Talk:Changeling (film)

message: * "...In post-production, scenes were supplemented with computer-generated skylines, backgrounds, vehicles and people."
Is this really necessary in the main section?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grubdubdub (talk • contribs) 14:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The detail seems relevant to help understand how thoroughly they illustrated the era.  It's not always a given; eras may just be defined by set pieces and costumes. Erik (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Necessary? 

message: New Yorker recently had an article about Clint Eastwood.  There is a passage that pertains to Changeling: "[Million Dollar Baby] was less an expression of feminist awareness than a case of awed respect for a woman who was strong and enduring. (The theme was woodenly repeated in “Changeling,” from 2008, in which Angelina Jolie’s betrayed mother takes on the L.A.P.D.)"  Just wanted to provide this. Erik (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Added this; cheers! Steve T • C 00:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not bad, but I think it would be relevant to note that Changeling did not do the theme as well as Million Dollar Baby.  The way it reads, it seems like the films are on equal ground. Erik (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I did consider that, but was unsure. Currently, the section outlines the themes but deliberately makes little explicit comment on how well  the film tackled them. Would that be within the scope of the section, or more appropriate for reception, where it can sit alongside Denby's other comments? I took a similar view with American Beauty; all criticism of the themes, or the way the film tackles them, is covered among the reviewers' comments. Steve T • C 13:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Yorker 

message: Worth highlighting (here), as it's just become an article de qualité (discussion). Nice work, and some interesting image choices, some of which I think could be of use here. Steve T • C 22:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to see!  What are the differences between this article and that one?  Is there an "Errors" section at the end?  I looked at the discussion page, but even with Google Translate could not understand it.  Was the whole discussion Featured Article oriented?  The green plus makes me think of Good Article status... Erik (talk | contribs) 22:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Essentially, yes, it was all towards the AdQ. The difference seems to be that they place all review processes on the same page. It skipped GA, but had it gone through the process, you'd have seen the discussion under the Bon article section. The Erreurs section is exactly what it appears to be. I wouldn't suggest we replicate it here with the same sources, however (even though some are English-language); it's almost entirely synthesis. :-) Apart from the addition of a couple of other sections, such as the list of release dates and cast members (and a spoiler warning!), the rest of the article is almost word for word. Still, the translation alone must have taken a hell of a lot of time. One thing that did come up in the AdQ was the film's strong reflection of Eastwood's libertarian bent; when more academic sources eventually emerge, I need to remember to add something about that here. Steve T • C 23:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very nice translation. I noticed that it includes some elements from the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders article including the bibliography and a picture of Gordon Stewart Northcott. The French article on Wineville Chicken Coop Murders is relatively recent. It was created on March 3, 2010. --Dan Dassow (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  French Wikipedia's version 

message: *
This book mentions Changeling across a few pages.  Google shows some here, but not all.  I can find the book at the store and get snapshots of the pages if desired.  Let me know. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No preview for me, unfortunately, but it sounds very useful. It might be something I can get from my library. I'll check this weekend; if not, I'll come knocking. Cheers, Steve T • C 22:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Based upon the Google books preview Marc Eliot's does not appear to have any information not already in the Wikipedia article. --Dan Dassow (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you see page 327?  It was the only one I could not see. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see parts of all of the pages with Changeling on them except pages 327 and 328. On those pages there is one sentence from the page and indicates that there is no preview for those pages. It may be worth checking out the book from the library, but I doubt that has any information Steve and I have not already seen on Changeling (film).  This book was discussed in the Clint Eastwood forum here. --Dan Dassow (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

text: I just added an additional citation to the article from the book before stumbling on this discussion. The page in question covers the process of how the film originated by Straczynski, lists the date when filming began, and there is a quote by Jolie stating what it was like to work with Eastwood. I currently have the book until 5/11, so please let me know if you want me to look up anything specific. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Rebel 

message: is the most thorough analysis of the costumes in Changeling that I have seen. There is a lot of interesting information in the article. Unfortunately, this source looks like it is a blog, but one that has an editor. According to the website 
The aim of Clothes on Film is to examine fashion and identity in the movies. With articles on specific outfits, reviews, news and whatever else seems to fit ...
--Dan Dassow (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Costumes 

