This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vertigo (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 |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3 |
![]() | Vertigo (film) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 29 September 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Vertigo (1958 film). The result of the discussion was not moved. |
I removed this dead link.
I was not able to find it anywhere online, but if someone else can, then perhaps they will be able to put it back in. Invertzoo ( talk) 23:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
WARNING: SPOILER ALERT. Don't read this unless you've already seen the film.
The credits in the article list Kim Novak as playing both the role of Madeleine Elster and the role of Judy Barton. This is technically incorrect; she actually only plays the character of Judy Barton. When we think we're seeing Madeline, it's actually Judy Barton *impersonating* Madeline. In fact the actual character Madeline Elster never even appears in the film at all (unless you count the brief glimpse of her dead body). Shouldn't the credits be changed to reflect this, something like:
"Kim Novak as Judy Barton (and Judy Barton impersonating Madeline Elster)"?
It won't spoil anything for the reader of the article because the article gives away the secret anyway. I am considering making this change to the article. Does anyone have any justifiable objection?
Richard27182 ( talk) 11:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe the film itself *never* lists Kim Novak as playing Madeline or for that matter playing Judy. In fact the opening credits list *only* the names of the actors without identifying the characters they play. And the closing credits of the currently available release of the film only mention information concerning the film's restoration. So if we "go by what the [film] credits say," then the article should not identify *any* of the actors with *any* of the characters! If the article *is* going to include a list of credits, then it will by definition be including information not *explicitly* contained in the film. So the real question is do we do it *accurately* or not.
**Is there anyone out there who agrees with me??**
Richard27182 (
talk)
04:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I have done all I can to discuss my proposed change to the Vertigo< (film) article before actually making the change. Only three editors (including me) have offered opinions. One is totally in favor, one is totally opposed, and the third is somewhere in between. Absent a strong consensus against it, I felt it would be acceptable for me to make the change and I have done so.
Rather than trying to disassociate the actress Kim Novak from the character Madeleine Elster, I feel I am clarifying the true relationship between the actress and the character. I hope my contribution will not get reverted; but if anyone feels an irresistible urge to do so, I only ask that you consider suggesting a possible alternative way to make that clarification.
Richard27182 (
talk)
05:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Vertigomovie restoration.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 18, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-07-18. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich ( talk) 00:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
This comment is intended as a conversation starter. Commenting on an acclaimed masterpiece is always a little daunting and writing about Hitchcock’s Vertigo is no exception. Since I first saw it in the early 1960s, apparently some critics have claimed it to be the best movie ever made – a big statement! While the direction is superb, as is the dialogue, the photography brilliant given the equipment then available, and the acting more than adequate, I do find fault with aspects of the plot. If anyone doesn’t know and doesn’t want to know the story, I suggest they stop reading now. To start at the end, Judy’s accidental death when startled by a nun is too much of a coincidence to be convincing. It also looks a little like divine intervention, which is unacceptable because of my next point. The death of Judy lets the murderer off. While she is alive, there is the option of her (and Scotty) making statements to the police and getting Madeleine’s killer, Gavin, extradited. Without her, justice is frustrated so it’s unlikely God would have caused her demise. It also leaves a major loose end hanging out of the end of the movie. If Judy had confessed her part in the murder to Scotty when she realized that they loved each other, there was a possibility of justice. There were many opportunities for that. Scotty recognizing that pendant, and realizing he has been duped, a major turning point in the plot, is not handled well. Since it’s inconceivable that Judy intended to wear that pendant in front of Scotty, her unconscious chose it for her, meaning that wanted him to recognize it. It is a very Freudian moment but the possibility of confession and (perhaps) reconciliation remains unexplored. An important point the film does make is that she was not a murderer, only an accessory to murder, albeit before, during and after. Scotty and Judy remain sympathetic protagonists right through the film and that always helps to carry a story. The character of Madeleine, on the other hand, is left completely blank. We never meet her, except as a falling corpse. What was Gavin’s motive for killing her? Did she deserve to be murdered or not? Were there attempts at negotiating a property settlement? We’ll never know. I found myself surmising that the movie was made around ten years after WWII and much of the US and its film industry was so accustomed to sudden death that an apparently motiveless murder was simply acceptable. The last unresolved issue is Midge, who truly loved Scotty and was prepared to go to great trouble to help him. She followed the doctor’s advice and tried to shock him out of his depression. This failed but she is just left there, calling herself an idiot for trying. I find this most unsatisfactory. There also seem to be odd bits of dialogue that indicate that various protagonists knew more about other protagonists than they should but they are only minor and I’d need to see the movie a few times to document them… As I watched, I recalled the story and always knew what was about to happen but, nevertheless, I got totally caught up into the tension as it increased towards that final scene, thanks to wonderful directing. Despite the, to my mind, quite major problems with the plot, I loved seeing Vertigo for the second time in over fifty years and, well, I might just see it again. Jolyon Sykes ( talk) 02:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Apparently something called the foreign censorship committee required an extended ending in order to address the matter of Gavin Estler's not having to answer for Madelaine's murder. See http://www.filmsite.org/vert4.html. The article could be improved by someone who has seen this ending. Jolyon Sykes ( talk) 23:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello @
Opencooper: I'm not sure what you mean by "Use the article's title for 'D'entre les morts' and standardize its use in the development section." I don't have any issue with the changes you've made (including removing the reference for the translation). But there is an issue with the translation itself.
Translating it literally results in "From the dead." Please see:
http://translate.reference.com/french/english/d-entre-les-morts/tRCdlbnRyZSBsZXMgbW9ydHM=
and
https://translate.google.com/m/translate?client=ob&hl=en&ie=UTF8#fr/en/d%27entre+les+morts
When the French novel is discussed with respect to the film Vertigo, it is always translated as "From Among the Dead." Please see:
http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article/64090%7C0/Vertigo.html (second paragraph, last sentence)
and
http://the.hitchcock.zone/wiki/Vertigo_(1958)
The translation "The Living and the Dead" is not appropriate, especially when used in the context of its being the original subject matter for Vertigo.
I rarely revert anyone's contribution to a Wikipedia article without first at least attempting to discuss it with them; and I have not yet changed anything concerning your contribution. But I really believe that, for the Vertigo article, the English translation of the French novel should be "From Among the Dead." Please let me know your feelings; and if you disagree, please clearly explain your reasons (as I have clearly explained mine). Thank you.
Richard27182 (
talk)
08:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
WARNING: SPOILER ALERT. Don't read this unless you've already seen the film.
The credits in the article list Kim Novak as playing both the role of Madeleine Elster and the role of Judy Barton. This is technically incorrect; she actually only plays the character of Judy Barton. When we think we're seeing Madeline, it's actually Judy Barton *impersonating* Madeline. In fact the actual character Madeline Elster never even appears in the film at all (unless you count the brief glimpse of her dead body). Shouldn't the credits be changed to reflect this, something like:
"Kim Novak as Judy Barton (and Judy Barton impersonating Madeline Elster)"?
It won't spoil anything for the reader of the article because the article gives away the secret anyway. I am considering making this change to the article. Does anyone have any justifiable objection?
Richard27182 ( talk) 11:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe the film itself *never* lists Kim Novak as playing Madeline or for that matter playing Judy. In fact the opening credits list *only* the names of the actors without identifying the characters they play. And the closing credits of the currently available release of the film only mention information concerning the film's restoration. So if we "go by what the [film] credits say," then the article should not identify *any* of the actors with *any* of the characters! If the article *is* going to include a list of credits, then it will by definition be including information not *explicitly* contained in the film. So the real question is do we do it *accurately* or not.
**Is there anyone out there who agrees with me??**
Richard27182 (
talk)
04:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I have done all I can to discuss my proposed change to the Vertigo (film) article before actually making the change. Only three editors (including me) have offered opinions. One is totally in favor, one is totally opposed, and the third is somewhere in between. Absent a strong consensus against it, I felt it would be acceptable for me to make the change and I have done so.
Rather than trying to disassociate the actress Kim Novak from the character Madeleine Elster, I feel I am clarifying the true relationship between the actress and the character. I hope my contribution will not get reverted; but if anyone feels an irresistible urge to do so, I only ask that you consider suggesting a possible alternative way to make that clarification.
