Talk:Lolita (1962 film)

message: The Poe quoted by Humbert was not Annabel Lee, but Ulalume.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.150.132 (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poe, Annabel

message: Since every other film by Stanley Kubrick on Wikipedia has a photo from the film, this article deserves/needs one, maybe one or two screen caps would be good, because just one poster isn't enough, and a film as famous as this..it deserves a screen cap!!!!! Jackp 09:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DisABlelite 41.121.77.79 (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article needs some screen caps 

message: "Lolita's age was raised to fourteen..." Is this true? I know I've read that in several places, but I don't think her age is mentioned in the movie at all. Can anyone confirm this? —Chowbok 20:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't remember if her age is stated in this film, but in the 1997 remake, a staff member at Lolita's school says whilst talking to Humbert: "...fourteen year old Delores...". Nietzsche 2 (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm taking your word for it. My understanding is that the MPAA required that the actress appear to be 14. Puddytang (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  14? 

message: On this page, Sue Lyon's age is marked as 13 at the time of filming, but on the Stanley Kubrick page, it's marked as 16. Anyone know the truth on it? Aevangelica 16:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like both are wrong. According to IMDB, she was born on July 10, 1946  and Lolita was filmed from November 1960 to May 1961 , which means she was 14 when it filmed. —Chowbok 20:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed the disagreement between her age between the two articles also.  As of October 8th, 2006, this problem still hasn't been rectified.  I have no knowledge of this film save for this article, so I don't feel like I could accurately change both articles.  Would someone in the know please correct the age problems?  TheDapperDan 07:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: IMDB is a pretty reliable source and I'll trust their dates, which say she was 14. The confusion is probably because she was 16, or close to it, when it was released, but it had been filmed a year-and-a-half earlier. I've edited both articles. —Chowbok 16:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sue Lyon's age? 

message: New Hampshire is in the Midwest?  Why don't you try looking at a map? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Satch234 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographically-challenged foreigner or very ignorant American? 

message: Just to clarify, am I missing something here, or is this merely someone's "stick random crap in a wiki and see how long it stays there" experiment?
"Peter Sellers' performance as Clare Quilty was generally acclaimed at the wizard mountain time."
I don't dare change it, it's so surreal. --boiled_elephant 19:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wizard mountain 

message: Humbert Humbert cannot be called a pedophile on the grounds that he has has a relationship with an under-age but post-pubescent girl.  Dirty old man, yes, but pedophile, no.Moletrouser (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pedophile? 

message: The film that Humbert, Charlotte and Lolita see at the drive-in (both women grab Humbert at a scary moment) is The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) Matt BG 119.11.8.175 (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be more specific. The cast list has character descriptions of 4 characters, and Quilty's character is greatly expanded from the novel, so it would seem something needs to be said. There's a very very longggg section on differences between the novel and the movie. Perhaps that is what you are referring to.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frankenstein meets Lolita 

message: The last two edit summaries (the second of which is mine and reverts the first) involved the order of the actors in the Infobox. When I made the edit, I had checked the film credits, but not yet the preview and was guessing about the latter.I have now confirmed my guess was correct by looking also at the preview. The edit-summaries read (in reverse order)
:06:21, 19 September 2011 WickerGuy (talk | contribs) (50,252 bytes) (Undid revision 451216505 by Bluerules (talk)You may be confusing previews with the film opening credits. In the latter, Lyon is billed above Sellers)
:21:40, 18 September 2011 Bluerules (talk | contribs) (50,252 bytes) (Sellers is billed above Lyon.) 
I have now confirmed my guess about the trailer. Sellers is indeed billed above Lyon in the preview trailers, but Lyon is billed above Sellers in the film opening credits. Reversion to original order in Infobox therefore stands with Infobox reflecting film credits, not preview trailer.--WickerGuy (talk) 06:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have just confirmed what I guessed at in edit summary two minutes ago. 

message: Although Peter Sellers has higher billing than Sue Lyons in both the poster and preview trailer, going with the billing order of the film credits (where Lyons billed above Sellers) is preferable for the following reasons.
Sellers was probably given higher billing in the poster and preview (but not the actual film credits) because he was a well-known star (at least in England) at the time, and Lyon was a complete unknown.  This was similar to the logic behind giving Christopher Reeve third billing in Superman, except there it was third billing in posters, previews, AND the film credits proper (hence, WP article on the Superman movie lists Reeve third in Infobox). However, in the case of Lolita, the higher billing of Sellers was in advertising/publicity only (preview and poster), and Lyons got higher billing in the actual film credits. Once the audience had already paid money to see the film, there was no need to pander to commercial interests by giving Sellers greater prominence.
Lyons has far more screen time than Sellers and is indeed in virtually every scene, while Sellers has about half an hour of screen time in a 2 & 1/2 hour movie, although admittedly his scenes are highly memorable, pivotal, and he is prominent in both the opening and closing scenes of the film. There is no policy at Wikipedia for preferring the billing order of a film poster to the billing order of the actual film credits, if they conflict (contrary to what is implied in recent edit-summary by User:Bluerules). Rather, if they conflict one should go with what seems more sensible and appropriate to whatever film is being discussed. In this case, it seems the film credits order is more sensible (this is an encyclopedia, not a promotional publicity engine).--WickerGuy (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of Actors in Infobox for this article 

