![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
|
Odd, I watched the film last night, and corrected some of the text to reflect what's actaually said by the characters - but ho hum, if it's preferred incorrect that's fine. I also corrected some of the Americanisations to UK English, ditto… Hmm…
did harry actually(no pun intended) have an affair —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helicopter tours ( talk • contribs) 18:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Does everyone know the name of the melody in the shopping centre (it plays when Alan Rickam can buy a necklace for Mia)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.160.87.79 ( talk) 18:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Is the character of Sarah supposed to be an American working and living in London? Someone mentioned this in conversation, but I did not remember this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.204.199.241 ( talk) 14:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Though I understand the film is fiction, the plotline involving Sarah requires that the viewers believe in the characters involved in order for them to appreciate her story. Can any White Americans reading this explain if it is realistic at all for a successful and attractive woman like her to devote so much of her life to her severely mentally ill brother, when there is nothing in it for her? F W Nietzsche ( talk) 02:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The section Harry, Karen, and Mia states that the wife died of 'cancer'. The section Daniel and Carol; Sam and Joanna states that she died of an 'unspecifed long-term illness'. I don't remember the cause of her death, or the duration of it, ever being stated. In any case, the two sections contradict each other - either the cause was stated or it wasn't. F W Nietzsche ( talk) 02:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Why here is no storyline of Daniel and Sam? AATS ( talk 09:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the line "She immediately understands Harry is having an affair" is incorrect, the film implicitly implies (though admitted doesn't overtly state) that Harry does not have an affair and thaty he buys Mia the necklace out of a combination of sexual attraction (though not sex) and bullying. I am rephrasing it as "believes" as I feel this is more reasonable. Gamma2delta ( talk) 18:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there's a need for putting "The ensemble cast is composed of predominantly English actors." People know the film is British. It's like writing "The ensemble cast is composed of predominantly American actors" when we're talking about an American film. Doesn't it sound ludicrous? When something isn't American it's always clarified. No need to put a sentence like that. -- Agusk7 ( talk) 18:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The title of the film is interesting, because it seems to recall Aristotle's philosophical concept of entelechy, which has been used by various philosophers to make a distinction between actual love and potential love. With regards to this, there is one medieval school of thought which posits that love is always actual, meaning that the expresions "Love Actually" and "Actually Love" are almost synonymous. ADM ( talk) 05:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
One minute of this two hour movie takes place in Wisconsin. Is that really all it takes to have the category, "Films set in Wisconsin?" 62.150.91.20 ( talk) 15:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The wording is biased in the production section where it reads, "In 2009, during President Barack Obama's first visit to the UK, Chris Matthews referred to the president in Love Actually as an exemplar of George W. Bush and other former presidents' bullying of European allies."
This sounds as though it is an absolute fact that American Presidents have bullied their European allies, but it is actually the opinion of Chris Matthews. I think this wording should be corrected to reflect that it is the opinion of Chris Matthews - and perhaps others - but is not necessarily accurate from an historical standpoint. Perhaps Chris Matthews could be quoted instead which would clarify the situation and be less politically biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcwinks ( talk • contribs) 04:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Why state that the cast of this British film "is composed predominantly of British actors"? That is hardly surprising. 203.184.41.226 ( talk) 06:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm editing two places where the US President is described as "trying to seduce" Natalie. I find this phrasing too sugar-coated, as it is pretty clear that he was sexually harassing her.-- Ibis3 ( talk) 04:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Love Actually. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Just a small part of the movie, but still a harsh inconsistency of the filmmakers when most viewers see this proposal scene taking place in a Portuguese town and others insist it must be Marseille after this airport has been shown. IMO the scene was shot in the Provence region with a Portuguese cast to make it look like Portugal. -- Pakeha ( talk) 01:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
So, this film is a American-British-French film, as seen by the references. There isn't a reference in the previous versions that gives it as only a British film. http://www.afi.com/members/catalog/DetailView.aspx?s=&Movie=62814 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:4D17:BD90:7F4E:F953 ( talk) 08:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Is there a citation for making this just a British film? If there was, then I could see the need for consensus. I don't see a need for consensus here, sorry.
preference is given to reliable databases like BFI, AFI, or Variety; NinjaRobotPirate has provided links to all three of them above. -- ChamithN (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
No. It is a British film.