message: I'm puzzled by this comment in CNN "The set of "The Changeling," a film recently directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Angelina Jolie, was "completely destroyed," Meyer said."  The Wiki article as it stands goes into great detail about the many locations that were used, rotoscoping, motion capture. So ... what burned? 19:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: New York Street on the Universal Studios backlot is featured in the film. New York Street was mostly destroyed by the backlot fire in 2008. The street featured in hundreds of productions; the only reason Changeling is mentioned in that report is because it's one of the more recent. At the time, it seemed a little trivial to include, IIRC, otherwise we'd have a sentence saying "the set later burned down" in every article on every film that shot something there. However, looking at the report more closely, it seems to single out Changeling more prominently than other articles from the time. Perhaps something could be added. Steve T • C 20:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Set burns

message: Okay, can we please have a better hostorical section on this. I have no idea what happened to the mother based on this text. It saus she was released from a hospital out of nowhere.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.64.24.49 (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Can anyone tell me if the character of Chairman Thorpe is a reference to an historical person? If so, what was his full name? 74.196.127.243 (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Someone has been copied by some other source. It's better to cancel it directly or to wikify it?--Olbia merda (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: New paragraph about Collins in historical section

message: Jesus Christ, cut this down to a readable length.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.86.13 (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has passed through the featured article review process and consensus at the time, either through direct comment or passivity, determined that the article is of an adequate length. It is fairly long, but why is that a problem? It is to my mind the single most comprehensive article to be found on this subject anywhere, something to which all our articles should aspire. Per Wikipedia:Article size, the recommended top level of readable prose is around 50kB and while this article is 59kB, that's barely a paragraph or so above that recommendation, which many of us deem perfectly acceptable. And yet that still makes this only the 120th longest featured article in our arsenal. Consensus can of course change, and we're always happy to re-evaluate an article if someone has objections, so if you can identify specific sections of prose that the article would be better without, please feel free to point them out and we can discuss their utility. All the best, Steve T • C 20:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  College Essay 

message: Steve I would like to have a discussion with you regarding your comments that my inserted text has already been covered by the article.  It has most certainly not been covered, otherwise, I would not have inserted it.  Is your main concern that I did not cite references?  IF that is your concern, I will be happy to do so, or is it that you do not believe what I wrote to be true??
Beaconmike (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: References do need to be cited for whatever content you add to the article, per Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. In addition, when we add content, we report it in a disinterested tone. The latter part of what you added does not seem to be in that tone. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