Richard27182 (
talk)
05:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Vertigo (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) 09:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Themes section currently includes this passage: Critics have interpreted Vertigo variously as "a tale of male aggression and visual control; as a map of female Oedipal trajectory; as a deconstruction of the male construction of femininity and of masculinity itself; as a stripping bare of the mechanisms of directorial, Hollywood studio and colonial oppression; and as a place where textual meanings play out in an infinite regress of self-reflexivity." Above cites one source from a reputable journal. The content, however, reads as dense and at times downright unintelligible. Employs academic jargon. Likely doesn’t reach notability standards for inclusion in article altogether. Seeking advice from others on how to proceed. Mihir.pethe1 ( talk) 13:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 ( talk) 15:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Vertigo (film) → Vertigo (1958 film) – Disambiguate from other films with the same name. It may well be that, BarrelProof apparently believes, we should make an exception to WP:PRIMARYFILM here, but deliberately making exceptions to titling guidelines, if necessary, is something that should be done via a RM rather than a unilateral action. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
requires no disambiguation as the sole candidate for the title. Vertigo clearly doesn't. This has nothing to do with the films' popularity. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
specific Wikipedia guidelines or by Wikipedia projects" such as for Geographic names, and provides the relevant example that "
Bothell is already precise enough to be unambiguous, but we instead use Bothell, Washington (see Geographic names), seeking a more natural and recognizable title which is also consistent with most other articles on American cities." Geographic names are one category with a naming convention that uses a degree of disambiguation that some people would consider unnecessary. Films are another such category. — BarrelProof ( talk) 02:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARYFILM is pretty definitive here. The other three films titled Titanic, Titanic (1915 film), Titanic (1943 film), and Titanic (1953 film), all receive substantially fewer pageviews; the James Cameron film is clearly the PRIMARYTOPIC. We are dealing with the same situation here. And Titanic is just one example, there's also Avatar (2009 film), Parasite (2019 film), Independence Day (1996 film), Joker (2019 film), etc. This RM is not the correct venue to challenge the guideline, if editors wish to do so. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 04:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
"In 1996, director Harrison Engle produced a documentary about the making of Hitchcock's classic, Obsessed with Vertigo."
Is it ok to call something a "classic" as a factual statement in an encyclopedia? Or is it rather a subjective kind of a thing? I'm asking out of curiosity. Dornwald ( talk) 19:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vertigo (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 |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3 |
![]() | Vertigo (film) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 29 September 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Vertigo (1958 film). The result of the discussion was not moved. |
I removed this dead link.
I was not able to find it anywhere online, but if someone else can, then perhaps they will be able to put it back in. Invertzoo ( talk) 23:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
WARNING: SPOILER ALERT. Don't read this unless you've already seen the film.
The credits in the article list Kim Novak as playing both the role of Madeleine Elster and the role of Judy Barton. This is technically incorrect; she actually only plays the character of Judy Barton. When we think we're seeing Madeline, it's actually Judy Barton *impersonating* Madeline. In fact the actual character Madeline Elster never even appears in the film at all (unless you count the brief glimpse of her dead body). Shouldn't the credits be changed to reflect this, something like:
"Kim Novak as Judy Barton (and Judy Barton impersonating Madeline Elster)"?
It won't spoil anything for the reader of the article because the article gives away the secret anyway. I am considering making this change to the article. Does anyone have any justifiable objection?
Richard27182 ( talk) 11:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe the film itself *never* lists Kim Novak as playing Madeline or for that matter playing Judy. In fact the opening credits list *only* the names of the actors without identifying the characters they play. And the closing credits of the currently available release of the film only mention information concerning the film's restoration. So if we "go by what the [film] credits say," then the article should not identify *any* of the actors with *any* of the characters! If the article *is* going to include a list of credits, then it will by definition be including information not *explicitly* contained in the film. So the real question is do we do it *accurately* or not.
**Is there anyone out there who agrees with me??**
Richard27182 (
talk)
04:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I have done all I can to discuss my proposed change to the Vertigo< (film) article before actually making the change. Only three editors (including me) have offered opinions. One is totally in favor, one is totally opposed, and the third is somewhere in between. Absent a strong consensus against it, I felt it would be acceptable for me to make the change and I have done so.
Rather than trying to disassociate the actress Kim Novak from the character Madeleine Elster, I feel I am clarifying the true relationship between the actress and the character. I hope my contribution will not get reverted; but if anyone feels an irresistible urge to do so, I only ask that you consider suggesting a possible alternative way to make that clarification.
