bellwether BC 18:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Need a section on differences between film and book

message: I have assessed the importance of this article as "Top", for the following reasons:
#It is widely considered a classic movie, appearing on every "Top 100 Films of All-time" list I can find.
#A legendary actor (Gregory Peck) considered his work as Atticus Finsh in the movie to be his finest role.
#It is a movie based upon a book that is considered a classic of American letters.
If anyone wishes to contest this rating, please do so in this thread. Regards, -- Bellwether BC 18:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance assessment of this article

message: :The summary doesnt seem to be a summary at all.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.99.38.61 (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary??

message: A pivotal character and performance is not mentioned - the Sheriff, memorably portrayed by Arthur Franz. Jmaster1999 (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sheriff is played by Frank Overton.  Arthur Franz is not in the film. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sheriff

message: Boo Radley is described in the article as a recluse. I got the impression that he was probably mentally retarded and/or neglected. Could we find a more descriptive term than recluse? __meco (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Boo Radley

message: Seems to be verbatim from the IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056592/plotsummary
Should be deleted unless copyright is released.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.37.52 (talk) 06:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced it with a placeholder plot summary synthesized from IMDb and TCM.  It's no longer a copyvio, but it's alos not very good, someone should re-write it or start from scratch. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot Plagiarized???

message: Significant portions of this article (see Production, Critical Response) read like reminiscences from the "making of" add-on to a DVD version of the movie, complete with hagiographic tone.  Isn't there more hard fact out there?
--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: gossip?

message: :Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
*
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik II (talk • contribs) 14:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: References to use

message: Where was this film shot? Griffinofwales (talk) Come and join theSimple English Wikipedia 04:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: production site

message: The differences from novel section is filled with trivial differences any way we can clean this up?
JitteryOwl (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Differences from novel section

message: "...to check for signs of rape or to determine if her hymen was even broken, and even after..."
This sentence doesn't seem to be appropriate, because neither the film nor the novel mention specifically that Atticus means this by medical evidence. I want to change it to remove the "hymen" section. If you want to contest, please do so within two days of me posting this. And please, please, PLEASE, for the love of God, don't argue WP:NOT CENSORED; censorship isn't my point, my point is that "if her hymen was even broken" was not mentioned in the film nor the novel. Regards, Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Hymen was broken?

message: Rosemary Murphy died on July 5, 2004 so that makes Robert Duvall the last surviving adult cast member.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.34.211 (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rosemary Murphy Death 

message: Universal InternationalEdward Muhlin charge of production
Gregory Peck
IN
TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD
with John Megna          Frank Overton
Rosemary Murphy          Ruth White          Brock Peters
Estelle Evans          Paul Fix          Collin Wilcox
James Anderson          Alice Ghostley          Robert Duvall
William Windom          Crahan Denton          Richard Hale
INTRODUCING
Mary Badham as Scout          Phillip Alford as Jem
Based upon Harper Lee's novel "To Kill a Mockingbird"
::::::::::::::::: —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you,  for your volubility and eloquence in the section immediately above this one;and for your fortitude in producing the opening credits here. Sincerely, — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 09:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: For the record: on-screen opening credits indicating cast of ''To Kill a Mockingbird''

message: I'd like to propose the following line revision for the intro. The reasons I think it is noteworthy to mention in the intro is that Badham's character is central to the film and the Oscar nomination for her due to her age was an Academy first.
Current line:
* "The film won three Academy Awards, including Best Actor for Peck, and was nominated for eight, including Best Picture."
Proposed revison:
* "The film won three Academy Awards, including Best Actor for Peck, and was nominated for eight, including Best Picture and Best Actress in a Supporting Role for Badham, the youngest ever nominee in that category at the time."
Seeking consensus, won't fight it if there is opposition. Not a regular here. Should there be agreement, please do go ahead and make the change without me. 5Q5 (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: * Support — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 20:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

text: * Support — Noteworthy, for reasons Gareth Griffith-Jones suggests. Professor JR (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

text: * Support — for the rationale expressed; however, I suggest the wording "for Badham, the youngest nominee in that category until that time". ["Youngest ever nominee" or "ever nominee" is awkward; further, "ever" conflicts with the qualifier "at the time", whereas "until" covers that point nicely but obviates a need for "ever".]  Doc – DocRushing (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

text: * Oppose in lead but Support in Awards and honors section, with the wording "for Badham, the youngest nominee in that category at that time". It would be out of place and too verbose for the lead, which does not include the directing nomination or the screenwriting win. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

text: *Support. This may represent an overly specific detail, but (in the context of discussing her) it should be worth noting that Mary Badham (born October 7, 1952) was 10 years and 141 days old on the day (February 25, 1963) she received her Academy Award nomination. She held the record for 11 years, until February 19, 1974, when Tatum O'Neal (born November 5, 1963) received her nomination for Paper Moon at the age of 10 years and 106 days. Tatum O'Neal won and has held the record as both the youngest nominee and the youngest winner to this day, over 41 years later. While Tatum O'Neal would still keep her record as the youngest winner, had Mary Badham been born 35 days later, on November 13, 1952, instead of October 7, she would have held on to the record as the youngest nominee to this day, over 52 years later, as of 2015. Those interested in such records, will discover many similar details in Wikipedia's List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees where we will also find the virtually unbeatable record of Jackie Cooper who was nominated in the top category, Academy Award for Best Actor (for Skippy), on October 5, 1931, at the remarkable age of 9 years and 20 days, and has held that record for the past 84 years. His nearest competitor (to this day), Mickey Rooney, was 19 years, 142 days old on the day (February 12, 1940) of his Best Actor nomination (for Babes in Arms). —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus sought to mention Academy Award nom for Badham in intro

message: In the second line of the plot section, it's said "The story covers three years", but this is directly contradicted by the film itself, which very clearly states its length as two summers and a fall (the ending narration states: "The summer that had begun so long ago had ended, and another summer had taken its place, and a fall"). Unlike the novel, the film only covers a year and a half. The only element of doubt is the fact that the age of the children are given as 6 and 10 at the beginning of the story, then Atticus wonders if Jem is 12 or 13 at the end, but that might easily be a residual from the novel's dialogues (plus, he might be 4 and a half years older than his sister, and already past his 12th birthday by the end). The passage of time is otherwise accurately described on screen.
Similarly, I can't find any confirmation of the year the film is set in. The opening narration by adult Scout says, "Maycomb was a tired old town even in 1932 when I first knew it." But if that's meant to say the film begins in the summer of 1932, it's a strange phrasing: she already knew the town by then, being 6-year-old, and her family didn't move there just then. It almost seems to intend that 1932 was the year she's born, which would put the beginning of the story in 1938. Now, Harper Lee (upon which the character is based) was born in 1926, so she would be exactly 6-year-old in 1932. And the novel is set between 1933 and 1935. Plus, 1938 seems to be too late in the decade, closer to WWII than to Black Tuesday. So I don't know what to believe, but I think the summary should at least acknowledge these uncertainties. Kumagoro-42 00:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Length of the story and years the film is set in