Talk:The Notebook

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Soundtracks[edit]

We need to add the titles and artists of the soundtracks featured! Othatzsokewl (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing project for my English class.

We will be refining and editing certain things on this page. According to the review of Wikipedia film pages and Wikiproject film, the plot is too long and detailed so I will refine it. This page is missing a soundtrack/music section so it will be added to this article. Also, I will be adding a historical background section, where you will be able to locate the actual places The Notebook was filmed. Any feedback appreciated. --Nschell (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great. Welcome. Rettetast (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism[edit]

This synopsis has been transcribed, word for word, from IMDb, and represents the work there of 5 contributors. Unless he uses a different user name for IMDb, TAnthony was not one of them. 2 Jun 09. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.196.88 (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up, I've done some research. This synopsis as it is currently written (using the distinctive first two paragraphs as a basic comparison among versions) appears to have its origins here (January 18, 2007) in the article The Notebook. Over time it was expanded to this (June 11, 2008), and the next day was split out here (June 12, 2008) into a separate article for the film.
The Notebook (film) article was subsequently created here on June 12, 2008 using this synopsis. Minor changes were made over time; I did some cursory copyedits here (October 3, 2008) and here (October 6, 2008). Other IPs/editors made some minor changes before, between and after these edits. You will note, however, that in my October 6, 2008 edit I changed the 2nd paragraph from:

The story begins in 1940. Seventeen-year-old Allie Hamilton (Rachel McAdams), the only child of a rich plantation owner, and her friend, Sara (Heather Wahlquist), are spending the evening at a local carnival in Seabrook Island, South Carolina. This is where Noah Calhoun (Ryan Gosling), a country boy who is with his friend, Fin (Kevin Connolly), first sees Allie. Noah is immediately smitten with Allie and he continuously asks her out on dates, only to be playfully rejected until she eventually accepts. Soon, they spend the evening with each other and attend a late night show with Fin and Sara. On a midnight walk through an empty Seabrook, Noah learns about Allie's regimented life.

to

The story begins in 1940. At a carnival in Seabrook Island, South Carolina, local country boy Noah Calhoun (Ryan Gosling) sees seventeen-year-old heiress Allie Hamilton (Rachel McAdams) for the first time and is immediately smitten. She continuously refuses his persistent advances until their well-meaning friends lure them together; they then get to know each other on a midnight walk through empty Seabrook.

This version of the 2nd paragraph is what appears in IMDb.com's synopsis, illustrating that contributors from that site actually lifted the text from here. Further, the current IMDb version is noted as "edit by yasirfarabi 4 months ago," which would be around February/March 2009, years after our version was first created and months after I rewrote that 2nd paragraph. The previous IMDb version is noted as "edit by ArianaGuidohellokitty 8 months ago," or around October/November 2008, and is small and completely different (check it out), meaning that "yasirfarabi" copied our material earlier in 2009, and it is not a version copyedited over time by various contributors.— TAnthonyTalk 23:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeper hit[edit]

I wouldn't know as well as others how to put it in, but shouldn't there be some reference to it being a sleeper hit and that its been increasingly popular among girls? Kidlittle (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a reliable, verifiable source that makes those claims, I can add the info to the article for you.— TAnthonyTalk 17:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence structure[edit]

"In the present, it is made evident that the elderly woman and is suffering from dementia, which has stolen her memories - and that Duke is her husband." As a native English speaker, I can say with 100% certainty this sentence is incorrect, and have no idea what the original person was trying to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.197.66 (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should rewrite this entire plot summary, it is awful. It has clearly been chopped and edited to shit.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.123.229 (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The flow, structure, and overall comprehension, is awful. There needs to be a substantial amount of editing - or a complete re-write. --Tapalmer99 (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"You've been notebooked"[edit]

Should this article reference this phenomena seen on the television show One Tree Hill in season 3 episode 7 "Champagne for My Real Friends, Real Pain for My Sham Friends"? Delille (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What "phenomena" are you referring to. Remember, many readers are from different social groups (age, race, income,...), and even different countries, that are not familiar with the show, or a particular episode. Please include an explanation of the reference you made, and to what extent, that it is a phenomena (by the way, that title's "Champagne ... Friends" expression has been around for many years). If it refers to plot, that plot has been around for centuries. Please elaborate and explain.--Tapalmer99 (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Major plot summary edits; removed "excessively detailed" template[edit]

I've made a couple of major passes over the plot summary over the past week or two and have reduced its length and the level of detail drastically (and I'd like to think I've improved the phrasing and grammar too). I'm pretty confident that it's as short as it's going to get without removing important details and as such now conforms to WP:PLOTSUM's recommendations. I've removed the Plot template - if you don't agree, please feel free to add it again; it'd really help me if you could lay out your reasoning here, too. 82.46.65.173 (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drastic length reductions May 2013[edit]

In July 2012 this article's plot summary was given the "excessively detailed" template. At this point the summary was 1185 words. In August 2012 I reduced the Plot section's length significantly and removed the Plot template - the above message refers. After my revisions the summary was 663 words.

