Talk:Sideways

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Film (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
 
WikiProject Wine (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of wines, grapes, winemaking and wine-producing regions on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
 

No Comedy?[edit]

I'm saw the movie, and I have yet to find any comedy in this movie. How was this funny? I know it was labeled under "Comedy" yet I am unable to find any. Can anyone highlight any lines that were supposed to be funny?

Sideways is one of my top five favorite all times movies, and there's plenty of comedic elements in it for me. The whole tone is very resonant with my personality and sense of comedy. If you don't get it, you don't get it. Obviously a lot of people "got it." What could anyone say to you? If you don't like it, move along. Chocolate vs vanilla, etc. Nobody will judge you. :)

Wouldn't one of the most pure comedy scenes in film be **A LITTLE SPOILER WARNING** Jack's second girl, and how they picked up back Jack's wallet? I think that the film was very funny, in a very warm and at the same time very childish way (altough I do appreciate the drama higher than the comedy in this film).

SPOILER WARNING! (I'll put my text in small markup and try to remain vague as I would hate to spoil anyone's enjoyment of this marvellous film) - There's a lot of comedy in the film, much of it nicely understated (do not expect American Pie).1. Jack's chewing gum. 2. The "car accident". 3. The comment on Merlot (which even as someone entirely unknowledgeable about wine I enjoyed for its sheer vehemence). 4. Early in the film at the gathering, the guy's comment on fiction. But it's primarily comedy of the gentlest nature and, like the previous contributor, I wouldn't recommend this on the basis of it being a comedy, just a very beautiful, emotional film. I felt it was the sort of film you'd more usually expect from Europe. I'd recommend it to anyone; one of my favourite films of the last 5 years and I hope to buy it for people as a present on DVD if I can afford to. --bodnotbod 23:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

At first I found that scene where Miles recovered Jack's wallet disturbing. If you read the book it's a lot more raw. Miles, who is the book's narrator, refers to her as Zaftig and sometimes even porcine, while her husband is cuckold. Miles also speculates in a very graphic way as to why Jack would have been mad not to use a condom. I don't think it was supposed to be humorous in a warm, gentle way. It was supposed to be humorous for its shock value. 130.194.13.102 04:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Major Themes[edit]

This is a superficial, high school-level analysis that reads into something that the movie does really cover. The light and dark themes are accidental, if anything. I would think that a discussion of midlife disappointment, the nature of hope, loss of love/awakening of love, and the use of wine as a symbol for life would be better.


>>Response: I think you meant to say "...that the movie doesn't really cover." However, if you watch the movie with the DVD commentary turned on, both Paul Giamatti and Thomas Haden Church make reference to the light and dark theme, specifically referring to the cake-tasting scene as both a metaphor and foreshadowing of events to come. I would definitely encourage you to elaborate and expand on the themes you have mentioned. Jcreid0098 22:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Besides, unfortunately it's original research, i'll remove it. Slydevil 22:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sideways DVD cover.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Sideways DVD cover.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section[edit]

First off...Deep breath everyone! Now a large issue that I have is the lack of reliable sources and referencing for this section. I see that Copyvio is no longer an issue but imdb is certainly not up to snuff as a reliable source-especially for trivia. If any trivia is kept it should be solidly grounded with a reliable source-apart from original research of watching the movie. If the tidbit is not notable enough to be written about in an independent mainstream source then it really is not of much merit and worth to the encyclopedia article.AgneCheese/Wine 23:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed trivia[edit]

Another user has been removing the trivia from the article. While I agree that the trivia section should go, some of this information can (and should) be salvaged and incorporated into the text of the article along with a reliable source. So here is the list. As we find sources (apart from the WP:OR of just watching the Special features!) we can readd it to article in a body of text that is appropriate. AgneCheese/Wine 21:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's guidelines on Trivia sections, Trivia sections "should not be categorically removed". Over time, as Wikipedia expands and more reliable sources become available over the internet, the elements in the Sideways trivia section will ultimately be integrated into the article. Until that time, wholesale deletion is neither warranted nor encouraged by Wikipedia guidelines. Believe me, I am no fan of endless trivia sections with utterly tangential material. In this case, however, the trivia material is directly relevant to the film. It does not detract from the article in any way. Luigibob: please note that you should discuss major changes to articles on the talk page before implementing them. I also encourage you to only debate the article's content - me and my prior contributions are irrelevant. Comments such as "you are no big time" detract from your credibility. --Jester7777 (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Well it is still unreferenced OR and I tagged it as unreferenced. The "I saw it on Special Features" doesn't hold up to our WP:V and WP:OR policy. Plus, as I noted in my edit summary, this also plays a long role in helping to establish which factoids are notable and encyclopedic and which ones are trivial cruft. If a particular tidbit is not notable enough to be written about by independent, third party sources then it really isn't notable enough for an encyclopedic article about the topic. AgneCheese/Wine 05:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivia[edit]

- - Most of the following was revealed in the Sideways DVD special features:

- -

- -

  • George Clooney unsuccessfully campaigned for the part of Jack. Part of Payne's reasoning for casting actors who were not as well known, such as Giamatti and Church, was to prove to movie studios that not all successful movies are star-driven.

- -

  • Near the end of the movie, a student is reading aloud from the book A Separate Peace by John Knowles. The particular portion being read is Gene describing his emotions upon his friend Phinneas' death. This scene was filmed at Cabrillo High School in Vandenberg Village.

- -

  • Film dialogue from Henry Fonda's famous "I'll be there" speech from The Grapes of Wrath can be heard in Miles and Jack's hotel room following an abysmal day for the two.

- -

  • Throughout the film, Miles speaks fondly of the red wine varietal Pinot Noir. Following the movie's release, Pinot Noir sales in the U.S. increased by more than 20 percent over the 2004-05 Christmas/New Year period, in comparison to the previous year's holiday season. A similar trend occurred in British wine outlets. On the other hand, sales of Merlot dropped after the film's release, presumably due to Miles' disparaging remarks about the varietal in the movie. Ironically, Miles' treasured bottle of wine, a 1961 Château Cheval Blanc, is a blend of Merlot and Cabernet Franc, another varietal that Miles claims to dislike in the movie.

- -

  • In the scene where Miles steals money from his mother's bedroom, photographs on her dresser show Paul Giamatti alongside his real-life father, the late Bart Giamatti.

- -

  • Actress Sandra Oh took motorcycle lessons after she landed the role of Stephanie.

- -

  • The dialogue at dinner between Miles, Jack, Maya and Stephanie was improvised.

- -

  • Giamatti, Church and Marylouise Burke were stricken with food poisoning from the dinner scene with Miles' mother.

- -

  • Much of the wine consumed during the film was non-alcoholic or a grape juice substitute.

- -

  • One of the fictional vineyards Miles and Jack visit during their vacation is called "Frass Canyon". Frass is insect excrement, and the name was used as a substitute for that of actor and vintner Fess Parker, who wouldn't allow his name to be used in the film.

- -

  • In the scene where Miles angrily hits the ball back at the golfers on the fairway behind them, the person who really hit the ball was Rex Pickett, author of the novel on which the film was based. Pickett claims that Giamatti's exceptionally poor golf form made it impossible for Giamatti to accomplish the shot.

- -

  • Giamatti reveals in a DVD commentary that the majority of people with whom he had watched the film were taken to a different, incorrect conclusion by the ending. While rummaging in a box for what was in fact his prized bottle of wine, Giamatti made light of the scene, noting that "most of America expect me to get a Luger out here, and blow my brains out."

- -

  • Jack is an actor who has specialized in voice-over work after struggling to find on-screen work. Church, who plays Jack, was (around the time the movie was released) semi-retired from on-screen work and was mostly doing voice overs for many different radio and TV commercials. His on-screen career has been revived thanks to his role in Sideways.

