This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
/Archive 1- 2006-2008 discussions |
What is the purpose of the space after the intro paragraph? It is non-standard and I suggest it be removed. - sYndicate talk 16:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
...on the same type of correction, shouldn't something on "too many notes" be included in <plot> without giving the whole movie away? Bammon ( talk) 12:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC) oops this is already covered elsewhere in Talk under "Memorable quotes" Bammon ( talk) 12:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
The situation with plots is that some people can accept a sweeping overview and some are fixated on the detail. 2605:E000:9152:8F00:71AD:75FA:7E81:289F ( talk) 23:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I always thought the point of that scene was that Constanza was so poor she couldn't afford a funeral and Mozart was buried with the poor. 4.249.63.47 ( talk) 13:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Mozart certainly should have had his own grave -- heck, his own mausoleum -- but there wasn't enough money. However, it is now believed that mass burials -- accompanied by sacks of lime -- were a form of improved sanitation, and represented progress (in that regard, anyway). WilliamSommerwerck ( talk) 12:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
There is two DVD's of the movie. The Director's Cut and the original one. My local library has both of them. The theatrical version has an R rating for brief nudity, as does the director's cut, but the scene in the director's cut where Constanze shows her breasts is not included and the runtime is 20 minutes shorter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.219.133 ( talk) 17:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Peter Shaffer did write the script but credit should be given that it was originally a story by Alexander Pushkin -- dunnhaupt ( talk) 20:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Neither year is given as signage or verbally in the film to indicate time of event(s) so from where do they come to be imposed in this plot.
Calling for Mozart's forgiveness as his assassin happens before the attempted suicide not after. After there is disturbing noises.
The young priest starts his visits the following day not the same night as the admission into the hospital. 2605:E000:9152:8F00:CDD4:7F19:F384:C927 ( talk) 22:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Do we need to say that it is 18th century Vienna especially if that is not stated in the film? Just the same as the film never gives a start date or a date of Mozart's death? 2605:E000:9152:8F00:CDD4:7F19:F384:C927 ( talk) 23:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I cannot believe that all manners of inaccuracies can be found and some people so quick to revert without getting a chance to put things down.. 2605:E000:9152:8F00:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 ( talk) 23:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I see that a statement made elsewhere about an action that I took has effectively been erased from the record unless you are a more advanced participant of Wikipedia and it although said to be better placed here has not been so. So I will comment.
Yesterday I was watching Amadeus and went to read the article to see just how things were portrayed. I was perplexed because what I was watching definitely was not what was in the article. Events were incorrect, or given longer duration, or a number of discrepancies and so after I had closed my editing the first time the following note was left on the article history: "22:23, 23 June 2017 MarnetteD (talk | contribs) . . (31,073 bytes) (+97) . . (rvt all manner of inaccuracies - IP has made no post to the talk page either) (undo)". It struck me that having simultaneously watched and composed that what was done was greeted with "rvt all manner of inaccuracies - IP has made no post to the talk pager either". I guess you have to simultaneous make comments to the talk page as you leave that edit summary on the article history page otherwise you seem to get rated as a non-entity worthy of some level of respect to gather your thoughts in some logical order? I am still attempting to understand just how there are "all manner of inaccuracies" in what I wrote especially having just viewed the movie and composed simultaneous; and then editing again to get a more concise and logical understanding of the movie. It makes me wonder if for the sanity of Wikipedia that more detailed objections should be required of those people that wish to more inconvenient the contributions of others than develop a Wikipedia that people can have some level of pride? As I have said before, I am still attempting to understand all the inaccuracies that were portrayed in the first paragraph of the plot that at the time I had posted especially after having just viewed the material a number of times. I know this will rile a few feathers but I could care less how many edits someone has made if their edit count include what can easily be shown as "junk". Did this person bother to review the movie before making these edit summary? Because if they had then it is understandable why some of the inaccuracies remained on the page for such a long period of time as if they were the truth. This is not to pick a fight but if you do stupid things then don't expect to be congratulated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9152:8F00:71AD:75FA:7E81:289F ( talk) 25 June 2017
I think today's plot revision by 47.185.73.236 has considerable merit, and the revert by User:Joefromrandb was hasty. The remark in the edit summary about a "long-standing version" baffles me – that's not supported by the article's edit history. I suggest to restore 47.185.73.236's version and then discuss any shortcomings in detail. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 12:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Amadeus (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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
A student I oversaw started work on a revamped awards section at User:Icleamons/sandbox. They also started in on some of the reception - the page is a little jumbled about but I was thinking that the tables especially could be useful. I'll try to get back to this, but if anyone wants to work on this first, go for it. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 19:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Oh joy, one of these discussions. There is no consensus currently regarding the primary topic of Amadeus other than not being the play. There is clearly a consensus to move the play. A new discussion must take place, probably at WP:RFD, to determine where the link will go. As a fully temporary waiting measure, we will leave the base name redirecting to the dab page, against policy for just the duration of the WP:RFD request. ( non-admin closure) Red Slash 22:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Redirect discussion here Red Slash 22:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
– The film, not the play, is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The film is much better known, and consistently gets about 10x as many page views [1], even though the play is at the base name, and is considered one of the best films of all time, which makes it more historically significant than the play. В²C ☎ 20:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any basis in policy or guidelines on the opposition side, but I may be missing something, and I have a few questions:
-- В²C ☎ 18:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_27#Amadeus Red Slash 22:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Just to cover all the bases this attempt to add an unknown cast member to the list does not meet the guidelines at WP:FILMCAST. Occasionally an uncredited cast member can be mentioned in an article as with Sam Waterston at Hannah and Her Sisters but there isn't even a name for the person that the 2 Ian's are trying to shoehorn into this article. There are dozens of unnamed actors in the crowd scenes of this film and none of them merit inclusion in this article. MarnetteD| Talk 04:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I recall watching Amadeus on TV in the late 1980s, and my memory clearly has it Mozart was not buried during a 'rainstorm' as the end of the Plot section in the article states, but in snow (or to be precise a synthetic imitation of it) which I recall seeing lightly covering over the bodies in the grave. Can someone check this out? It was Beethoven who was buried reputedly amidst a storm. Cloptonson ( talk) 06:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
/Archive 1- 2006-2008 discussions |
What is the purpose of the space after the intro paragraph? It is non-standard and I suggest it be removed. - sYndicate talk 16:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
...on the same type of correction, shouldn't something on "too many notes" be included in <plot> without giving the whole movie away? Bammon ( talk) 12:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC) oops this is already covered elsewhere in Talk under "Memorable quotes" Bammon ( talk) 12:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
The situation with plots is that some people can accept a sweeping overview and some are fixated on the detail. 2605:E000:9152:8F00:71AD:75FA:7E81:289F ( talk) 23:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I always thought the point of that scene was that Constanza was so poor she couldn't afford a funeral and Mozart was buried with the poor. 4.249.63.47 ( talk) 13:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Mozart certainly should have had his own grave -- heck, his own mausoleum -- but there wasn't enough money. However, it is now believed that mass burials -- accompanied by sacks of lime -- were a form of improved sanitation, and represented progress (in that regard, anyway). WilliamSommerwerck ( talk) 12:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
There is two DVD's of the movie. The Director's Cut and the original one. My local library has both of them. The theatrical version has an R rating for brief nudity, as does the director's cut, but the scene in the director's cut where Constanze shows her breasts is not included and the runtime is 20 minutes shorter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.219.133 ( talk) 17:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Peter Shaffer did write the script but credit should be given that it was originally a story by Alexander Pushkin -- dunnhaupt ( talk) 20:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Neither year is given as signage or verbally in the film to indicate time of event(s) so from where do they come to be imposed in this plot.
Calling for Mozart's forgiveness as his assassin happens before the attempted suicide not after. After there is disturbing noises.
The young priest starts his visits the following day not the same night as the admission into the hospital. 2605:E000:9152:8F00:CDD4:7F19:F384:C927 ( talk) 22:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Do we need to say that it is 18th century Vienna especially if that is not stated in the film? Just the same as the film never gives a start date or a date of Mozart's death? 2605:E000:9152:8F00:CDD4:7F19:F384:C927 ( talk) 23:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I cannot believe that all manners of inaccuracies can be found and some people so quick to revert without getting a chance to put things down.. 2605:E000:9152:8F00:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 ( talk) 23:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I see that a statement made elsewhere about an action that I took has effectively been erased from the record unless you are a more advanced participant of Wikipedia and it although said to be better placed here has not been so. So I will comment.
Yesterday I was watching Amadeus and went to read the article to see just how things were portrayed. I was perplexed because what I was watching definitely was not what was in the article. Events were incorrect, or given longer duration, or a number of discrepancies and so after I had closed my editing the first time the following note was left on the article history: "22:23, 23 June 2017 MarnetteD (talk | contribs) . . (31,073 bytes) (+97) . . (rvt all manner of inaccuracies - IP has made no post to the talk page either) (undo)". It struck me that having simultaneously watched and composed that what was done was greeted with "rvt all manner of inaccuracies - IP has made no post to the talk pager either". I guess you have to simultaneous make comments to the talk page as you leave that edit summary on the article history page otherwise you seem to get rated as a non-entity worthy of some level of respect to gather your thoughts in some logical order? I am still attempting to understand just how there are "all manner of inaccuracies" in what I wrote especially having just viewed the movie and composed simultaneous; and then editing again to get a more concise and logical understanding of the movie. It makes me wonder if for the sanity of Wikipedia that more detailed objections should be required of those people that wish to more inconvenient the contributions of others than develop a Wikipedia that people can have some level of pride? As I have said before, I am still attempting to understand all the inaccuracies that were portrayed in the first paragraph of the plot that at the time I had posted especially after having just viewed the material a number of times. I know this will rile a few feathers but I could care less how many edits someone has made if their edit count include what can easily be shown as "junk". Did this person bother to review the movie before making these edit summary? Because if they had then it is understandable why some of the inaccuracies remained on the page for such a long period of time as if they were the truth. This is not to pick a fight but if you do stupid things then don't expect to be congratulated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9152:8F00:71AD:75FA:7E81:289F ( talk) 25 June 2017
I think today's plot revision by 47.185.73.236 has considerable merit, and the revert by User:Joefromrandb was hasty. The remark in the edit summary about a "long-standing version" baffles me – that's not supported by the article's edit history. I suggest to restore 47.185.73.236's version and then discuss any shortcomings in detail. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 12:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Amadeus (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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
A student I oversaw started work on a revamped awards section at User:Icleamons/sandbox. They also started in on some of the reception - the page is a little jumbled about but I was thinking that the tables especially could be useful. I'll try to get back to this, but if anyone wants to work on this first, go for it. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 19:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Oh joy, one of these discussions. There is no consensus currently regarding the primary topic of Amadeus other than not being the play. There is clearly a consensus to move the play. A new discussion must take place, probably at WP:RFD, to determine where the link will go. As a fully temporary waiting measure, we will leave the base name redirecting to the dab page, against policy for just the duration of the WP:RFD request. ( non-admin closure) Red Slash 22:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Redirect discussion here Red Slash 22:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
– The film, not the play, is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The film is much better known, and consistently gets about 10x as many page views [1], even though the play is at the base name, and is considered one of the best films of all time, which makes it more historically significant than the play. В²C ☎ 20:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any basis in policy or guidelines on the opposition side, but I may be missing something, and I have a few questions:
-- В²C ☎ 18:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_27#Amadeus Red Slash 22:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Just to cover all the bases this attempt to add an unknown cast member to the list does not meet the guidelines at WP:FILMCAST. Occasionally an uncredited cast member can be mentioned in an article as with Sam Waterston at Hannah and Her Sisters but there isn't even a name for the person that the 2 Ian's are trying to shoehorn into this article. There are dozens of unnamed actors in the crowd scenes of this film and none of them merit inclusion in this article. MarnetteD| Talk 04:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I recall watching Amadeus on TV in the late 1980s, and my memory clearly has it Mozart was not buried during a 'rainstorm' as the end of the Plot section in the article states, but in snow (or to be precise a synthetic imitation of it) which I recall seeing lightly covering over the bodies in the grave. Can someone check this out? It was Beethoven who was buried reputedly amidst a storm. Cloptonson ( talk) 06:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)