Please sign and datestamp your Talk page contributions. —
Gareth Griffith-Jones |
The Welsh |
Buzzard |
15:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
There are at least two different "2000" recordings of Joni singing BSN:
There are at least three appearances of BSN song associated with the movie Love Actually (2003): the inclusion within the movie (1:25); featured within a bonus extra on the movie DVD (about 2min); on the movie soundtrack album (track 9, 5:46).
These three may or may not be identical. Do they all actually derive from the TNT April 6, 2000 performance, not the BSN album studio track?- 71.174.190.122 ( talk) 16:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
The plot section of this film article is excessively long. It is far in excess of the 400-700 words recommended by the WP:FILMPLOT guidelines. It is close to 2000 words depending on how you count. The plot section contains excessive details that are not even related to the plot, such as the "Story association" section. I tagged the Plot section using Template:long plot. My effort to tag this article has been reverted more than once by editors who have not followed the simple rules and explained their revert with an edit summary or any explanation as to why this film article is not following the film plot guidelines.
The WP:MOSFILM guidelines give examples of very complicated films such as Memento (film) and an anthology film Pulp Fiction both of which went from having very very long plot sections to eventually following the guidelines. Those examples include a section called "Story structure" which is similar to the "Story association" section used in this article. It would be a good first step to make that into a separate section not part of the Plot section. The background information about the character Rufus having being originally intended as an angel is not plot, it is background production information. I attempted to make this change too, and I made it in as a small edit separate edit with a clear edit summary about what I was doing.
The guidelines don't make it clear but there is wiggle room for anthology films and some film articles have much longer than usual plot summaries but there doesn't seem to have been any attempt to keep the plot length of this article concise. In a more generous counting of the plot length, excluding the "Story association" section, and the Rufus section, not including the words to make the subheadings, and removing the actor names, the plot length still comes in at a hefty 1,475 words. If an an anthology film with a non linear structure like Pulp Fiction can follow the guidelines there's no reason why this article can't at least try. It isn't unreasonable to suggest this article should be able to more than adequately summarize the plot in under 1000 words.
There are great many things that could be trimmed. The first paragraph of prologue could go almost entirely. It is enough to explain that the featured song is a Christmas variation of "Love Is All Around", the detail that it was originally by "The Troggs" is can be explained elsewhere or left to the wikilink. [There s too much ... skipping ahead.] It is as if this article is trying to have the longest plot section possible, the detail "Karen's brother, David (Hugh Grant)," is a not an essential plot detail, and it is a detail that most other film articles would quickly mention in the Cast/Characters section. Natalie could more succinctly be described as "part of the household staff" her newness and lack of seniority are not essential details either, and if the previous sentence absolutely needs to point out that David (Hugh Grant) is only recently elected then it is already implicit that all the household staff are new to him. These are only a few examples.
I think this article could be a much much better. I reiterate my suggestions to not merely shorten the plot but more importantly reorganizing the article to move non plot information to other sections (which can be expanded so long as they are properly sources). -- 109.76.146.164 ( talk) 01:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
That was wrong then and still wrong now. Maybe you can argue LOCAL CONSENSUS but you need to build consensus. Wikipedia doesn't allow you to use the lack of engagement as consensus. This article was and still is is disorganized and the plot is excessively long. At least show some good faith and move the non-plot details out of the plot section (Christmas angel specifically). -- 89.101.195.102 ( talk) 18:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@ MarnetteD: Why did you undo the edit about the Claudia Schiffer cameo? By what criteria do you establish that some content is "(not needed)"? -- MirelesJ ( talk) 20:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Regarding this edit Shivertimbers433 has a point that, since they aren't seen filming the scenes, body doubles isn't the right description to use. OTOH I'm not sure that stand ins is the right term either. They aren't going to replace the main actors if they get sick or can't film for some other reason. I think there is a term for this kind of job but I can't think of it at the moment. If anyone else can think of it then we can update the page. If not I'm okay with leaving it as it is as well. MarnetteD| Talk 21:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
On the NPR radio program on Christmas Eve 2023, it was mentioned that the film has become controversial due to, i.a., stereotypes. Should this be added (with examples cited by second sources) to the reception section? Kdammers ( talk) 18:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
|
Odd, I watched the film last night, and corrected some of the text to reflect what's actaually said by the characters - but ho hum, if it's preferred incorrect that's fine. I also corrected some of the Americanisations to UK English, ditto… Hmm…
did harry actually(no pun intended) have an affair —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helicopter tours ( talk • contribs) 18:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Does everyone know the name of the melody in the shopping centre (it plays when Alan Rickam can buy a necklace for Mia)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.160.87.79 ( talk) 18:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Is the character of Sarah supposed to be an American working and living in London? Someone mentioned this in conversation, but I did not remember this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.204.199.241 ( talk) 14:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Though I understand the film is fiction, the plotline involving Sarah requires that the viewers believe in the characters involved in order for them to appreciate her story. Can any White Americans reading this explain if it is realistic at all for a successful and attractive woman like her to devote so much of her life to her severely mentally ill brother, when there is nothing in it for her? F W Nietzsche ( talk) 02:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The section Harry, Karen, and Mia states that the wife died of 'cancer'. The section Daniel and Carol; Sam and Joanna states that she died of an 'unspecifed long-term illness'. I don't remember the cause of her death, or the duration of it, ever being stated. In any case, the two sections contradict each other - either the cause was stated or it wasn't. F W Nietzsche ( talk) 02:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Why here is no storyline of Daniel and Sam? AATS ( talk 09:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the line "She immediately understands Harry is having an affair" is incorrect, the film implicitly implies (though admitted doesn't overtly state) that Harry does not have an affair and thaty he buys Mia the necklace out of a combination of sexual attraction (though not sex) and bullying. I am rephrasing it as "believes" as I feel this is more reasonable. Gamma2delta ( talk) 18:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there's a need for putting "The ensemble cast is composed of predominantly English actors." People know the film is British. It's like writing "The ensemble cast is composed of predominantly American actors" when we're talking about an American film. Doesn't it sound ludicrous? When something isn't American it's always clarified. No need to put a sentence like that. -- Agusk7 ( talk) 18:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The title of the film is interesting, because it seems to recall Aristotle's philosophical concept of entelechy, which has been used by various philosophers to make a distinction between actual love and potential love. With regards to this, there is one medieval school of thought which posits that love is always actual, meaning that the expresions "Love Actually" and "Actually Love" are almost synonymous. ADM ( talk) 05:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
One minute of this two hour movie takes place in Wisconsin. Is that really all it takes to have the category, "Films set in Wisconsin?" 62.150.91.20 ( talk) 15:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The wording is biased in the production section where it reads, "In 2009, during President Barack Obama's first visit to the UK, Chris Matthews referred to the president in Love Actually as an exemplar of George W. Bush and other former presidents' bullying of European allies."
This sounds as though it is an absolute fact that American Presidents have bullied their European allies, but it is actually the opinion of Chris Matthews. I think this wording should be corrected to reflect that it is the opinion of Chris Matthews - and perhaps others - but is not necessarily accurate from an historical standpoint. Perhaps Chris Matthews could be quoted instead which would clarify the situation and be less politically biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcwinks ( talk • contribs) 04:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Why state that the cast of this British film "is composed predominantly of British actors"? That is hardly surprising. 203.184.41.226 ( talk) 06:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm editing two places where the US President is described as "trying to seduce" Natalie. I find this phrasing too sugar-coated, as it is pretty clear that he was sexually harassing her.-- Ibis3 ( talk) 04:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Love Actually. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Just a small part of the movie, but still a harsh inconsistency of the filmmakers when most viewers see this proposal scene taking place in a Portuguese town and others insist it must be Marseille after this airport has been shown. IMO the scene was shot in the Provence region with a Portuguese cast to make it look like Portugal. -- Pakeha ( talk) 01:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
So, this film is a American-British-French film, as seen by the references. There isn't a reference in the previous versions that gives it as only a British film. http://www.afi.com/members/catalog/DetailView.aspx?s=&Movie=62814 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:4D17:BD90:7F4E:F953 ( talk) 08:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Is there a citation for making this just a British film? If there was, then I could see the need for consensus. I don't see a need for consensus here, sorry.
preference is given to reliable databases like BFI, AFI, or Variety; NinjaRobotPirate has provided links to all three of them above. -- ChamithN (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
No. It is a British film.
