Talk:Animal Farm (1954 film)

message: Some of these entries are confusing in that they do not say which was in the movie and which was in the novel. For example: "The windmill was only destroyed once," and, "The puppies that grew to be Napoleon's bodyguards were not taken away from their mother." Was this in the movie or in the novel? --74.225.31.66 (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am also confused on the distinction between the movie and novel and would like some clarification.-~~~~ Urunne (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences between the book and the film 

message: Having just seem the film some 30 minutes ago, the ending as recorded here, is incorrect. The dogs were drunk on alcohol at the time and refuses Napoleon's orders to come to his aid, as a result the animals stormed the farm house and presumably mauled the gathered pigs (and other pig delegates) to death (but what with it being a U film, we're spared the gory details).
The article self-references an "Epilogue" section, but this isn't present in the article as of 2007-03-26 
W3bbo 00:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot is incorrect 

message: Tried to add the reference in Destroy All Humans!, but the save page failed to load. Reload article, edit gone.NodPilot42 18:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something ate my trivia addition 

message: How popular did the movie become? Was it seen by many people? Was it shown on TV or only in the cinemas?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.101.244.117 (talk) 04:24, August 23, 2007 (UTC) 
There is a song which the animals all sing in the beginning of the movie. Later after the pig (I don't remember his name but he was the one who was like Trotsky) is killed the animals sing the song again but the dead pig is still singing. I don't know if that was deliberate or they only recordede it once?98.224.7.246 (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did many people see the 1954 film _Animal Farm_ or was it a flop? 

message: The two pieces I removed from the epilogue section have been uncited for over 6 months. Given the controversial nature, alleging the film/epilogue was propaganda, they need to be properly and credibly sourced before being restored.
As for the CIA involvement section, it was far too POV and only cited by a single source. The CIA distributed the film? Oh, please - that is just too much. Clearly it was distributed by the managing company, and I have seen no evidence to suggest that was the CIA. I have removed the piece from the lead section too.
Really if it is that obvious there should be plenty of non-partisan sources out there. Furthermore the film is still run on UK TV - if it were blatant propaganda it probably would have been removed from scheduling. John Smith's (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This Times Higher Educational Supplement article from 1998, perhaps? Or maybe this 2003 Guardian piece? 86.135.7.189 (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

text: it was funded by the CIA as was plenty of liberal cultural activity in the west during the coldwar. jackson pollock for instance. and plenty of blatant propaganda gets re-run on BBC, lots of ww2 films for instance--Mongreilf (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it was noted conspiracy theorist E. Howard Hunt who made the first allegations, I would say the sourcing on this claim that the cia funded the movie is inaccurate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:BFA1:AEB0:7D0A:1DDA:4562:A55A (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epilogue, CIA involvement et al 

message: Is there any particular reason the disambiguator says "1954 film", when according to the article, it was released in 1955? -- saberwyn 12:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguator a year off 

message: All of this plot (save for the last sentence) seems to have been directly copied from the wikipedia article on the novel of Animal Farm to the point where the links to the citations are left in. A lot of it is incorrect as well since they do veer from the original novel somewhat in the film.--Ramsandgold (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Issues 

message: imdb says it got a bafta nomination. did it win any prizes? any awards? --194.95.117.68 (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  bafta 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Animal Farm (1954 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/20150924000458/http://www.endlessgroove.com/issue6/nwgal01.htm to http://www.endlessgroove.com/issue6/nwgal01.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) 06:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The title and description say that this was a 1954 movie, yet it is linked to a list of 1955 animated movies. Is this a mistake?
Potatornado (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  1954 or 55? 

message: Does anyone know if a version of this (1954) Animal Farm film was made that is the same as the book? I ask this because both myself and my daughter remember seeing such a version while in school, yet there is no online info on such. I.e. is there a 'school' version (at least in U.K. for examination purposes) that ends as the book does? 92.24.67.134 (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version with ending that is same as book? 

message: Unfortunately the section that lists differences between this film and the book is original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.
Firstly, nothing in the section is sourced.  So where has it come from if not original research?
Secondly, comparing the contents of the film with the book in the absence of a source is what we call original synthesis.  That is, a Wikipedia editor has taken one source (the film) and compared it with another source (the book) in order to reach conclusions that appear in neither source.  Neither book nor film say how they differ from each other.  Original synthesis is not permissible on Wikipedia, because it's just a form of original research.
A list could be included if a reliable source can be found that has performed this research, but it cannot be done here.  Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Par for the course on this website, mate. 124.170.109.114 (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research in differences section