Richard27182 (
talk)
05:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Vertigomovie restoration.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 18, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-07-18. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich ( talk) 00:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
This comment is intended as a conversation starter. Commenting on an acclaimed masterpiece is always a little daunting and writing about Hitchcock’s Vertigo is no exception. Since I first saw it in the early 1960s, apparently some critics have claimed it to be the best movie ever made – a big statement! While the direction is superb, as is the dialogue, the photography brilliant given the equipment then available, and the acting more than adequate, I do find fault with aspects of the plot. If anyone doesn’t know and doesn’t want to know the story, I suggest they stop reading now. To start at the end, Judy’s accidental death when startled by a nun is too much of a coincidence to be convincing. It also looks a little like divine intervention, which is unacceptable because of my next point. The death of Judy lets the murderer off. While she is alive, there is the option of her (and Scotty) making statements to the police and getting Madeleine’s killer, Gavin, extradited. Without her, justice is frustrated so it’s unlikely God would have caused her demise. It also leaves a major loose end hanging out of the end of the movie. If Judy had confessed her part in the murder to Scotty when she realized that they loved each other, there was a possibility of justice. There were many opportunities for that. Scotty recognizing that pendant, and realizing he has been duped, a major turning point in the plot, is not handled well. Since it’s inconceivable that Judy intended to wear that pendant in front of Scotty, her unconscious chose it for her, meaning that wanted him to recognize it. It is a very Freudian moment but the possibility of confession and (perhaps) reconciliation remains unexplored. An important point the film does make is that she was not a murderer, only an accessory to murder, albeit before, during and after. Scotty and Judy remain sympathetic protagonists right through the film and that always helps to carry a story. The character of Madeleine, on the other hand, is left completely blank. We never meet her, except as a falling corpse. What was Gavin’s motive for killing her? Did she deserve to be murdered or not? Were there attempts at negotiating a property settlement? We’ll never know. I found myself surmising that the movie was made around ten years after WWII and much of the US and its film industry was so accustomed to sudden death that an apparently motiveless murder was simply acceptable. The last unresolved issue is Midge, who truly loved Scotty and was prepared to go to great trouble to help him. She followed the doctor’s advice and tried to shock him out of his depression. This failed but she is just left there, calling herself an idiot for trying. I find this most unsatisfactory. There also seem to be odd bits of dialogue that indicate that various protagonists knew more about other protagonists than they should but they are only minor and I’d need to see the movie a few times to document them… As I watched, I recalled the story and always knew what was about to happen but, nevertheless, I got totally caught up into the tension as it increased towards that final scene, thanks to wonderful directing. Despite the, to my mind, quite major problems with the plot, I loved seeing Vertigo for the second time in over fifty years and, well, I might just see it again. Jolyon Sykes ( talk) 02:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Apparently something called the foreign censorship committee required an extended ending in order to address the matter of Gavin Estler's not having to answer for Madelaine's murder. See http://www.filmsite.org/vert4.html. The article could be improved by someone who has seen this ending. Jolyon Sykes ( talk) 23:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello @
Opencooper: I'm not sure what you mean by "Use the article's title for 'D'entre les morts' and standardize its use in the development section." I don't have any issue with the changes you've made (including removing the reference for the translation). But there is an issue with the translation itself.
Translating it literally results in "From the dead." Please see:
http://translate.reference.com/french/english/d-entre-les-morts/tRCdlbnRyZSBsZXMgbW9ydHM=
and
https://translate.google.com/m/translate?client=ob&hl=en&ie=UTF8#fr/en/d%27entre+les+morts
When the French novel is discussed with respect to the film Vertigo, it is always translated as "From Among the Dead." Please see:
http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article/64090%7C0/Vertigo.html (second paragraph, last sentence)
and
http://the.hitchcock.zone/wiki/Vertigo_(1958)
The translation "The Living and the Dead" is not appropriate, especially when used in the context of its being the original subject matter for Vertigo.
I rarely revert anyone's contribution to a Wikipedia article without first at least attempting to discuss it with them; and I have not yet changed anything concerning your contribution. But I really believe that, for the Vertigo article, the English translation of the French novel should be "From Among the Dead." Please let me know your feelings; and if you disagree, please clearly explain your reasons (as I have clearly explained mine). Thank you.
Richard27182 (
talk)
08:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
WARNING: SPOILER ALERT. Don't read this unless you've already seen the film.
The credits in the article list Kim Novak as playing both the role of Madeleine Elster and the role of Judy Barton. This is technically incorrect; she actually only plays the character of Judy Barton. When we think we're seeing Madeline, it's actually Judy Barton *impersonating* Madeline. In fact the actual character Madeline Elster never even appears in the film at all (unless you count the brief glimpse of her dead body). Shouldn't the credits be changed to reflect this, something like:
"Kim Novak as Judy Barton (and Judy Barton impersonating Madeline Elster)"?
It won't spoil anything for the reader of the article because the article gives away the secret anyway. I am considering making this change to the article. Does anyone have any justifiable objection?
Richard27182 ( talk) 11:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe the film itself *never* lists Kim Novak as playing Madeline or for that matter playing Judy. In fact the opening credits list *only* the names of the actors without identifying the characters they play. And the closing credits of the currently available release of the film only mention information concerning the film's restoration. So if we "go by what the [film] credits say," then the article should not identify *any* of the actors with *any* of the characters! If the article *is* going to include a list of credits, then it will by definition be including information not *explicitly* contained in the film. So the real question is do we do it *accurately* or not.
**Is there anyone out there who agrees with me??**
Richard27182 (
talk)
04:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I have done all I can to discuss my proposed change to the Vertigo (film) article before actually making the change. Only three editors (including me) have offered opinions. One is totally in favor, one is totally opposed, and the third is somewhere in between. Absent a strong consensus against it, I felt it would be acceptable for me to make the change and I have done so.
Rather than trying to disassociate the actress Kim Novak from the character Madeleine Elster, I feel I am clarifying the true relationship between the actress and the character. I hope my contribution will not get reverted; but if anyone feels an irresistible urge to do so, I only ask that you consider suggesting a possible alternative way to make that clarification.
Richard27182 (
talk)
05:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Vertigo (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) 09:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Themes section currently includes this passage: Critics have interpreted Vertigo variously as "a tale of male aggression and visual control; as a map of female Oedipal trajectory; as a deconstruction of the male construction of femininity and of masculinity itself; as a stripping bare of the mechanisms of directorial, Hollywood studio and colonial oppression; and as a place where textual meanings play out in an infinite regress of self-reflexivity." Above cites one source from a reputable journal. The content, however, reads as dense and at times downright unintelligible. Employs academic jargon. Likely doesn’t reach notability standards for inclusion in article altogether. Seeking advice from others on how to proceed. Mihir.pethe1 ( talk) 13:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 ( talk) 15:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Vertigo (film) → Vertigo (1958 film) – Disambiguate from other films with the same name. It may well be that, BarrelProof apparently believes, we should make an exception to WP:PRIMARYFILM here, but deliberately making exceptions to titling guidelines, if necessary, is something that should be done via a RM rather than a unilateral action. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
requires no disambiguation as the sole candidate for the title. Vertigo clearly doesn't. This has nothing to do with the films' popularity. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
specific Wikipedia guidelines or by Wikipedia projects" such as for Geographic names, and provides the relevant example that "
Bothell is already precise enough to be unambiguous, but we instead use Bothell, Washington (see Geographic names), seeking a more natural and recognizable title which is also consistent with most other articles on American cities." Geographic names are one category with a naming convention that uses a degree of disambiguation that some people would consider unnecessary. Films are another such category. — BarrelProof ( talk) 02:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARYFILM is pretty definitive here. The other three films titled Titanic, Titanic (1915 film), Titanic (1943 film), and Titanic (1953 film), all receive substantially fewer pageviews; the James Cameron film is clearly the PRIMARYTOPIC. We are dealing with the same situation here. And Titanic is just one example, there's also Avatar (2009 film), Parasite (2019 film), Independence Day (1996 film), Joker (2019 film), etc. This RM is not the correct venue to challenge the guideline, if editors wish to do so. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 04:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
"In 1996, director Harrison Engle produced a documentary about the making of Hitchcock's classic, Obsessed with Vertigo."
Is it ok to call something a "classic" as a factual statement in an encyclopedia? Or is it rather a subjective kind of a thing? I'm asking out of curiosity. Dornwald ( talk) 19:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)