Please sign and datestamp your Talk page contributions. —
Gareth Griffith-Jones |
The Welsh |
Buzzard |
15:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
There are at least two different "2000" recordings of Joni singing BSN:
There are at least three appearances of BSN song associated with the movie Love Actually (2003): the inclusion within the movie (1:25); featured within a bonus extra on the movie DVD (about 2min); on the movie soundtrack album (track 9, 5:46).
These three may or may not be identical. Do they all actually derive from the TNT April 6, 2000 performance, not the BSN album studio track?- 71.174.190.122 ( talk) 16:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
The plot section of this film article is excessively long. It is far in excess of the 400-700 words recommended by the WP:FILMPLOT guidelines. It is close to 2000 words depending on how you count. The plot section contains excessive details that are not even related to the plot, such as the "Story association" section. I tagged the Plot section using Template:long plot. My effort to tag this article has been reverted more than once by editors who have not followed the simple rules and explained their revert with an edit summary or any explanation as to why this film article is not following the film plot guidelines.
The WP:MOSFILM guidelines give examples of very complicated films such as Memento (film) and an anthology film Pulp Fiction both of which went from having very very long plot sections to eventually following the guidelines. Those examples include a section called "Story structure" which is similar to the "Story association" section used in this article. It would be a good first step to make that into a separate section not part of the Plot section. The background information about the character Rufus having being originally intended as an angel is not plot, it is background production information. I attempted to make this change too, and I made it in as a small edit separate edit with a clear edit summary about what I was doing.
The guidelines don't make it clear but there is wiggle room for anthology films and some film articles have much longer than usual plot summaries but there doesn't seem to have been any attempt to keep the plot length of this article concise. In a more generous counting of the plot length, excluding the "Story association" section, and the Rufus section, not including the words to make the subheadings, and removing the actor names, the plot length still comes in at a hefty 1,475 words. If an an anthology film with a non linear structure like Pulp Fiction can follow the guidelines there's no reason why this article can't at least try. It isn't unreasonable to suggest this article should be able to more than adequately summarize the plot in under 1000 words.
There are great many things that could be trimmed. The first paragraph of prologue could go almost entirely. It is enough to explain that the featured song is a Christmas variation of "Love Is All Around", the detail that it was originally by "The Troggs" is can be explained elsewhere or left to the wikilink. [There s too much ... skipping ahead.] It is as if this article is trying to have the longest plot section possible, the detail "Karen's brother, David (Hugh Grant)," is a not an essential plot detail, and it is a detail that most other film articles would quickly mention in the Cast/Characters section. Natalie could more succinctly be described as "part of the household staff" her newness and lack of seniority are not essential details either, and if the previous sentence absolutely needs to point out that David (Hugh Grant) is only recently elected then it is already implicit that all the household staff are new to him. These are only a few examples.
I think this article could be a much much better. I reiterate my suggestions to not merely shorten the plot but more importantly reorganizing the article to move non plot information to other sections (which can be expanded so long as they are properly sources). -- 109.76.146.164 ( talk) 01:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
That was wrong then and still wrong now. Maybe you can argue LOCAL CONSENSUS but you need to build consensus. Wikipedia doesn't allow you to use the lack of engagement as consensus. This article was and still is is disorganized and the plot is excessively long. At least show some good faith and move the non-plot details out of the plot section (Christmas angel specifically). -- 89.101.195.102 ( talk) 18:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@ MarnetteD: Why did you undo the edit about the Claudia Schiffer cameo? By what criteria do you establish that some content is "(not needed)"? -- MirelesJ ( talk) 20:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
WhisperToMe ( talk) 19:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Regarding this edit Shivertimbers433 has a point that, since they aren't seen filming the scenes, body doubles isn't the right description to use. OTOH I'm not sure that stand ins is the right term either. They aren't going to replace the main actors if they get sick or can't film for some other reason. I think there is a term for this kind of job but I can't think of it at the moment. If anyone else can think of it then we can update the page. If not I'm okay with leaving it as it is as well. MarnetteD| Talk 21:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
On the NPR radio program on Christmas Eve 2023, it was mentioned that the film has become controversial due to, i.a., stereotypes. Should this be added (with examples cited by second sources) to the reception section? Kdammers ( talk) 18:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)