- -

  • The house used for scenes outside the home of the parents of Jack's fiance Christine is almost directly across the street from O.J. Simpson's former estate at 360 N. Rockingham Avenue in Brentwood, California.

- -

  • Paul Giamatti, whose character in the film is very knowledgeable of fine wines, admits that he does not care for wine in real life.

-

-

  • Near the beginning of the film, Miles appears to be doing a crossword puzzle in his car while driving on the freeway. However, when the camera shows the crossword puzzle, the speedometer can clearly be seen at 'zero' in the shot.

Source of information[edit]

I'm looking for a source of this piece of trivia:

Throughout the film, Miles speaks fondly of the red wine varietal Pinot Noir. Following the movie's release, Pinot Noir sales in the U.S. increased by more than 20 percent over the 2004-05 Christmas/New Year period, in comparison to the previous year's holiday season. A similar trend occurred in British wine outlets. On the other hand, sales of Merlot dropped after the film's release, presumably due to Miles' disparaging remarks about the varietal in the movie.

It was added back in 2005 [1] by an unregistered user. While I'm pretty sure this is true, a source would be great.

Anybody? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Callesen (talkcontribs) 09:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I remember when the anon added that trivia. From what I recall, it's all true, and was covered in a number of newspaper/magazine/web articles. I'll help you look for the info. Thanks for bringing this up for discussion. —Viriditas | Talk 09:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. Throughout the film, Miles speaks fondly of the red wine varietal Pinot Noir[1][2]
  2. Following the film's U.S. release in October, Merlot sales dropped 2% while Pinot Noir sales increased 16% in the Western United States[2]
  3. A similar trend occurred in British wine outlets.[3][2]
  4. Sales of Merlot dropped after the film's release[4][5][6] presumably due to Miles' disparaging remarks about the varietal in the film.[4][7]
Wow. I'm impressed! :) Thanks for looking into this - and so rapidly too. I'm new to this so what happens now? Am I supposed to update the article or will you? —Calle 12:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
It's your baby, so you are free to do with it as you wish. Also, consider that this material rises above and beyond simple trivia, and can be incorporated into the body of the article in a new section. I will be around to help if you need me. —Viriditas | Talk 20:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

References[edit]

  1. ^ Reynolds, Julia (2006-08-13). "Going Ape For Grape: Annual event celebrates all things wine". Monterey County Herald. 
  2. ^ a b c Harlow, John (2006-03-06). "Oscar winner knocks sales of merlot wine sideways". The Sunday Times. 
  3. ^ Simon, Joanna (2006-06-04). "Sauce". Food & Drink (The Sunday Times). p. 47. 
  4. ^ a b Valdespino, Anne (2007-07-25). "Don't forgo Merlot: The wine's popularity has declined, but it can still be a foundation for a tantalizing tasting party". The Orange County Register. 
  5. ^ Asimov, Eric (2006-12-13). "Panned on Screen, Merlot Shrugs And Moves On". Dining & Wine (New York Times). pp. F10. Retrieved 2007-10-30. 
  6. ^ Murphy, Patsey (2005-08-13). "California dream". Irish Times. 
  7. ^ Stimmell, Gordon (2007-03-17). "More to merlot, you know". Arts (Toronto Star). pp. H07. 

Unreferenced Trivia OR[edit]

Rather than deleting, I'm moving this bunch of unreferenced Trivia to the talk page where reliable, third party sources can be found before the information is re-added to the article. Saying that "I saw it on special features" is complete WP:OR and doesn't have a place in the article. AgneCheese/Wine 03:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Despite references being requested over six weeks ago, we seem to have some insistence that this unreferenced OR should still stay in the article. However, both WP:V and WP:NOR dictate others. Since obviously the information is not "Deleted" (it is right there, below). It would be more productive to discuss this matter and find references, rather than blindly reverting the unsourced OR back into the article. We are aiming to improve our articles and adding referenced material is certainly an improvement over adding unreferenced OR. AgneCheese/Wine 08:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally I'd say you're being too harsh, fundamentally this is not WP:OR, if it's being transcribed from a DVD published by Fox. It's no different to transcribing information from a book like the OCW. You may not happen to own a copy of the source, but in principle you could acquire a copy and verify the information has been transcribed accurately. There's a bit of an issue in that the DVD represents a primary source, but the way I read WP:IS is that some use of primary sources is acceptable, just so long as they're not the only source. The film and book Projects seem to interpret the primary source guidelines more tolerantly than some other parts of Wikipedia, presumably because their primary sources are at least commercial products produced by multinational corporations with a reputation to protect, rather than the random blogging of some unknown wine drinker. And in this sphere, stuff published by the film company will be about as WP:V as you will ever get. On the other hand, I'd certainly agree that some of this section is just too trivial to satisfy WP:NOT, but as I understand it, that's not your main argument. It might be best to get a view from regulars on the Film Project on this stuff?? FlagSteward (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is a good comparison between a published, secondary source and viewing a film. Watching a film is like observing an event in the first person and writing about your experiences, based on this "primary source". While I agree that there is some leniency for the use of primary sources, you mostly see those in things like plot synopsis. Though obviously these synopsis do have secondary sources (movie reviews, etc) to collaborate them. For a broad category like "trivia", the need for secondary, independent reliable sources is enhanced because in addition to verifying the content, they also verify the notability and to some extent the encyclopedic worth of the information. If a third party source, thought a particular bit of information is worthwhile or notable enough to comment on than it is probably something that we should have in the article. If it is something that only exist in the realm of "I saw it somewhere on the DVD", then it encyclopedic worth is far more questionable. AgneCheese/Wine 01:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Observing an event in the first person is hard to WP:V, watching a film is just as WP:V as reading a book. An example - what were Neil Armstrong's first words on the moon. Both you and I can watch these self-published videos (scroll down to 109:23:35) and hear him say "That's one small step for man". As NASA explains on that page, some people claim to hear him say "That's one small step for a man" but that extraordinary claim has failed to be backed up by extraordinary evidence - it's a bit like a colour-blind person claiming that the Mona Lisa is wearing a pink dress. All the print sources use the NASA video as their primary source, but that still doesn't stop some of the print sources claiming that he said "for a man". Which is more reliable, which is more verifiable - the books or the video? On the other hand, you might read a book that claims to have interviewed Neil Armstrong in which he is reported to say "my first words were actually 'See where you get with a tiger in your tank?' but NASA edited it out of the video when the sponsorship deal with Exxon fell through. And by the way, it was all filmed in a studio in Hollywood". A print source, but how reliable? And making really extraordinary claims, so how good is the evidence?
