|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sofia Coppola article.|
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|WikiProject Biography / Actors and Filmmakers||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject United States||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Women writers||(Rated C-class)|
- 1 Place of birth?
- 2 Marie Antoinette
- 3 Lost in Translation
- 4 Ad More Information
- 5 Irish/English
- 6 Sofia's Godfather performances
- 7 no picture?
- 8 Elektrobank video
- 9 New York Stories
- 10 Why height?
- 11 Going to remove the height
- 12 The new awards succession box
- 13 Domino
- 14 Removing Opera note
- 15 Recent Vandalism
- 16 Oscar for Best Costume Design
- 17 References
- 18 Fair use rationale for Image:Mary Corleone.jpg
- 19 Photo of Coppola
- 20 listen to me sopia please i beg you
- 21 Nepotism
- 22 Bad rewrite/Bad writing
- 23 Awards table
- 24 Awards
- 25 "Acting"
- 26 Negative tone
Place of birth?
English article says born in Los Angeles, CA. All other languages say born in New York City. IMDB also says born in New York City. I am confused...
Same with day of birth: some sources say 14 May 1971, some tell us 12 May, some 13 May. Is there a reason for this?
Is it right to say the reception for Marie Antoinette at Cannes was chilly? There were boos, but that's the way it works at Cannes; I'm sure cheers were reported too. The reviews were fairly favourable.
Lost in Translation
- Commentary like this belongs in places like Aint It Cool or Perez Hilton, not an encyclopedia. Some people liked this film quite a bit and had an equally strong reaction. Just because you found the film boring doesn't make it a fact that it is boring, nor would the contrary. Entertainment endeavors are subject to opinion. If wikipedia is opened up to debating whether a movie was "good" or not, or whether she should "pay for her adultery", it will simply become the Usenet 2.0 it's critics claim it to be. 22.214.171.124 22:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. I also think this is a one-sided POV section. There should be arguments on both sides, since she has received acclaim, and the criticism doesn't seem to be based on anything substantive. The point about the cinematography on Lost in Translation is suspect: the credited cinematographer is Lance Acord. Roman Coppola worked on a 2nd unit, according to the credits. Slowmover 20:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- P.S. Please sign your posts. Slowmover 20:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've reverted this talk page so that the relatively old discussion is back in place. There isn't any reason to remove it, and since it's an IP edit who knows who made the initial remarks. Stack 01:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Do you see the tag at the top of this page regarding removing libelous information? This isn't a movie review site, it's not a celebrity gossip site, and the discussion has nothing to do with encyclopedic information on Sofia Coppola. It is reasonable to remove discussion about the movie being boring , the subject being an adulterer who will suffer painfully in their life, et cetera126.96.36.199 21:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- I see that tag. However, this is the talk page for the article, and not the article itself. Stack 19:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk pages are not internet message boards, and should be used to discuss the article, not gossip.
Ad More Information
Information should be added for Lick The Star as well as the whole article beeing expanded somewhat --Jimmyjrg 10:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
The cinematographer / DOP for Lost in Translation was NOT Roman Coppola -- it was Lance Acord. --User:rikki_rockett
Although I'm sure her mother isn't Italian, does anyone have a source for her mother's specific ancestry? I couldn't find it online. JackO'Lantern 19:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Sofia's Godfather performances
I agree her performance in The Godfather III is close to wretched, but she deserves praise for how perfect her performances where in The Godfather and also The Godfather II. Dirk Diggler Jnr 17:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh I disagree. She didn't give the best performance ever in The Godfather Part III, but I think she portrayed a teenage girl pretty well. She stumbled, she messed up a little bit, her intonations, her pitch, and the way she said things were messed up, just like people in real life. People in real life aren't perfect, and Sofia knew to project that, or at least i'm assuming. Now some of it was youthful flubs, and in all reality she probably shouldn't have been the one to act that part, but she was, and I think that all things considered, she did just fine. Not great, not spectacular, but that's ok... she did what she could with what she had and what she knew at the time, and that's OK with me.
LLBBooks 12:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm with the above - she fit the part very well, like a gawky teenager, unsure of her place in a powerful family. I've just watched the film again, with her father's commentary, and he makes it clear that he saw parallels between the Corleones and his own family, and Sofia was the way he originally envisioned Mary Corleone to be. He also describes the ending as "every father's nightmare" - which could not have been easy for him to direct in the first place, never mind comment on years later! Stereoroid 23:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Why was the image removed? --Jimmyjrg 10:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Because it's been deleted.