message: I noticed this while watching the movie, but I'm not sure it qualifies for more than trivia; but for what it's worth here's what I found. In one scene, which I'm pretty sure is not based on the novel, the camera pans to a poster in Lolita's room and shows the Clare Quilty character, played by Peter Sellers, endorsing 'Drome' cigarettes. (Actually it is mentioned in the novel, Part One, 16. 188.135.220.201 (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drome Cigarettes 

message: Anon  has repeatedly edit warred to increase the length of the plot summary with superfluous details. The plot summary already is more than 850 words (and that's after I trimmed it), significantly in excess of the standard maximum of 700 words (and 400-500 is closer to the norm). See WP:FILMPLOT. I tried compromising with 64.183.48.206 by leaving part of his edit but removing the most superfluous parts. I also trimmed other parts of the plot summary, but it is still too long. 64.183.48.206 does not respond to requests for discussion about this issue or warnings about edit warring on his talk page. This needs to stop. Cresix (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: IPs have been blocked, article has been semi'd. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary length 

message: From a letter from both Vladimir and Vera Nabokov to Peter and Joan de Peterson, dated July 24, 1962 (p. 338 of Nabokov's Selected Letters, 1940-1977):
"Vladimir had been worrying about the picture but already after the preview they arranged for us before the premiere he felt completely reassured. The picture might have ben somewhat different had he made it himself but it certainly was excellent anyway and contained nothing whatsoever that he could find offensive, false or in bad taste. He liked the performance of all the four actors and even found some of the deviations from his script were very fortunate."
In other words, HE LIKED IT.
Here's more from a Paris Review interview:
"Another project I have been nursing for some time is the publication of the complete screenplay of Lolita that I made for Kubrick. Although there are just enough borrowings from it in his version to justify my legal position as author of the script, the film is only a blurred skimpy glimpse of the marvelous picture I imagined and set down scene by scene during the six months I worked in a Los Angeles villa. I do not wish to imply that Kubrick's film is mediocre; in its own right, it is first-rate, but it is not what I wrote. A tinge of poshlost is often given by the cinema to the novel it distorts and coarsens in its crooked glass. Kubrick, I think, avoided this fault in his version...."
(http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/4310/the-art-of-fiction-no-40-vladimir-nabokov)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brancron (talk • contribs) 19:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nabokov's opinion of the film 

message: This is my personal overall comment of the Wikipedia article.
This story is a complex story. For me, my interest in reading it was some some clarification on the 1962 film version. I found the information I was looking for, but I noticed there is some wordy sections in general that were confusing to me as a reader. The film is very different than the book from what I can tell. I noticed there is a separate article written for the book. This is a comment from a reader with a passing interest. I think that parts of the Wikipedia article could be simplified.The Budzone guy 22:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment 2

message: * The line 'In a 1972 Newsweek interview (...), Kubrick said that had he realized how severe the censorship limitations were going to be, he "probably wouldn't have made the film."' is copy/pasted from the source and needs rewriting/removing.
* The Cast notes are sourced to the IMDb which, even if it was a reliable source, only supports the fact that Bishop was an uncredited ambulance attendant in the film.
* The named reference  is never defined and produces an ugly red error in the References section. TwoTwoHello (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few minor problems 

message: Dear User Ken.  "Mincing", yes.  And yes, you know me from many exchanges in the past, scores, typically collegial, and are aware of my command of English.  As well as my prior post on your Talk page seeking to head off this unfortunate outcome (where he who reverts first wins, since the burden is inherently on the editor making a change, no matter Wikipedia's injunctions to "Be bold" and all that).
Mince.  To dice into tiny pieces, used also to describe reducing a point or argument to fineness beyond proportion, roughly analogous to "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin".
You have persistently forced the 3 Revert rule outcome on an absurdly insignificant point.  There are significant changes throughout the movie from the book, many of which can be interpreted as "events", many of which events - whether changes in locale, timeline, or introduction and/or actions of characters that had either much reduced roles in the book or were invented out of whole cloth in the movie - have the effect of changing "events" as they unfold.  To try to maintain that they are en toto insignificant enough to have to cling to "exactly" to delineate their substance is specious; we're not talking about the shifting of a morning to an afternoon, or the same town or place just given a different name in the movie.
While the movie more or less follows the book "in broad strokes", to use your characterization, it is inaccurate to portray the many differences between the two in whether and how events unfold and if they even take place at all in one or the other as so minor as to demand the contentious adjective "exact".  Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted edits of July 21 

message: In an early paragraph it state it was uncut in Britain but still received an X rating. In one of the last ones it states it was cut to receive one2001:8003:407D:B400:4502:F253:1CDE:7289 (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lolita (1962 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/20101108215717/http://www.terrysouthern.com/archive/SKint.htm to http://www.terrysouthern.com/archive/SKint.htm
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) 23:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: We say  The source for that now returns a 404 error but I am pretty sure BBFC X certificates were intended to restrict viewing to those aged 18 and over, not 16 and over. Can anyone confirm? - Sitush (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  X certificate 

message: Is it ever indicated in the film that Humbert is a "British professor of French literature"? In the novel, Humbert is a "salad of genes" - born in Paris to an English mother and Swiss father of French and Austrian descent. Did Kubrick simplify Humbert's nationality, or does the article conflate the British actor with character he plays? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humbert - British?