![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2015. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Queen Mary, University of London/Research Methods (Film) (Spring 2015)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
In my opinion, this article about "The Aviator", the movie, has too much other details about Hughes' life (e.g. "inheritance", "Rice University"...) which are simply not covered in the movie itself. I think it would be much better if this article stuck about the facts of the movie itself, a review of it, and provide links to other excellent Hughes biography articles at Wikipedia and elsewhere.
Hello, I agree with the unsigned post, and think that external links to reviews should be added. I would like to add a review by MIM, but it seems that others do not want it because they don't agree with the politics. This is not a valid reason for removal. I don't always agree with what MIM writes, but I find their reviews of movies to be very unique and insightful. People can choose to read it or not, and they should be able to make up their own minds about MIM's review and not have opinions made for them by others. Only allowing "movie lore" reviews makes things plain vanilla, and I don't think this is a rule of WikiPedia. (Anonymous post by User:Mista-X) (I appologize for not signing that -- Mista-X 03:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) )
For anyone who has seen the film, throughout we see odd manipulation of colour, i.e. blue grass and orange flora. Although this is mentioned in the article is there a mre in-depth explanation?
Good eye! On the commentary track, Scorsese said because film was such a huge part of Hughes' life, he wanted the film stock he used to match the eras of his life. A good summary is here, and a detailed article is here. Specifically, in the early days of color film, they only shot in two colors instead of three (more details at Technicolor#Two-color_Technicolor), and those unusual colors you saw was characteristic of the limitations of that film stock. -- Arcadian 21:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I would like to question as to whether this section adds anything to the article. — Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Much of this article covers biographical information which should be forklifted to Howard Hughes, restricting article content to movie-specific information. — Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Why does this article say "The film takes many historical liberties"? That's what fictional yarns do. Or does someone think this film is supposed to be a factual bio of Hughes? Moriori 08:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I just saw this movie, and I thought it was great. But I have a couple questions about this article.
--( Crnk Mnky) 65.13.21.153 04:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me a section on the critical and popular response would be in order. Loodog 18:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Somebody should do a Wiki page on Glenn Odekirk, as he was an important figure in the movie and, he really did exist. I might try and do something myself if I find the time. However I know little about the man apart from the movie. -- RobNS 22:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
"Hepburn takes Hughes to meet her family in Connecticut, which turns into a disaster. When, over lunch, her mother tells him that "we don't care about money," he shoots back, "That's because you've always had it," in effect exposing the socialist-minded Hepburns as snobs and hypocrites."
It seems as though the editor who wrote this is attempting to imply that not only are the socialist minded Hepburns snobs and hypocrites that anyone who is a socialist is a snob and hypocrite. Leave the agenda at the door please. Le Gibbon ( talk) 00:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
No, your logic's wrong. You would have a point if the sentence read "...exposing the socialists as snobs and hypocrites", but "socialist-minded" is just used as an adjective. He's implying that ALL THESE HEPBURNS are snobs and hypocrities, nothing more (not even ALL HEPBURNS, but only these ones who happen to be socialist-minded). What if a hypothetical sentence read as follows: "He proved that all the blue Martians were sneaky". This does not imply that all BLUE creatures are sneaky--not even that ALL Martians are sneaky--only that all blue Martians are sneaky. Wow it takes a lot of boring grammatic work to disprove this stuff. Why were you so paranoid about this? It's like you have to actively be looking for it or something...
But the line's been changed anyway. I think the original author included the "socialist-minded" in order to reference the fact that they're arguing over "money". I think this change is for the better anyway, because I'm not sure the "socialist" moniker isn't exactly correct. (Maybe adding an adjective like "old-money" would make more sense.) But looking at things objectively, there's absolutely nothing there in the original sentence that insinuates that ALL socialists are snobs. That's just a misreading by someone who seems to have something at stake. 78.86.140.151 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The plot is considered a main section of a film article and does not require a lengthy plot synopsis which is more of a "spoiler" and is far too detailed. There is no production section and there are few citations or references other than movie sites. I am proposing a major re-write but will not do anything for the time being until other editors have a chance to comment. I have recently rewritten the following aviation film articles: Battle of Britain (film), Captains of the Clouds, The High and Mighty and The Right Stuff (film) which will give other editors a guide to the format I will employ. FWIW Bzuk ( talk) 18:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC).
The photos of Blanchett and Beckinsale do not render properly in Firefox, as they overlap the table of cast members. Chocolatechaos9508 ( talk) 20:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Was the photo of the radio-controlled "Spruce Goose" nicked from the Aero Telemetry website ( http://www.aerotelemetry.com/ )? It looks like the same picture, slightly edited to remove the fuzzy border...or did Aero Telemetry steal it here to use on their site?
Way too many external links to New Deal Studios, need to cut down on those. Ulflarsen ( talk) 21:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
With all the comments about Hughes info in the article that wasn't in the movie and questions about the authenticity of some of the scenes, I think it might be appropriate to create a "Historical Accuracy" section where select topics of Hughes' life which were omitted from the film could be mentioned as well as where the film's "historical liberties" could be expounded upon. I've seen similar sections in other movie articles, I'd like to see it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puf the majic dragon ( talk • contribs) 08:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Where do we gather that in the final scene Hughes “begins hallucinating men in germ-resistant suits”? We only see he looking worried at some waiters coming towards his general direction. I'm incline to correct that. Goochelaar ( talk) 23:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
The article says that the film was based on Howard Hughes: The Secret Life by Charles Higham. However, the film was made under Writers Guild of America jurisdiction, and Higham did not have a "based on" credit for the film; the only writing credit was "Written by John Logan". (See [1].) Higham was alive at the time the film was made, and if he had been entitled to a "based on" credit, I assume he would have sought one. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2015. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Queen Mary, University of London/Research Methods (Film) (Spring 2015)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
In my opinion, this article about "The Aviator", the movie, has too much other details about Hughes' life (e.g. "inheritance", "Rice University"...) which are simply not covered in the movie itself. I think it would be much better if this article stuck about the facts of the movie itself, a review of it, and provide links to other excellent Hughes biography articles at Wikipedia and elsewhere.