text: So that is your only concern, that there is no verifiability?  I have no issue there.  I will provide verification for all of my inserted information and then you can defend my additons from Steve and others who choose to remove them for other reasons than the truth.  It will take me some time, but it will get done and then you can stand by me in what I said.  By the way, your comments regarding my 'disinterested tone' are ridiculous and very subjective to your own point of view.  I don't write to please you.  If  I was disinterested, I would not even be reading this article in the first place.  By definition, anyone who reads this article is not 'disinterested'. Beaconmike (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You said in your edit, "However, the MPAA has no such standards or legal definition that must be met regarding the words 'A True Story'. Generally, the words 'A True Story' are determined by film companies, and as such could vary from film company to film company. The film Changeling should not be considered a documentary, nor is it 'A True Story' regarding the complete Historical record in the matter of the Wineville Chicken Coop murders." Did this come from a reliable source? Erik (talk | contribs) 04:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  (Not sure how to properly insert my comments to Eric, but let me try to do it this way, and if it is incorrect, my apologies in advance.  Eric:  I get most of my information regarding this from the Wiki pages.  In addition, all one has to do is to contact the governing board that certifies films submitted for PG, PG-13 etc. and they will tell you that there are no standards for the words True Story. In addition Universal in this very Wiki article points out that it was their legal counsel who authorized the words "True Story" and that it was changed after Cannes, from "Based on a True Story".  That is in this Wiki article itself.   That is my source.  Not sure if that meets Wiki standards or not, but it is still the truth. Beaconmike (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply! I do not think it meets Wikipedia's standards. What would be appropriate would be a reliable source that discusses Changeling in the context of being "a true story" and reporting what is said in that source. For example, the screenwriter was interviewed by Time and answered a question about researching for the film. I do not think this Wikipedia article talks about changing from "Based on a true story" to "A true story" after Cannes -- it only mentions that Universal wanted the screenwriter "to annotate the script with sources". Whatever we include in Wikipedia articles needs to have already been said in the sources, may it be electronic or print. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Beaconmike, Erik has raised two concerns, so your comment above "is that your only concern", seems unhelpful to say the least. I suggest you address both of Erik's concerns before you edit the article again. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, he does not have 2 concerns; he has one concern and one subjective personal opinion regarding my sentence structure.  If Eric wants to point out to me the specific sentences where he thinks that I have a less than dis-interested tone, he is free to do so, but until the it is just his opinion and I am entitled to my opinion as well.  Maybe I should submit my future edits to Eric and then he can post them in a 'dis-interested' tone.  The fact of the matter is that I wrote the truth.  It is verifiable and while Eric may disagree with my tone, it is still the truth.  I don't exactly know how to write a dis-interested point of view, but I am happy to submit my paragraph to you as well for your edification, as long as you keep my main points of truth in the edit. Beaconmike (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Beaconmike. I'm sorry for not responding promptly to your initial request for discussion; Christmas happened. I'd first like to echo what has already been stated by Erik. The primary problem with the edit was that it was not verifiable—the text added wasn't cited to any reliable sources. This must be done within the article itself (e.g. we can't simply rely on readers who wish to verify a piece of information being able to ring the MPAA or whoever). I also think we must be wary of issues of undue weight—I do not think the article as it stands would support the inclusion of so much text as you originally added; it would be giving prominence in the article to a subject that is exceedingly minor in the scheme of things. However, if reliable sources are forthcoming, I'd be happy to work with you to support some kind of minor expansion of the section with relevant material. With regard to the "disinterested tone", Erik has I think already pointed out one passage that I believe he was referring to with that remark. The tone of the rest of your edit followed a similar pattern. I am more than happy to believe that it was not intentional, but to me it read with a mildly judgemental undercurrent that we should strive to eliminate if and when we decide to expand the section. All the best, Steve T • C 19:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Eric / Steve:  I would like to get your thoughts on the following 2 questions and then we can continue this discussion.  (1)How did each of you interpret the meaning of the words 'True Story' which are stated at the beginning of the film? That the entire film is accurate and true to the Historical record?  How do you think that the average layperson would interpret those words 'True Story' when they see the film?  (2) Are we in agreement that Universal changed the crawl at the beginning of the film (that appeared at the Cannes film festival) from 'Based on a True Story' to a 'True Story' after the loss at Cannes? Beaconmike (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not in a position to interpret. We go with what reliable sources say. There are two relevant and cited passages in the article: 1) "So the credits could present the film as 'a true story' rather than as 'based on' one, Straczynski went through the script with Universal's legal department, providing attribution for every scene," and 2) "Straczynski claimed that Changeling's loss by two votes was due to the judges' not believing the story was based on fact. He said they did not believe the police would treat someone as they had Collins. The loss led to Universal's request that Straczynski annotate the script with sources." Perhaps we can reword and/or combine these passages to show that the initiative to attribute everything was related to Cannes. Or find another source that can discuss all this together. What do you think, Steve? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we shouldn't attempt to discern Universal's or Straczynski's motives or otherwise interpret their actions. I also agree that we could better combine the sources that discuss the situation post-Cannes, especially if we can somehow work in Straczynski's statements about how much of the script actually was taken from the historical record. I'd be wary of doing this straight off the bat, however, as it could veer too close to synthesis if not handled correctly. If the sources don't explicitly make the connection, we wouldn't want to create that impression in the readers' minds. Closer to the weekend, I'll see if there's anything in both the online and offline sources (which I should still have somewhere) that can be used to bolster this section without running into issues of interpretation or undue weight. All the best,  Steve T • C 22:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is that Universal obviously changed the crawl(as admitted)"So the credits could present the film as 'a true story' rather than as 'based on' one".  Come on, you have to admit that the film cannot be both 'True Story' and a film that is also 'Based on a True Story'.  This my whole point.  I will find more documentation for you to consider, but come on..........surely you are kidding me that you think the film can be both 'A True Story' and 'Based on a True Story'.  Do you not see any distinction between the two crawls?  Or do you think the two different crawls mean the same thing in the English language.  For the record, JMStraczynski claimed that "about 95%' of the film was true, but certainly not every event was true.  That allows for the fact that 5% was not-true and that is what I am getting at here with this discussion. How can a film be 'A True Story' if the screenwriter admits that it is only 95% true?  If Wiki is about facts and truths, how can we let a film call itself 'True Story' if the film does not agree with the historical record? Beaconmike (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