- Peter Isotalo 22:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have located what I believe to be a suitable image, but I will be consulting with someone as to the legitimacy of pulling an image from a news site. Stack 17:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
It says, "She played a gymnast in the video for "Elektrobank" by the Chemical Brothers, directed by her then-husband Spike Jonze." The video came out in 1997, but they weren't married until 1999.
New York Stories
Something needs to be added about her role in the film New York Stories, as actress and co-writer.
Johannes.klabbers 13:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Why is Sofia Coppola's height an appropriate subject for this article? George Lucas is remarkably short, and yet it says nothing about his physical stature in the heading for his entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
Going to remove the height
In the absence of any further comment from anybody, I'm going to remove the height line from the header. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
- This is an article about Sofia Coppola, not solely her career. I recommend putting the height back, as it is not detrimental to the article's content. In the future, if you're looking for comments on an action, please wait at least a day, rather than only five minutes. I will wait at least until tomorrow for a response, at which point I will revert your change. Stack 19:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Why is a director's height germane to her role as a film director? Perhaps we should also include her measurements? Hitchcock was known for his weight, perhaps we should include it in his entry? Why isn't there any mention of height for any male film director anywhere on Wikipedia? These questions aren't rhetorical, before you make any further action, please respond to each.
- It appears that the woman's height is included here because there exists a double standard between men and women, where it's considered appropriate to air the physical attributes of a woman when discussing her career, but unimportant where men are concerned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC).
- First, I would ask that you create an account so that you can more consistently respond to comments, in addition to giving your comments more credence. Second, I question your thesis that there exists a double standard here, with my evidence being that we list height figures for such males as David Beckham and George Clooney. While you state the questions in your first paragraph are not rhetorical, I don't see any merit in them (they sound like false analogies to me); I will, however, note that we do, in fact, note Alfred Hitchcock's weight problems in his article. But...neither Beckham nor Clooney are directors, so to counter your point that we don't mention the height of any male director I point you not only to Alfred Hitchcock again, but also to the one and only Francis Ford Coppola, Sofia's father. You can also look at Steven Spielberg's height if you wish.
- Wikipedia is a source of facts. If you know that something on Wikipedia is not factually correct, then correct it. However, if you wish to point out that you believe a topic is being addressed in an unsuitable manner, please do so on the talk page before making unilateral changes. I am now replacing Sofia Coppola's height in the appropriate location on the page, and I would be happy to discuss this further. Stack 23:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Check the histories on those articles. If I recall correctly, I've never made a single edit to them. Please refrain from reverting this edit without discussion. Stack 04:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The new awards succession box
While entertaining, I'm not quite sure the new awards succession box is adding anything to this article. Any other thoughts? Stack 21:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
She stated in past interviews that Domino was a stage name she chose because she thought it was glamorous at the time. See quotes at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001068/bio
Removing Opera note
"Coppola will direct the opera Manon Lescaut for the 2009-2010 season at the Opéra de Montpellier."
The information was false 
Please watch for factual errors that have been appearing in the last week. If it continues, those individuals need to be warned, if not blocked. Thank You. 18.104.22.168 01:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone messed with the awards box. It now shows both awards as oscar for screenplay. 22.214.171.124 08:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Oscar for Best Costume Design
Fair use rationale for Image:Mary Corleone.jpg
Image:Mary Corleone.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.
Photo of Coppola
Would this be a valid image of Sofia Coppola?
oh my mistake! Sorry!
