Talk:Chitty Chitty Bang Bang

In Britain, a lot of people actually prefer this to Mary Poppins. Dick Van Dyke is much more bearable in this, and it was actually made over here. Dolmance (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Image

I have a question. What happened with the picture that was in the plot section and had a caption that read 'Chitty on a night flight...' ??? Ny1 kno??--Amy 00:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Amy

Fair use rationale for Image:Chitty3.jpg

Image:Chitty3.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) 20:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

marilyn manson

I have been bold and removed the reference to the similarity between the title of this film and a song by marilyn manson. i don't think it is relevent. hope that's ok. Bawdekin (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Automobiles

(Thanks for removing the spurious song.) The two automobiles, rusty & restored, have stuck in my mind as much as 007's DB5. Perhaps someone could add something about them? In the story's plot, the restored one is supposed to be custom; but the English have built wooden sport cars in even modern times. Thanks! Geologist (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Found a web page that describes the automobiles:

http://local.aaca.org/junior/starcars/ccbb.htm

Geologist (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (film) → Chitty Chitty Bang Bang — I suggest that the 1968 film is now the primary meaning of this term. Fleming's novel is now rather obscure, and to some extent it was superseded by the novelisation of the film. The stage musical is fairly well known but still secondary to the film. PatGallacher (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Though I see your point, IMO it would be a little too close to recentism, particularly when the novel is in stock on Amazon UK, published by Puffin in 2007. The car itself will be the result of searches, as will the song and musical. I think the disambiguation page works the best, which is already a move away from the novel being the primary article. Someoneanother 22:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Switched to support per Station1. 'Recentism' is the wrong term (which I was clumsily trying to say, without being able to think of a more appropriate term). Sheer weight of pageviews supports the film being the primary article, my misgivings about the earlier work taking a back seat are a distant second to WP's usability. Someoneanother 19:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Although the book came first, which counts for something, the film gets about twice as many pageviews (even though the book was at the main title until a few days ago, making those wanting the film click through its hatnote), with everything else many fewer. Recentism doesn't seem an issue regarding a film from 1968. If this proposal fails, however, the book should definitely go back to the main title, as the vast majority of readers are searching for one or the other. Station1 (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support because it looks like most people came through Chitty Chitty Bang Bang to get to Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (film), and the other topics titled "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" have very few page views. Erik (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The book came first. It should be the main article. The movie of the wizard of oz is more famous than the book. And the book still has the main article. See my point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.249.103.9 (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Movie Trivia?

Is it worth mentioning that Phil Collins was also in this movie?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0002015/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.76.27 (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I would say yes, given his subsequent fame. Eligius (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Definition of Hit Status

How do you define this film as a hit? It cost $10 million to make, yet returned just $7.8 million. Was it a case of "popular, but not popular enough to make a profit?" Was it Number One at the box office? Is it defined as a hit because it became popular on television, like The Wizard of Oz (film), Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, and Goonies? Eligius (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)