text: At one point, my following comments were edited out due to the fact that I did not have footnotes or sources for my information.  Please review my comment and then after it, I have outlined my source, which is easily found on the web.  My quote that was edited out:  J. Michael Straczynski]] has pointed out that he wrote the screenplay Changeling, from the point of view of Christine Collins, the mother of Walter Collins.  My source of information..........From NPR radio:  Behind 'Changeling,' A Tale Too Strange For Fiction, by Elizabeth Blair, October 24, 2008  "I decided the best and most honorable way to tell the story was from [Collins'] perspective," the screenwriter says. "It is about her war, her battle to find her son, what happened to her son." Does this satisfy you that we can reinstate the quote with footnoted source? Beaconmike (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Beaconmike, the "Writing" section covers the quote that you mentioned. Your edits were to the "Reception" section, so I hope you looked at "Writing" too. It clearly discusses about the dramatic license that the screenwriter used in drafting the story. I do not think that the Wikipedia article is at all falsely advertising this film as a true story. We identify it as a drama film based on real-life events, and we attribute motivations for "truthfulness" to the studio and the screenwriter. Historical films always blur the line between being historically accurate and telling a good story, and this is no exception. The only kind of coverage I can foresee including is any external criticism of the studio and the screenwriter trying to sell this film as truthful, and considering the comprehensiveness of this topic already, I'm not sure if this was ever a real point of criticism. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your comments Eric.  I will read the article further to see what you point out.  Again, thank-you.  Let me ask one final question of any of you; Eric or Steve.  When the screenwriter wrote the screenplay, certain Historical documents and records were not necessarily known to the screenwriter at that time.  Unbeknownst to the screenwriter, there was a man, James Jeffrey Paul, whom had been researching the story of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders for approximately 10 years.  Most likely his research began years before J. Michael Straczynski had even considered writing the screenplay.  Mr. Paul published a book that is heavily footnoted and most of his research was done at the Riverside (Ca.) Historical Society, that houses all Historical items related to the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders.  The film Changeling was released prior to the publishing of the book by Mr. Paul.  Clearly Mr. Paul's book debunks the myth perpetrated in the film regarding some critically Historically important information.  In the film Changeling, it is depicted and written by Mr. Straczynski, that there was a boy whom came forward, David Clay, whom told an incredible story of multiple boys escaping from the Wineville Chicken Coops one night and that one of those escapees was Walter Collins.  These matters are proven to be completely historically inaccurate, as evidenced by a thorough testimony given by the only survivor at Wineville, Sanford Clark.  Sanford was the singular key witness for the State of California, whom was in part, responsible for the State of California pronouncing a sentence of death for Gordon Northcott and a prison sentence for his mother whom confessed to the murder of Walter Collins.  The State of California produced partial body parts that helped them, to conclude that Walter Collins had been murdered, along with the Winslow brothers.  There were never multiple boys held in the chicken-coops as depicted in the film, and there was no escape attempts, as evidenced by the State of California and the testimony given at trial.  The film Changeling is a wonderful film, but can we at Wiki allow the film to become the reference point that defies the conclusions that the State of California made, that resulted in the execution of a murderer and the sentencing of his mother to prison?  Should we not include some reference that the film is not the 'True Story' in regards to what the Historical record shows us?  Thank-You for your consideration of my comments. Beaconmike (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like you are referring to this. The company is Xlibris, a self-publishing provider, so we need to consider WP:SELFPUBLISH here. However, this does seem to open the possibility of a "Historical accuracy" section, for which we have guidelines at WP:FILMHIST. May be worth looking at some sources that may have emerged since the film's release. Using WorldCat.org, I found three that have chapters on Changeling: 1, 2, and 3, the last one being the most pertinent. (Can't argue with Cambridge Scholars Publishing there.) Steve, what are your thoughts on this so far? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the Wiki recommendations regarding Film / History, and your suggestion that such consideration be taken into account.  I will wait for Steve's comments, but if Steve is in agreement, I would be willing to write a few brief sentences that reflect the Historical Record in this matter and submit them here for your consideration and approval.  My comments could be included as part or whole of a 'Historical Accuracy' section. One thing that I want to add for your thought process is this.  JMStraczynski, when he wrote the screenplay, as stated, wrote it from the viewpoint of Christine Collins.  When we get to the boy whom came forward and spoke of an escape by multiple boys and that one of those boys was Walter Collins, one has to remember that this scene is how the screenwriter imagined Christine Collins viewing how her son was still alive.  It is not what happened in real life, but rather, how Christine Collins coped emotionally with the fact that the court and trials were determining that her own son had been murdered.  That a death sentence had been pronounced.  That scene was in her imagination, not in the reality of historical facts, that Christine knew about.  It was how she kept what little sanity she had left.  That is simply how the screenwriter imagined that Christine kept her hope, in spite of the terrible truths that were unfolding around her regarding the murder of her son.  The ending scene where Christine states that she "still has hope" is (again), how the screenwriter imagined that Christine kept her hope alive.  We know from the historical record that Christine decided that her son was still alive after the first evening that Gordon Northcott (convicted murderer) was extradited and arrived in the prison system.  She was allowed to meet with Mr. Nothcott and interview him regarding Walter.  She concluded that Walter was alive then, and her hope was restored, even though by then the Police had already unearthed the few remains of her own son and were preparing murder charges against Gordon Northcott.  Gordon's Mother, Sarah Louise Northcott had already confessed to the murder of Walter Collins at the same time that Christine was interviewing Mr. Northcott in prison.  Just keep in mind that the screenwriter has already told us that this film was written from the point of view of Christine Collins, and it is her story of how she kept her hope alive.  Christine Collins story of hope had nothing to do with the historical record. Walter Collins was murdered and the State of California proved it.  That is the historical record in this matter.
Beaconmike (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inviting Steve who edited away my comments to further discuss on talk page 

