Talk:Charlotte Gray (film)

message: :Image:Charlotte Gray film.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) 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Charlotte Gray film.jpg

message: I don't like that stupid "citation needed" wording, but I had no choice in using the "fact" tag. if there is one more appropriate, I'm all ears. Wikipedia has absolutely too many "deleted" or "deprecated" tags that it makes actually tagging articles nearly impossible... but I digress... :: It appears to me that facts from the book has been slipped into the film's information, which are not actually in the film itself. I very well could be wrong, which is why I did not make any direct changes (yet). If I may, I would like to list the ones I believe we need checking on. If anyone can verify this with written dialog directly from the film, that will settle the matter.
# "medical receptionist" - If I'm not mistaken she only says she works in surgery. Did we see her at work or something? I cannot recall ever knowing she was a receptionist.
# "spent much of her childhood in France" - My understanding was that's where she went to college or at the very least was schooled there. I don't remember ever hearing she was a "child" in France. 
# "a no longer inspired painter" - I cannot recall hearing anything about his being an artist. He said he loved his work and women, and said he was an engineer during WWI. As far as I can remember, this was all we heard about him as a person.
A movie is not a book and a book is not a movie. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I watched the film last night (after reading the book) and on first reading of the article I noticed points 1 and 3 straight away. It definitely smells of facts leaking in from the book. Carmody (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you've watched the film, change the wording to fit the film's plot. Lapadite (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK Fassin Taak (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts of the film vs book 

message: Ebert's original review, you might be able to find on Ebert's website, assuming Ebert's website is still running.   The scene towards the end, when Charlotte passes the fake note thru the train wall to her father and the two kids, is harshly criticized in Ebert's review.  Ebert basically said this scene made no sense, and did nothing to move the story further.   Although conversely, my own opinion was that this scene was brilliant.   She wanted the two kids to think their mother sent them a letter, and they would die in the concentration with the comfort of having gotten that letter.  Indeed it does give a briliant end to the movie.  I think Charlotte comes to a realization, that her participation in the French resistance is going to barely make a dent in the fight against the Nazis.   But she comes to a realization that taking care of the two boys was not merely a nuissance to be tolerated; But she comes to realize that was her bigger accomplishment.   The fake letter is the final task to a completion of that accomplishment.     MS, Dania Fl  206.192.35.125 (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Roger Ebert Review

message: How about instead of calling it a financial failure, we call it a Hollywood Distribution failure.   This was not a bad movie.  I dont work in Hollywood, so I don't know the business environment of Hollywood dealmaking.  But this movie could have made its money back, if it wasnt a limited release in the United States.   Years ago, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act used to mean something.  Industries used to rally against one or a few companies getting all the business.   Yet this is what you see in the movie distribution business.  You see the Big studios in collusion with the theater chains to swallow up all the available movie-screen show dates.   MS. Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Financial Failure?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Charlotte Gray (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/20051022082547/http://charlottegraymovie.warnerbros.com/ to http://charlottegraymovie.warnerbros.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified