Talk:Fahrenheit 451 (1966 film)

"Subsequently, he begins to hide books in his house, and to read them."

I've just finished the book. When Montag meets Clarisse for the first time and comes home, he suddenly remembers something to be hidden behind a vent, which is later revealed to be the place where he hides the books. So he already hid at least one book there beforehand. 129.13.72.198 (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Reception

The previous section on the movie's reception was obviously written by someone with a 'bent' against the movie and/or its contributors who was lucky enough to find at least one other bitter soul in print with the same opinion. A quick perusal of Rotten Tomatoes however shows this person was totally out of line and attempting to skew and vandalise the article. A rating of 86% at Rotten Tomatoes is exceptionally high and should stand in place of the gratuitously barbed remarks previously found - especially as the earlier author ostensibly made no attempt to provide an accurate balance of opinion and/or consult Rotten Tomatoes. Therefore the previous section was replaced with a briefer but far fairer version.

On the other hand, you've now skewed the material entirely in the other direction, in my opinion. The section quoted directly from ctitiques of the movie. It doesn't appear to me to prove any sort of bias by the person who edited that section. The section is entitled "Reception" which implies the reception of the movie at the time. If you can find some evidence that the negative reception by a movie critic was unusual, then by all means cite the positive references at the time. The section is, after all, for the reception of the movie. That said, the positive comment by Scorcese also belongs to balance the negative out. But simply removing the negative skews the section entirely toward one opinion in the other direction. That isn't really maintaining a neutral POV. And don't get me wrong, I am a fan of the movie. I saw it in theaters when it was released. Therefore, I am combining your edit and the previous material to show both positive and negative. Age Happens (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely fair, I also went and located the nomination of the film in the category "Best Dramatic Presentation" for the 1967 Hugo Awards. It ultimately lost to the two-part Star Trek episode The Menagerie. Since the article in Time was reasonably balanced, the addition of the Hugo Award nomination makes 1 negative, 1 neutral leaning negative (Time) and 3 positive citations in the section in question. Surely that is about as balanced as it is going to get without becoming entirely negative or positive. Overall, the tone of the section "Reception" is now NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Age Happens (talk • contribs) 02:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

We cannot just pick and choose reviews in order to seek some sort of NPOV balance; if a film is overwhelmingly slated (like Catch My Soul) or even given a lukewarm response (like The Magnet), all we can do is supply the reliable sources, even though they may differ, and let our readers choose which reviewers they prefer to agree with. That's the essence of NPOV in these situations, I believe. Rodhullandemu 02:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I tend to agree with the proposition that a "Reception" section should deal with contemporary reviews; however, many films are reinterpreted according to later contexts, and these might properly be dealt with in a "Legacy and influence" section; The Magnet, for example, although made in 1950, has recently been cited by The Independent, albeit in an opinion, as pre-dating current social policy concerns. Whereas I have yet to evaluate that opinion, and its provider, it's indicative that a modern writer cites that film as an exemplar. Rodhullandemu 02:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fahrenheit-451-DVDcover.jpg

Image:Fahrenheit-451-DVDcover.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) 05:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fahrenheit451B.jpg

Image:Fahrenheit451B.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) 05:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Image002Guy.jpg

Image:Image002Guy.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 ensure 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) 23:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Segregation

I was dismayed to see a reference to a Bafta in the second paragraph. Can't we segregate comments related to the film as a commodity from those related to it as an artifact?Keith-264 (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It's 'BAFTA' and it's fine where it is.

Books Sighted or Cited in the Film

Pun intended. What was the novel that Montag read from to Linda & her friends? I would like to see this included in the info. SaturnCat (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

By putting 2 & 2 together & by doing some research, I answered my own question: Montag is reading passages from 'David Copperfield', specifically the chapter 'Domestic'. (Dora was the character David Copperfield's first wife.) Note that the passages that Montag reads are *non-continuous*, i.e., though Montag appears to be reading a continuous passage, what he actually reads are selected paragraphs, likely from within two pages. It is possible that Oskar Werner actually read the entire two pages during filming but some portions were edited, as, according to the film editor in the DVD Special Features, that scene was heavily edited. SaturnCat (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Involving the same topic: Books Sighted or Cited in the Film, the list of books seen visually or referred to should be cleaned up: some of the list is in alpha order, some of it isn't. Should the list be split up by location (i.e., books burned at the apple-eater's house, the older lady's house, at Montag's house?). SaturnCat (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I am changing the entry 'The Moon & Sixpence' to: 'The Moon and Sixpence', which is how the title reads on the cover of the copy burned in the film; the link now points to the Wiki page for the book. SaturnCat (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't one of the books memorized by the Book People one of Bradbury's? Just1thing (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

List of Books seen in the film

Why do we need this? It would appear to be an indiscriminate list of information and could be anybody's library. I don't see how it informs the reader, and surely all we need to say is already said, i.e. that literature is being burnt. Rodhullandemu 17:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No plot summary?

Why is there no plot summary or cast list for this film? WikiProject Films has a style guideline (Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines) and this article is missing a few parts. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 03:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd add one, but every time I add stuff on Wikipedia, some jackass has to delete it again. With that said, would said jackass responsible for this page please abide by the style guidelines? Thanks!

~AeSix 173.171.150.184 (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No Cast

No list of who plays what part? Bladepker80 (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added a brief cast list, sourced from the NY Times here. That should suffice as a RS. WikiuserNI (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 08:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Fahrenheit 451 (1966 film) → Fahrenheit 451 (film) – Since 2009 Fahrenheit 451 (film) has redirected here (it was moved in 2006 [1], then redirected in 2009). The reason why it was moved is that a new Fahrenheit 451 was announced, I assume in 2006. IMDb has a page for the 8-years-now upcoming film which gives nothing other than "It is in development". Assuming that that IMDb page was also created in 2006, that means this upcoming film has now become into a WP:CRYSTALBALLING situation. Per this 2008 disambiguation page and this commentary, we don't know if a new Fahrenheit 451 will be relased soon, or even in the next 10 years, or ever. As such, there is no reason to add a year disambiguation term, unless there is enough evidence which proves it is required to be distinguished from another film(s). © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support since there is no film besides the 1966 one, so per WP:PRECISE, no need to include the release year. I recall following the development of the anticipated remake (with Mel Gibson to star in it and all), and it has been a very long time since any actual progress was made. No problem with restoring disambiguation if this remake is ever produced. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
• Question: What would it hurt to leave it? There is a fair chance there will be a remake. We know the idea has been discussed in Hollywood. You're right, it is crystalballing, but we should have been saying that years ago when we created a page for something "in development". Instead of making another move, would it really be that bad to just leave this as is? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  I do not think it would be too big of a deal, but it could make some readers think that there is another film based on the book, and they would try to track it down to no avail. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom and WP:NCF. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NCF. Bede735 (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

not English

"every literature" is not English usage. It's "all literature" or "every book." Which is it? 108.18.136.147 (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• Fixed. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Safege.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)