message: I have removed the  tag from the Box office section, placed there by  in November 2015. That section has not changed much . – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Changeling (film)#Box office|Box office]] section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Changeling (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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0824747/awards?ref_=tt_awd
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100224070822/http://www.chicagofilmcritics.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62&Itemid=60 to http://www.chicagofilmcritics.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62&Itemid=60
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090508031015/http://www.bauermedia.co.uk/Press-Office/News/Jameson-Empire-Awards-2009---Nominations to http://www.bauermedia.co.uk/Press-Office/News/Jameson-Empire-Awards-2009---Nominations/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202035312/http://www.pressacademy.com/satawards/awards2008.shtml to http://www.pressacademy.com/satawards/awards2008.shtml
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/65olbBrXC?url=http://www.saturnawards.org/nominations.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/nominations.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509062056/http://www.saturnawards.org/index.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/index.html
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) 11:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Changeling (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 http://www.webcitation.org/60eITgMHN?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapps.metacritic.com%2Ffilm%2Fawards%2F2008%2Ftoptens.shtml to http://apps.metacritic.com/film/awards/2008/toptens.shtml
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) 08:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Changeling (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/20110716194718/http://www.wmagazine.com/celebrities/2008/10/jason_butler_harner?currentPage=1 to http://www.wmagazine.com/celebrities/2008/10/jason_butler_harner?currentPage=1
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) 01:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Changeling (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/20090225111934/http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/4-/5830681/Changeling/Product.html to http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/4-/5830681/Changeling/Product.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090117024112/http://www.bafta.org/awards/film/film-nominations-in-2009%2C657%2CBA.html to http://www.bafta.org/awards/film/film-nominations-in-2009,657,BA.html
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) 00:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Changeling (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/20131203003243/http://www.film.com/movies/spoilers-changeling-the-real-story-behind-eastwoods-movie to http://www.film.com/movies/spoilers-changeling-the-real-story-behind-eastwoods-movie
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080210035308/http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2007/06/18/angelina-jolie-cant-wait-to-go-toe-to-toe-with-eastwood/ to http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2007/06/18/angelina-jolie-cant-wait-to-go-toe-to-toe-with-eastwood/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080120035746/http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2007/11/09/malkovich-makes-a-changeling/ to http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2007/11/09/malkovich-makes-a-changeling/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080202125956/http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2007/11/27/amy-ryan-loves-spare-changeling/ to http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2007/11/27/amy-ryan-loves-spare-changeling/
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) 07:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified