This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sense and Sensibility (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Sense and Sensibility (film) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 10, 2015. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Why does this page about a major film not have a cast section? I'm sure someone can point to a Wikipedia standard somewhere that says it should. The prose buried in production section is no substitute; it should have a top-level cast section (after Plot) just like every other major film. I went through the trouble of creating a cast section, and it was reverted within hours ; perhaps my note with the edit was unnecessarily antagonistic. My proposed cast section (just a start) can be found in the 21:49, 8 July 2017 version of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.166.167.129 ( talk)
S&S not being my preferred Austen novel, I'm having to plug through it to find for myself the differences with Thompson's screenplay. It would be helpful to the users if those who evaluate the script as taking liberties in order to please modern audiences were to identify what these were. For example, two differences I've noticed some one-third of the way through the novel are that Thompson "killed off" Sir John's wife, eliminating their children as well, and that the same fate met other minor characters, such as Lucy's sister. However, these don't seem changes calculated so much for modern audiences as they seem to be typical book-to-film decisions to streamline the story. So as yet, I've seen nothing that goes to modern tastes, per se; in fact, I thought it interesting that the book shows Edward spending a week at the cottage (which I'd not have expected to be acceptable for the day), mentions Charlotte's pregnancy, and shows Mrs. J alleging that Miss W___ is Brandon's "natural" (read: illegitimate) daughter. These all seem to be changes making the story seem more old-fashioned rather than less. I only really have noticed the film's use of phrasing such as "then the relationship will be over" (my emphasis) as the only notable concessions to modern ideas so far. Maybe the fact that the screenplay suggests that Marianne comes to love the Colonel before the marriage rather than only after? Lawikitejana 02:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
There is ONLY one film adaptation of Sense and Sensibility. The others are television series. Please GET RID of "1995" in the article name, please. -- PJ Pete
Image:Sense and sensibility.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) 07:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Moved from article:
The review isn't transposing over here and I don't want to stretch this out. Pass. Well written, no copyright problems, seems to be broad in coverage and well focused. I say nominate to FA.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Because this is a GA article, I am not going to just jump in a make changes, but I have a couple of suggestions for this article. It's distracting to read all the actor's names in blue in the Plot section; is there a way to limit them, or not link them here? In other articles I've worked on, we've used last names only to get the info in with minimum interruption to the attempt to follow the plot. There is a sentence in the Casting section that state this was Winslet's "first major film role." That is really not true. She was one of two stars of Heavenly Creatures, and while that was an independent film, her role was inarguably "major," and the film was hardly obscure. Therefore, this sentence should either come out entirely, or it should be changed to "mainstream" role or something. You've already made the point that S&S brought her her first serious attention, so it's redundant anyway. Additionally, I'd like there to be more about Emma Thompson's writing process, her and Lindsay Doran's incredible attention to detail and such points as "every single scene is about money," which can be found in their DVD commentary, and if anyone has a copy of her film diary, there's lots of good stuff in that (I gave mine away, unfortunately). I'm happy to make some of these changes/contributions, but only if they are welcomed by the article's main crew. Having worked on GA articles myself, I know it's disruptive when someone else just shows up and starts tinkering. Also, I can't find any other film version of the book that pre-dates 1995, only TV productions. Why does it say there had been several film and television adaptations prior to this one? I don't see the details of the GA review, either. Has that been archived? Good work on this article; it's nice to see it getting attention. Also, is this article using American or British English? It looks like American to me (while instead of whilst, for example); shouldn't it be British, as it's a UK production?-- TEHodson 09:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