Hello, I agree with the unsigned post, and think that external links to reviews should be added. I would like to add a review by MIM, but it seems that others do not want it because they don't agree with the politics. This is not a valid reason for removal. I don't always agree with what MIM writes, but I find their reviews of movies to be very unique and insightful. People can choose to read it or not, and they should be able to make up their own minds about MIM's review and not have opinions made for them by others. Only allowing "movie lore" reviews makes things plain vanilla, and I don't think this is a rule of WikiPedia. (Anonymous post by User:Mista-X) (I appologize for not signing that -- Mista-X 03:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) )
For anyone who has seen the film, throughout we see odd manipulation of colour, i.e. blue grass and orange flora. Although this is mentioned in the article is there a mre in-depth explanation?
Good eye! On the commentary track, Scorsese said because film was such a huge part of Hughes' life, he wanted the film stock he used to match the eras of his life. A good summary is here, and a detailed article is here. Specifically, in the early days of color film, they only shot in two colors instead of three (more details at Technicolor#Two-color_Technicolor), and those unusual colors you saw was characteristic of the limitations of that film stock. -- Arcadian 21:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I would like to question as to whether this section adds anything to the article. — Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Much of this article covers biographical information which should be forklifted to Howard Hughes, restricting article content to movie-specific information. — Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Why does this article say "The film takes many historical liberties"? That's what fictional yarns do. Or does someone think this film is supposed to be a factual bio of Hughes? Moriori 08:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I just saw this movie, and I thought it was great. But I have a couple questions about this article.
--( Crnk Mnky) 65.13.21.153 04:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me a section on the critical and popular response would be in order. Loodog 18:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Somebody should do a Wiki page on Glenn Odekirk, as he was an important figure in the movie and, he really did exist. I might try and do something myself if I find the time. However I know little about the man apart from the movie. -- RobNS 22:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
"Hepburn takes Hughes to meet her family in Connecticut, which turns into a disaster. When, over lunch, her mother tells him that "we don't care about money," he shoots back, "That's because you've always had it," in effect exposing the socialist-minded Hepburns as snobs and hypocrites."
It seems as though the editor who wrote this is attempting to imply that not only are the socialist minded Hepburns snobs and hypocrites that anyone who is a socialist is a snob and hypocrite. Leave the agenda at the door please. Le Gibbon ( talk) 00:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
No, your logic's wrong. You would have a point if the sentence read "...exposing the socialists as snobs and hypocrites", but "socialist-minded" is just used as an adjective. He's implying that ALL THESE HEPBURNS are snobs and hypocrities, nothing more (not even ALL HEPBURNS, but only these ones who happen to be socialist-minded). What if a hypothetical sentence read as follows: "He proved that all the blue Martians were sneaky". This does not imply that all BLUE creatures are sneaky--not even that ALL Martians are sneaky--only that all blue Martians are sneaky. Wow it takes a lot of boring grammatic work to disprove this stuff. Why were you so paranoid about this? It's like you have to actively be looking for it or something...
But the line's been changed anyway. I think the original author included the "socialist-minded" in order to reference the fact that they're arguing over "money". I think this change is for the better anyway, because I'm not sure the "socialist" moniker isn't exactly correct. (Maybe adding an adjective like "old-money" would make more sense.) But looking at things objectively, there's absolutely nothing there in the original sentence that insinuates that ALL socialists are snobs. That's just a misreading by someone who seems to have something at stake. 78.86.140.151 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The plot is considered a main section of a film article and does not require a lengthy plot synopsis which is more of a "spoiler" and is far too detailed. There is no production section and there are few citations or references other than movie sites. I am proposing a major re-write but will not do anything for the time being until other editors have a chance to comment. I have recently rewritten the following aviation film articles: Battle of Britain (film), Captains of the Clouds, The High and Mighty and The Right Stuff (film) which will give other editors a guide to the format I will employ. FWIW Bzuk ( talk) 18:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC).
The photos of Blanchett and Beckinsale do not render properly in Firefox, as they overlap the table of cast members. Chocolatechaos9508 ( talk) 20:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Was the photo of the radio-controlled "Spruce Goose" nicked from the Aero Telemetry website ( http://www.aerotelemetry.com/ )? It looks like the same picture, slightly edited to remove the fuzzy border...or did Aero Telemetry steal it here to use on their site?
Way too many external links to New Deal Studios, need to cut down on those. Ulflarsen ( talk) 21:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
With all the comments about Hughes info in the article that wasn't in the movie and questions about the authenticity of some of the scenes, I think it might be appropriate to create a "Historical Accuracy" section where select topics of Hughes' life which were omitted from the film could be mentioned as well as where the film's "historical liberties" could be expounded upon. I've seen similar sections in other movie articles, I'd like to see it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puf the majic dragon ( talk • contribs) 08:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Where do we gather that in the final scene Hughes “begins hallucinating men in germ-resistant suits”? We only see he looking worried at some waiters coming towards his general direction. I'm incline to correct that. Goochelaar ( talk) 23:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
The article says that the film was based on Howard Hughes: The Secret Life by Charles Higham. However, the film was made under Writers Guild of America jurisdiction, and Higham did not have a "based on" credit for the film; the only writing credit was "Written by John Logan". (See [1].) Higham was alive at the time the film was made, and if he had been entitled to a "based on" credit, I assume he would have sought one. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)