Conversely, the bar for trivia about a film can be set lower, material published (in any form, print or multimedia) by the originating film company is acceptable IMO. You're getting a bit distracted by the possible vagueness of some material about a film, but these trivia things seem to be mostly specific facts. Again an example - imagine Sutter Home get Rex Pickett to write a sequel, which is then turned into a film.
It would clearly be OR to claim that character Agnes "has terrible taste in wine". But to my mind both
  • Agnes says "White Zinfandel is great wine" (p87 Sideways II Penguin edition, New York 2008)
  • Agnes says "White Zinfandel is great wine" (23:15 Sideways II Fox Region 1 DVD 2009)
are equally verifiable by anyone who buys the book or DVD and goes to the appropriate place, and neither are WP:OR. I think part of the problem is that you seem to think some of this trivia is WP:OR along the lines of "she has terrible taste in wine", whereas to my eyes they seem to be mostly specific facts - who is portrayed in a photo, who wrote a wine list. So all that's left is the WP:NOT issue. This is where my feeling is to respect the culture of the Films project - different WikiProjects interpret the Wikirules in different ways, and my outsider's observation is that subject to WP:V and WP:OR (which we've established), then Films articles tend towards "comprehensiveness" rather than nitpicking on WP:NOT. Hell, it's easy enough for stuff to get transcribed from here to IMDB and then for a lazy journalist to use IMDB as a source for "10 things you didn't know about Sideways". Since I kinda enjoy film trivia, I'd tend to cut some slack on this front - or at least give the decision to someone who's edited a lot more Films articles than I have. FlagSteward (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
While you make some interesting points about primary/secondary sources, I think those are points that should be debated more on the relevant policy pages since the community consensus on those hasn't been so clear cut with secondary sources still holding a bit more prominence in Wikipedia. I see some differences though between what you are explaining and what we have with the trivia in the article. With your white Zin example, the film version would presumably be a "direct quote" and formatted and source as such. It wouldn't be a description or a summary that could have personal POV and OR. For instance, in the second trivia bullet point below is a "summary" of why George Clooney did not get the role of Jack, etc. You have to incorporate your own OR and personal views in order to summarize what you are visually seeing. It not so clear cut as having an Entertainment Weekly article on the movie where the author does their own summary about what happen and the reason for Clooney not getting the role. In that second case your are relying on the expertise and reliableness of the source rather than on your own view and interpretation. You can also tag that source with a footnote going to author Jane Doe on such and such date which is absent when John Q. Wikipedian inserts some tidbit that he remembered seeing on whatever date and time. As for WP:NOT, which I agree with is an issue, the use of reliable, secondary sources solve this problem is a relatively easy manner. If a particular tidbit is notable and encyclopedic, it will be picked up and referenced by independent, third parties commenting on the film. I do believe that trivia has a purpose and place in Wikipedia and that place is secured when we keep in check with our importance policies and guidelines like WP:NOT, WP:NOR and WP:RS. AgneCheese/Wine 06:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Aside from the self-evident silliness of the Trivia section here and elsewhere - I'm surprised that no one has suggested removing the section of the article about the "effect on the wine industry." This is a classic and egregious example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. The 2003 widely watched TV movie about Martha Stewart [2] also disparaged Merlot in a famous scene - yet no one alleges that that film depressed sales of the wine. The assumption that Sideways or any single factor would have so significant effect on a business as large, diverse, and complex as the wine industry is dubious at best, no matter how many articles as cited make the same post hoc logical error.Sensei48 (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Trivia[edit]

Most of the following was revealed in the Sideways DVD special features:

  • George Clooney unsuccessfully campaigned for the part of Jack. Part of Payne's reasoning for casting actors who were not as well known, such as Giamatti and Church, was to prove to movie studios that not all successful movies are star-driven.
  • Near the end of the movie, a student is reading aloud from the book A Separate Peace by John Knowles. The particular portion being read is Gene describing his emotions upon his friend Phinneas' death. This scene was filmed at Cabrillo High School in Vandenberg Village.
  • Film dialogue from Henry Fonda's famous "I'll be there" speech from The Grapes of Wrath can be heard in Miles and Jack's hotel room following an abysmal day for the two.
  • Throughout the film, Miles speaks fondly of the red wine varietal Pinot Noir. Following the movie's release, Pinot Noir sales in the U.S. increased by more than 20 percent over the 2004-05 Christmas/New Year period, in comparison to the previous year's holiday season. A similar trend occurred in British wine outlets. On the other hand, sales of Merlot dropped after the film's release, presumably due to Miles' disparaging remarks about the varietal in the movie. Ironically, Miles' treasured bottle of wine, a 1961 Château Cheval Blanc, is a blend of Merlot and Cabernet Franc, another varietal that Miles claims to dislike in the movie.
This is a classic and egregious example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. The 2003 widely watched TV movie about Martha Stewart [3] also disparaged Merlot in a famous scene - yet no one alleges that that film depressed sales of the wine. (as above - Sensei48 (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC))
  • In the scene where Miles steals money from his mother's bedroom, photographs on her dresser show Paul Giamatti alongside his real-life father, the late Bart Giamatti.
  • Actress Sandra Oh took motorcycle lessons after she landed the role of Stephanie.
  • The dialogue at dinner between Miles, Jack, Maya and Stephanie was improvised.
  • Giamatti, Church and Marylouise Burke were stricken with food poisoning from the dinner scene with Miles' mother.
  • Much of the wine consumed during the film was non-alcoholic or a grape juice substitute.
  • One of the fictional vineyards Miles and Jack visit during their vacation is called "Frass Canyon". Frass is insect excrement, and the name was used as a substitute for that of actor and vintner Fess Parker, who wouldn't allow his name to be used in the film.
  • In the scene where Miles angrily hits the ball back at the golfers on the fairway behind them, the person who really hit the ball was Rex Pickett, author of the novel on which the film was based. Pickett claims that Giamatti's exceptionally poor golf form made it impossible for Giamatti to accomplish the shot.
  • Giamatti reveals in a DVD commentary that the majority of people with whom he had watched the film were taken to a different, incorrect conclusion by the ending. While rummaging in a box for what was in fact his prized bottle of wine, Giamatti made light of the scene, noting that "most of America expect me to get a Luger out here, and blow my brains out."
  • Jack is an actor who has specialized in voice-over work after struggling to find on-screen work. Church, who plays Jack, was (around the time the movie was released) semi-retired from on-screen work and was mostly doing voice overs for many different radio and TV commercials. His on-screen career has been revived thanks to his role in Sideways.
  • The house used for scenes outside the home of the parents of Jack's fiance Christine is almost directly across the street from O.J. Simpson's former estate at 360 N. Rockingham Avenue in Brentwood, California.
  • Paul Giamatti, whose character in the film is very knowledgeable of fine wines, admits that he does not care for wine in real life.
  • Near the beginning of the film, Miles appears to be doing a crossword puzzle in his car while driving on the freeway. However, when the camera shows the crossword puzzle, the speedometer can clearly be seen at 'zero' in the shot.

Continuity Error[edit]

Having viewed the film, it is true, the speedometer was at 'zero' in the shot during the "crossword puzzle scene." I wonder if there are any other errors within the film like this. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

inconsistancy[edit]

I haven't read/seen this at all (which is part of the reason I ended up looking at this page, to see what the big deal was), but I have a question about this sentence: "Cheval Blanc is made from Cabernet Franc and Merlot grapes---two varietals which Miles disparages. This inconsistency with his love for Cheval Blanc is not explained." Is it a mysterious inconsistency? Or is it irony? It sounds like it's meant as irony, although as I said, I don't know the story all that well. Just curious. 69.107.142.179 (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum caution and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform the project members on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 08:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Sideways (movie)SidewaysSideways is the primary topic according to all incoming links to that name, and it does not require disambiguation. Viriditas (talk)

Done. Garion96 (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

French critical reaction?[edit]

Anyone know how French (or other Europeans) reacted to the film? (I tried Google.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.157.157 (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Japanese version[edit]

Hey all. I'm on my iPhone so I thought I'd enter this here instead of trying to edit the actual sideways page. I just watched the Japanese version and out of curiosity I was curious as to the budget of the film and it's Japanese box office results. I found in one article the budget was 3 million. I found that number I believe in a new York times article on the Japanese remake. And according to a search of the Japanese box office results 2009 sideways(Japanese version) made 1.5 million. If someone has the time to enter this info under the remake section the right way please go for it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.1.64 (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Plot section too long[edit]

According to the guideline at WP:PLOT, the plot section should be in balance with other material in the article. The largest section aside from the plot has three paragraphs. I propose cutting all the detail from the plot and greatly simplifying it until it consists only of three paragraphs. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I shortened the plot to three paragraphs. Of course, much of the film goes unmentioned, but that's the nature of what the guideline asks us to do with the plot section. Binksternet (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)