Today the summary was 1302 words, which is more than when the Plot template was originally added. The summary had had a lot of unnecessary details restored and a lot of poor style, such as "never ever leave her". I decided that rather than excise the detail from this newer summary, I'd add the useful changes from this version to my older edit and restore that version, which I've done. Please do let me know if you have any objection to this! Thanks --FangXianfu (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an addemdum to this, I reverted a couple of edits today that added what I would consider to be extranous details.

Firstly, "she faints", by 96.251.112.7 - I would argue that since a) her fainting is not referenced anywhere else in the plot; and b) it makes the sentence scan very poorly (as it then sounds like her fainting is involved in her decision to go to Seabrook), it's a detail that can be safely excluded.

Likewise for wheelchairs by 165.72.200.11 - while I can see the relevance of Duke's heart attack to the plot since he dies very shortly afterwards and it adds to the audience's knowledge of his health, Allie's being wheelchair-bound isn't relevant as we already know she's unwell at this point. As the sedation is mentioned in the previous sentence it doesn't need to be repeated.

Do please leave a reply if you disagree or otherwise want to comment! Thanks --FangXianfu (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit tag[edit]

I've removed the copy edit and overly detailed tags - when they were added, the plot summary was 1262 words. This was largely the result of one edit, which was mostly reverted since. I've done little more pruning today and it's back down to 681 words, which seems reasonable.

What is it about this article that makes people love to fiddle with the plot summary so much? FangXianfu (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In, not on[edit]

Seabook Island is a town, not a literal island (see its page), so the correct word is "in", not "on". --FangXianfu (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rated 15[edit]

Why is the dvd rated 15, rather than 12?109.151.65.218 (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable certificate[edit]

Why is the DVD rated 15? It was rated 12 when it was released in cinemas.86.147.239.46 (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 August 2015[edit]

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: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Notebook (2004 film) → The Notebook – 90-day pageview stats:

From WP:PTOPIC: A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. This is clearly the primary topic for "The Notebook," a term that is distinct from and unlikely to cause confusion with "Notebook." Chase (talk | contributions) 21:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per very good nom data. Randy Kryn 23:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as there are other films called (the) Notebook. The current setup allows for easier detection of incorrect incoming links. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for all the reasons listed by Lugnuts and In ictu oculi. Particularly WP:RECENT. Onel5969 TT me 11:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP:RECENT argument is poor as the film came out 11 years ago, not last week, and remains one of our most-viewed articles. We had the same argument with Crazy in Love not too long ago. Chase (talk | contributions) 13:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Lugnuts and In ictu oculi. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the policy items mentioned by Lugnuts and In ictu oculi. Also the film does not take precedence over the book since it would not exist if the book had not been written. MarnetteD|Talk 14:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lugnuts cited no policy; IIO cited a guideline and an essay, and I've already explained how they don't apply here. Being a derivative work does not factor into a topic being primary per examples such as The Godfather and American Sniper. Chase (talk | contributions) 15:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's too much confusion between this, other films and the article at notebook. It's not really the primary topic. WP:NCF would have all films with the same title with the year disambig. And if you want policy, you've got it: WP:TITLECHANGES - "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed". Double check and mate. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Notebook and Notebook are clearly distinct; a reader is not going to search for "The Notebook" (especially with caps) and expect to come to an article about an actual notebook; the fact that the film article ranks as one of our most popular articles is evident that this is almost always the desired topic. NCF lists an example where one film is a primary topic and the others require disambiguation. This is not a proposal to move to The Notebook (film), in which case you'd be right. And there is a good reason to move the page – the fact that it's the primary topic for a specific term and is a popular article with our readers. Chase (talk | contributions) 17:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even for the minuscule amount of readers who would find that confusing (I think you're severely underestimating their intelligence), a hatnote to Notebook (disambiguation) would obviously be in place because of other "The Notebook" topics. Chase (talk | contributions) 17:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Curious why you removed the hatnote when saying there should be a hatnote.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 18:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Because right now, while the article title has "(2004 film)" disambiguation, a hatnote is redundant. If the article is moved it can/should be added back. Chase (talk | contributions) 18:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Pure recentism. Keep as is. Would most people think of this film if they heard the term "The Notebook" without context? No, per common sense they clearly would not. Best for it to point to the disambiguation page. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. See Notebook (disambiguation). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Requested move 3 September 2016[edit]

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: moved as proposed. SSTflyer 07:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Notebook (2004 film) → The Notebook – It's been over a year since the last RM, and this article still trumps The Notebook (novel) and The Notebook (2013 film) in pageviews, indicating that it is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in regards to usage. The 2004 film article receives nearly 3,500 views daily, compared to <500 for the novel and 40 for the 2013 film.