There's a little detail about the filming of Sense and Sensibility at Mompesson House in Salisbury here: [2]. Might it be of interest/use? 86.154.218.87 ( talk) 21:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The "Locations" section says, "Lee shot around fifty takes, with the actors becoming soaked under rain machines; this led to Winslet eventually collapsing from hyperventilation," citing the Cliff Mills book "Ang Lee" and the DVD commentary by Emma Thompson and Lindsay Doran. In the DVD commentary, Thompson and Doran actually say Winslet collapsed from hypothermia. Thompson says, "Kate had a really tough time this day, because she got hypothermic in the end, so she fainted, and Greg and I took her back to a Winnebago and she...got to take her shoes and sock off and out [her feet] into Greg's armpits to warm them up, and I just held her against me, because...when people do get hypothermia, you can't just put them in a hot bath. You've got to warm them up naturally and slowly." Cliff Mills says, "Winslet actually passed out from hyperventilation after being blasted by rain machines for some 50 takes." I'm inclined to think Thompson and Doran's account is correct because they were there, they give more details, and there's no reason why being drenched with rain should cause a person to hyperventilate. Sadiemonster ( talk) 14:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sense and Sensibility (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.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
This is interesting. A factual error being corrected is not an improvement? That is a new one that would be interesting to read if the editor can substantiate otherwise any non-effort to substantiate would seem to support prima facie unless reasonably logically otherwise? WP seems like an effort that tends to eliminate confusion and error instead of supporting it. To not correct an error would seem counter to what WP is attempting to establish. Otherwise, the editor would have us believe that WP supports errors. The fact remains that jilted cannot occur when the previously existing contract has been eliminated. To make this all the more clearer, a party cannot be left if what has previously happened is release from a contract. Yes, Edward's former fiancée has married another but being released from that contract made her no longer his fiancée therefore she could not leave him and thus achieve the state of jilting. To support anything other than correcting this factual error runs in the face of the intended purpose of WP--the truth. Re-imposition of what is false is never correct according to the aim(s) of WP. 2605:E000:9149:A600:C8C7:B429:4BE5:33A6 ( talk) 14:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I notice a complete absence of 'sex' in the article. How very English! For long I regarded the Victorians as being rather prudish when it came to talking about 'sex', contrasting with their great enthusiasm for engaging in 'sex' whenever possible. I do hope this is an isolated occurrence or it could be the end of civilisation as we know it!-- Damorbel ( talk) 08:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sense and Sensibility (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Sense and Sensibility (film) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 10, 2015. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Why does this page about a major film not have a cast section? I'm sure someone can point to a Wikipedia standard somewhere that says it should. The prose buried in production section is no substitute; it should have a top-level cast section (after Plot) just like every other major film. I went through the trouble of creating a cast section, and it was reverted within hours ; perhaps my note with the edit was unnecessarily antagonistic. My proposed cast section (just a start) can be found in the 21:49, 8 July 2017 version of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.166.167.129 ( talk)
S&S not being my preferred Austen novel, I'm having to plug through it to find for myself the differences with Thompson's screenplay. It would be helpful to the users if those who evaluate the script as taking liberties in order to please modern audiences were to identify what these were. For example, two differences I've noticed some one-third of the way through the novel are that Thompson "killed off" Sir John's wife, eliminating their children as well, and that the same fate met other minor characters, such as Lucy's sister. However, these don't seem changes calculated so much for modern audiences as they seem to be typical book-to-film decisions to streamline the story. So as yet, I've seen nothing that goes to modern tastes, per se; in fact, I thought it interesting that the book shows Edward spending a week at the cottage (which I'd not have expected to be acceptable for the day), mentions Charlotte's pregnancy, and shows Mrs. J alleging that Miss W___ is Brandon's "natural" (read: illegitimate) daughter. These all seem to be changes making the story seem more old-fashioned rather than less. I only really have noticed the film's use of phrasing such as "then the relationship will be over" (my emphasis) as the only notable concessions to modern ideas so far. Maybe the fact that the screenplay suggests that Marianne comes to love the Colonel before the marriage rather than only after? Lawikitejana 02:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
There is ONLY one film adaptation of Sense and Sensibility. The others are television series. Please GET RID of "1995" in the article name, please. -- PJ Pete
Image:Sense and sensibility.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) 07:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Moved from article:
