Talk:BUtterfield 8

message: :Image:Butterfield8 movieposter.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) 18:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:   Fair use rationale for Image:Butterfield8 movieposter.jpg 

message: Should the film really be the main page? John O'Hara was an author of some literary merit and renown.--Dan Moore 20:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, someone should actually read the book before writing it up. Almost every discussion of the movie, including this one, claims that the character in the novel is a call girl. Maybe they get that from the telephone-exchange title. There's not a word of truth to it. The character in the novel is a party girl who goes from man to man, but shows no interest in making money from them; she's living comfortably at home with her mother and fairly well-to-do uncle. She was an art student and occasional artist's model before going into full-time drinking and screwing. But she's not a pro. (She is said to have been based on a real girl whose drowning death was a nine-day's-wonder in 1931. That person may have been a prostitute, and another source of the confusion here.) 66.241.74.66 09:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The woman the book was based on, Starr Faithfull, was not a prostitute either. HairyWombat 03:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film 

message: The comment mentioning that Elizabeth Taylor "hated" this movie is a little misleading for two reasons: first, it comes from a citation by Eddie Fisher, who has less credibility when it comes to Liz Taylor than many others, particularly since writing a salacious, questioned and questionable "tell-all" about Taylor recently.  Hearsay is hearsay.  
Secondly, it is closer to true to say that she hated the circumstances surrounding the movie, since the studio forced her to do it as a way to capitalize on the public's perception that she broke up Fisher and Reynold's marriage, even casting the sub-par actor Fisher in that supporting role as her life-long "friend."  Since Liz has gone on record saying she's never seen the movie, and she won the Oscar for it, I don't know if Liz free from the clutches of Fisher's questionable influence would say she "hated" the film exactly as Fisher claims.  
Many people/critics felt Fisher was in way over his head performing with the otherwise stellar cast, and may have poisoned her mind against it, if not poisoned his pen to claim she "hated" it.  At any rate, her performance is just too good to say she hated the film.  She can hardly have been accused of phoning it in.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbaker3122 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Taylor's performance in this movie was quite awful, and her Oscar win has oft been acknowledged to have been a sympathy vote, due to her illness at the time of voting. She shouldn't have been nominated for this one in the first place though.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.3.195 (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elizabeth Taylor 

message: Synopsis has been cleaned up to match the movie. Too many errors and things inconsistent with the movie were in it. Softlavender (talk) 08:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synopsis has been cleaned up 

message: Since the author of the book is notable, and the book was notable enough to be made into a notable movie, i think the book and movie should each have an article. This article is primarily about the movie, but the title is that of the book. I think we should create a new article, BUtterfield 8 (film), and move the movie content to it, while this can stay as the book. however, I do see some logic in having the movie retain the main title, as its probably more notable. I wont actually do any of this unless or until i hear some other thoughts on the matter. "BU" is not used consistently, why? the posters dont show this use in the title, just in the supporting text. I found 2 reliable sources for the spelling, but would like to link to a youtube video of the theatrical trailer for the film, which appears to be posted without a copyright violation problem: .Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Article now uses "BU" throughout. HairyWombat 19:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I came to wikipedia hoping to learn who wrote the book. Right now the author doesn't seem to be named in this article, and I can't find the article about the book (if there is one). Seems like a big omission to me. 173.66.1.39 (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Article states, "The film was based on a 1935 novel written by John O’Hara". The book does not have a separate article (and one probably isn't justified). HairyWombat 19:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: Why is the unconventional title of the novel and film with capitalized "B" and "U" not shown on the movie poster? The poster says the title is BUTTERFIELD 8 - or Butterfield 8. --Red-Blue-White (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I also found this strange, and having not seen the film I assumed the capital 'U' was a mistake, but the Title section now has a good explanation about how it relates to the way telephone exchanges were named and dialled in the US. As for why the poster didn't show this, maybe it was simply a typeface choice, or perhaps a marketing decision?  --Dohzer (talk) 10:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Why BU?