WP:RECENT was cited by opposers in the last RM, though they failed to explain why the 2004 film article remains more popular than the other articles after 12 years (or why it is substantially more popular than the more recent 2013 film). One opposer also stated that the film does not take PTOPIC precedence over the novel on which it is based, which is not rooted in policy and directly countered by at least two prominent examples: The Godfather and American Sniper. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. It's actually surprising to me how much more popular the film is than the novel, but it definitely dominates the page views. It's not clear how anyone can claim recentism here. The film is only a few years newer than the novel. Besides, the 2013 novel is the most recent, and it's still the least popular, so that argument really means nothing. kennethaw88 • talk 00:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per The Godfather example. WP:Recent doesn't seem to be a valid point here, given the time involved since the publication of the book and the release of the film. Randy Kryn 11:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Clear primary topic over the other two uses, claims of "recentism" in the last discussion were entirely bogus. PC78 (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The 2004 film is primary topic and nom establishes that as factual. Claims of recentism are bogus because the film came out in 2004, not 2016. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 19:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom Red Slash 20:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support people far more often than not refer to this when saying "The Notebook" (particularly when capitalized) as opposed to just "notebook", and by no means is this recentism when the film is over a decade old and not even the most recent release with such a title. I find it baffling how the previous RM was closed as "not moved". Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

The behind the movie[edit]

This movie has a lot of interesting background knowledge making it come across more affective than without. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.68.173 (talk) 09:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lon Hammond lawyer in book, futures trader in film?[edit]

Every reference I find to Lon Hammond's job states that he is a "hardworking lawyer", but in the film scene of his office it strongly implies that a major part of his job was trading futures contracts, thus implying that he may be a corporate futures trader, a corporate treasurer, and/or a CFO (or whatever the 1940s equivalent title may be).

The scene clearly shows a wall-sized blackboard with a schedule of numbers arranged by Oct, Dec, Mar, May, and Jul, and the words "Charleston Cotton". Charleston Cotton futures contracts were traded on the Charleston Cotton Exchange and is the predecessor to the current ICE Cotton #2 futures contract, while Oct, Dec, Mar, May, and Jul are the traditional delivery months of that contract. This implies that the numbers on the blackboard are futures contract prices for Charleston Cotton.

These blackboards would not have been out of place at a futures exchange (specifically at the Charleston Cotton Exchange), but Lon is in his office and not at an exchange pit, which implies that he was not a broker or an exchange member. Noan and Allie implies that Lon is related to Hammond Cotton later on in the film, which given the context clues implies that Lon is trading cotton futures on behalf of Hammond Cotton. This makes sense as Hammond Cotton would benefit from hedging their cotton production using futures contracts. This is a job that usually falls to a corporate trader, treasurer, or CFO position and would've unlikely been given to a lawyer; a law education would not be useful for this type of trading.

So my question is, where does it say that Lon was a lawyer and/or why does everyone thinks he's a lawyer? Does the book say he's a lawyer? Because everything in the office scene in the film implies that he was trading futures in some sort of corporate trader/treasurer/CFO role. Eric.c.zhang (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 October 2023[edit]

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 00:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Notebook → The Notebook (2004 film) – This matter was previously discussed at Talk:The Notebook#Requested move 9 August 2015 and a year later at Talk:The Notebook#Requested move 3 September 2016. The second nomination resulted in an outcome different from the first one. Seven years later, the consensus may be tested again in view of WP:PRIMARYFILM. A tangentially related discussion (Vertigo (film) → Vertigo (1958 film)) is currently active at Talk:Vertigo (film)#Requested move 29 September 2023. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The nominator has not giving a convincing reason this needs to be retested, outside of the passage of time. WP:PRIMARYFILM is not relevant here, the previous unanimous discussion found this was the primary topic for The Notebook, not The Notebook (film). --Quiz shows 02:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This film gets well over 90% of all pageviews, a number even higher than in 2016. Station1 (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agreeing with the 2 comments above.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree that the film is the primary topic here. Aoba47 (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Notebook&oldid=1206355830"