listen to me sopia please i beg you
This is for you Sophia, you are so talented and have great vision of what many of us would like to see when we dole out out 10 dollars to be entertained at the movies. I believe you are the perfect person to execute this suggestion!!! First let me say I liked Marie Antoinette, but you missed the mark by casting a boyish actress in the part and taming the sexual content of the piece. It seems the pg-13 rating is all we can expect from our romance movies these days. I know you can do better. I am sick and tired of Hollywood ruining every single epic historical romance movie with the snaggle -toothed, flat- chested, Kiera Knightly! No one wants to look at her, or believe that a gorgeous hunk of a man would find her the least bit appealing!!! Think about it... for those of us who pour into a romance novel at the rate of 3 a week, and the romance novel industry charging us $7.95 a pop, we are craving to delve into a story line where the man is masculine perfection and the female is all we could never be! To be disappointed time and again, with these feminine males and masculine females is a shame!The romance novel market is a billion dollar industry. I have read that more than half of all the paperbacks on the American book market are romance novels. And, a recent poll showed than one in five Americans regularly reads romance novels. We are so excited when a historical romance movie comes out, that feeds our passion for mind numbing romantic stimulation, only to look at the cast, and the rating and know that it will fail to deliver. My suggestion, (sorry it took so long to deliver), is a story such as my favorite The Black Lion a glorious love story about an innocent vixen, blond, busty, and alluring (no Gwenyth Paltrow ugly skinny thing) who captures the attention of a tall handsome brooding knight, and the thought of her, consumes his every thought.The sexual tension is strong and explicit. The story is as old as time, Gone with the Wind, Beauty and the Beast, Casablanca, need I go on?? The only thing we have seen in recent years even close to this ever successful storyline, was the Notebook. The classic male obsessed with female sexual tension story, and look how successful this was! Please, Please, read some of the "dime store" novels in the romance section of the bookstore, and see what billions of us are crazed for. You will have a classic under your belt if you stick to simple rules.... 1. Male must be excruciatingly handsome and masculine. He must be passionately possessed by the female... A Ralph Lauren model type! 2. Female must be beautiful beyond belief, alluring and have a figure that is definitely female, she must go all out to create sexual response in the male... A Jessica Simpson or Julianne Houghe type! 3. Follow the cues from the successful TUDORS series on showtime... and forget this ever so lacking pg13 rating!!!!! (Just cast better looking people)...The porn industry is booming and for those of us who would never rent a porn, and read and re-read our romance novels, please... give us a movie that we can watch and re-watch. Give us an (NC-17) rating romance historical film that will rival the Camelots, Gone with the Winds, and etc... You can do it!!! I know you can!!!Beggin for more (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- How about no. Also, "what billions of us are crazed for"? You grossly overestimate your numbers. Don't expect something so explicitly flesh-oriented from S. Coppola. You should notice her films are predominantly atmosphere. Enjoy shit like Twilight and stick to it, or get a damn boyfriend. I can't believe I read all of that without vomiting, especially at the Jessica Simpson part or the mention of the porno industry. My fucking god. Am I being trolled? --Surfaced (talk) 06:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The section on nepostism should stay. If she returns over 1400 results on google on nepostism it is relevant. It is also relevant because if ANYONE with any sense looks at her career rationally, they would agree that without nepotism, she would probably have never made or appeared in one single film. The removal of the section has been undone.--WaxonWaxov (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why people feel like they need to keep removing this section. As I pointed out above, it is obviously relevant. Try this: walk up to anyone who has seen more than fifty movies in the past 10 years and say "what is the worst example of Hollywood nepotism?" I bet fifty bucks the #1 answer in such a poll would be Sofia Collola.--WaxonWaxov (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- There are several problems with the Nepotism section. First, it doesn't deserve its own section. Allegations of nepotism could be mentioned in the intro paragraph, discussed in the acting section, or combined with other criticisms into a "Criticisms" section. Second, it's in the wrong place. Even if it was merged into a "Criticisms" section, that section should still come at the end of the career section. And while I understand that you mentioned the google hits to try to assert relevance, that kind of statistic belongs on the talk page rather than on the article itself. And FWIW, "'Sofia Coppola' shampoo" gets 10x as many hits. I'm going to remove the section and add a sentence to the acting section. --Garrepi (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Bad rewrite/Bad writing
I checked this article a few weeks ago and checked it today. Some fool has edited it, spraying it with 'hers' and 'directress'. No doubt some idiot who equates gender equality with pronounce equality. I changed 'directress' (an offensive, gendered term) back to 'director.' Other corrections for flow need to be made as this is largely a rather badly written article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romuska (talk • contribs) 13:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Can we please remove that from her filmography? I think it's uneccesary because if anybody's interested in knowing about the awards and nominations her films have received can look at the articles on each film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glamking (talk • contribs) 19:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- I would guess because some believe she was so bad at acting that it shouldn't be called acting. Regardless I'm going to remove the quotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- It adds WP:UNDUE weight to the section. I've renamed it. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
As of 9 June 2013, parts of this article carry a negative tone I find disturbing. The goal of Wikipedia is to inform readers about facts, not to express opinions about people or circumstances. Nothing that a Wikipedia editor might feel emotionally about the subject of an article should leak into the article's text. Propounding one's personal beliefs or feelings is simply not useful here. It is entirely beside the point. Dratman (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)