Talk:Lolita (1997 film)

message: awful article. flagged with POV until someone fixes all the rubbish like "doesn't make the same mistakes as Kubrick" and describing actors/actresses as "excellent" without critical qualification. --81.154.236.221 19:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken a crack at fixing it a bit.  I gutted paragraphs that were original research or covered in the Lolita (1962 film) article, and organized it a bit.  This is still a poor article and needs work, though. --Misterwindupbird 08:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: The article seems to suggest that reviews were bad and that the audience stayed away in droves (pardon the cliche). Certainly some reviews were bad but on balance I thought they were pretty good, and that rather than staying away the public was hardly invited. But this is all from hazy memory. Even if it's true, the film may well have lost a lot of money; but if it's true then "box-office bomb" is an odd characterization. Sources? -- Hoary 06:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Box office bomb normally refers just to financial results, not critical or popular reception. Given that it cost $62 million and took in $1, it seems a reasonable characterization to me. --Misterwindupbird 08:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To me (no expert!) the phrase suggests a failure at the box office. (I can't look it up now, as I don't have a good, big, new dictionary at hand. As for the WP article, a template warns that this is a mess.) If "box office bomb" really is commonly used just to refer to financial results, it's a cliché gone stale. Could we just say that the film was a commercial failure (or similar), or, better, that it cost $62 million and took in $1 million? -- Hoary 11:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi, Hoary, I'm not sure I understand what your problem is with the phrase.  Stale cliche or no, my impression had been that a box office bomb was just a movie that lost a great deal of money, regardless of the reasons.  Though I'm certainly no expert, either.  --Misterwindupbird 19:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply, it's that to me the phrase suggests that the film bombed in the box office, in turn meaning that ticket sales were very poor in terms of what was expected. For this film, ticket sales were no doubt very poor in terms of what had been expected before the backers (?) started to shop the film around to potential distributors, or before distributors started to shop it around to potential outlets, or both -- but I don't think there was an Ishtar-like wave of people telling people that the movie stank and they should save their money, leading to empty seats. But look, whatever we think of accuracy and suitability of the phrase "box-office bomb", the fact that it took in $1M for an outlay of $62M is a lot more precise -- if you're sure of it. -- Hoary 06:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "box-office bomb"

message: I think the article needs a poster of the film, or maybe atleast one picture, anyone agree??? Jackp 04:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poster of the film? 

message: This article affirms that Humbert is an unreliable narrator. Is there any evidence of this in Nabokov's comments and interviews ? Otherwise it seems a POV to me. 
I can't remember anything in the novel that would confirm he would have been fundamentally dishonest, especially since he is self-deprecating, admits he ruined her life and don't try to dodge his culpability throughout the novel.
There is even an entire chapter dedicated to her suffering and how he ruined her life (chapter 32 of the 2nd part of the book)...
This is really a confession not a trick to gain sympathy from a jury
And anyway his memoir is supposed to be published decades after their death with changed names. What would be the point of lying to his readers ? 82.241.221.24 15:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, unless that opinion is attributed to Nabokov himself then I don't think it should be listed here. Ospinad 19:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable narrator 

message: :Image:Lolita1997.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) 07:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Lolita1997.jpg

message: Templated; updated templates; no source for "The film was produced on a budget of just over USD$6.2 million."  Needs to be better integrated into the text and also documented with a reliable verifiable source citation.  --NYScholar (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing source citations throughout

message: From the end of the plot section:
"He dies in November 1950, the death of Lo on Christmas Day in childbirth."
Something wrong with this sentence?  Wanderer57 (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something wrong with this sentence? 

message: Lolita: the book of the film By Stephen Schiff, Vladimir Vladimirovich Nabokov ISBN:1557833540 would be a good reference to use to expand the article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Incredible that it is not mentioned already. Is it censored because Nabokov was a Russian? -- Alexey Topol (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Lolita: the book of the film By Stephen Schiff, Vladimir Vladimirovich Nabokov

message: I have a doubt about the film categorization on "films about pedophilia", if Im not wrong the eponimous Lolita in the film is a teenager, so if pedophilia is define as sexual atraction toward pre-pubescent children, then is not the case. If anything should be in "films about ephebophilia". --Dereck Camacho (talk) 08:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Like if seems that no one objects then I'll change the category to one that suits better. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ephebophilia is the primary sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19. What we are talking about here is Hebephilia. Hebephilia is the sexual preference for early adolescent children (those roughly ages 11 to 14). Some evidence suggests that Hebephilia is a distinct and discernable erotic age preference. Lolita, the character in the novel of Vladimir Nabokov, is a 12-yo girl, not a 17-yo girl as depicted in this movie of 1997. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Pedophilia category 

message: Isn't that a bit odd? I don't think this does the novel any justice. Why didn't they chose a 12-yo actress instead? -- Alexey Topol (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you hire an actual 12 year old? Isn't that kind of weird? 45.15.227.26 (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choice of a 17-yo actress to play a 12-yo character