The review isn't transposing over here and I don't want to stretch this out. Pass. Well written, no copyright problems, seems to be broad in coverage and well focused. I say nominate to FA.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Because this is a GA article, I am not going to just jump in a make changes, but I have a couple of suggestions for this article. It's distracting to read all the actor's names in blue in the Plot section; is there a way to limit them, or not link them here? In other articles I've worked on, we've used last names only to get the info in with minimum interruption to the attempt to follow the plot. There is a sentence in the Casting section that state this was Winslet's "first major film role." That is really not true. She was one of two stars of Heavenly Creatures, and while that was an independent film, her role was inarguably "major," and the film was hardly obscure. Therefore, this sentence should either come out entirely, or it should be changed to "mainstream" role or something. You've already made the point that S&S brought her her first serious attention, so it's redundant anyway. Additionally, I'd like there to be more about Emma Thompson's writing process, her and Lindsay Doran's incredible attention to detail and such points as "every single scene is about money," which can be found in their DVD commentary, and if anyone has a copy of her film diary, there's lots of good stuff in that (I gave mine away, unfortunately). I'm happy to make some of these changes/contributions, but only if they are welcomed by the article's main crew. Having worked on GA articles myself, I know it's disruptive when someone else just shows up and starts tinkering. Also, I can't find any other film version of the book that pre-dates 1995, only TV productions. Why does it say there had been several film and television adaptations prior to this one? I don't see the details of the GA review, either. Has that been archived? Good work on this article; it's nice to see it getting attention. Also, is this article using American or British English? It looks like American to me (while instead of whilst, for example); shouldn't it be British, as it's a UK production?-- TEHodson 09:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
There's a little detail about the filming of Sense and Sensibility at Mompesson House in Salisbury here: [2]. Might it be of interest/use? 86.154.218.87 ( talk) 21:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The "Locations" section says, "Lee shot around fifty takes, with the actors becoming soaked under rain machines; this led to Winslet eventually collapsing from hyperventilation," citing the Cliff Mills book "Ang Lee" and the DVD commentary by Emma Thompson and Lindsay Doran. In the DVD commentary, Thompson and Doran actually say Winslet collapsed from hypothermia. Thompson says, "Kate had a really tough time this day, because she got hypothermic in the end, so she fainted, and Greg and I took her back to a Winnebago and she...got to take her shoes and sock off and out [her feet] into Greg's armpits to warm them up, and I just held her against me, because...when people do get hypothermia, you can't just put them in a hot bath. You've got to warm them up naturally and slowly." Cliff Mills says, "Winslet actually passed out from hyperventilation after being blasted by rain machines for some 50 takes." I'm inclined to think Thompson and Doran's account is correct because they were there, they give more details, and there's no reason why being drenched with rain should cause a person to hyperventilate. Sadiemonster ( talk) 14:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sense and Sensibility (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.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
This is interesting. A factual error being corrected is not an improvement? That is a new one that would be interesting to read if the editor can substantiate otherwise any non-effort to substantiate would seem to support prima facie unless reasonably logically otherwise? WP seems like an effort that tends to eliminate confusion and error instead of supporting it. To not correct an error would seem counter to what WP is attempting to establish. Otherwise, the editor would have us believe that WP supports errors. The fact remains that jilted cannot occur when the previously existing contract has been eliminated. To make this all the more clearer, a party cannot be left if what has previously happened is release from a contract. Yes, Edward's former fiancée has married another but being released from that contract made her no longer his fiancée therefore she could not leave him and thus achieve the state of jilting. To support anything other than correcting this factual error runs in the face of the intended purpose of WP--the truth. Re-imposition of what is false is never correct according to the aim(s) of WP. 2605:E000:9149:A600:C8C7:B429:4BE5:33A6 ( talk) 14:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I notice a complete absence of 'sex' in the article. How very English! For long I regarded the Victorians as being rather prudish when it came to talking about 'sex', contrasting with their great enthusiasm for engaging in 'sex' whenever possible. I do hope this is an isolated occurrence or it could be the end of civilisation as we know it!-- Damorbel ( talk) 08:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)