Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984 film)

The film was given limited release in the United States in December 1984 to qualify for the Oscars.

The music

"The Eurythmics fourth album 1984 (For the Love of Big Brother) was subsequently released as a soundtrack to the film, and includes the track "Sexcrime" which was released as a single. (A little sidenote: many people have been fond of the original Eurythmics soundtrack for the movie, which was experimental and dark, and ironically, by eradicating this soundtrack for the DVD release, the director commited the very thing which makes this movie so frightening - he altered history)"

I've extracted the following and made a rewrite of the music section for several reasons:

1. The situation as described was inaccurate - in the cinematic release, the one Eurythmics track used in the film was over the closing credits. This was done against Michael Radford's consent, possibly without his knowlege, for purely commercial reasons (Eurythmics were under contract to Virgin Records at the time).

2. Radford made a public statement at the time that the film on cinematic release was not the film he had delivered to the producers. I don't believe, therefore, that the comment that Radford "altered history" holds water. What he actually did was to restore the film he had made to its original state so that it would be seen by viewers of the DVD as he intended.

3. The page is actually supposed to be about the film, not whether people like or dislike the contribution of various people to the music soundtrack. The section on the music was a lot bigger than the section on what the film was actually about. Eurythmics fans can surely argue the merits of their music on the Eurythmics page, if they wish.

--Stephen Burnett 12:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Might I just add, in reference to point 1, that the original UK video release follows the cinematic release in having just one Eurythmics track ("Julia") over the end credits. The video actually contains the full-length version of the track, even though the credits themselves end quite early in the song. The rest just plays out over a blank screen. --Bonalaw 12:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC).

When I saw the theatrical release late in 1984, it did not seem to feature the Eurythmics tracks that were releases at the time of the film. For example the Eurythmics hit 'Sex Crime', was not featured. I heard the opposite of what the article suggests, that the Eurythmic's tracks had been removed following a row. Gomez2002 12:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Remake

as we seem to be in a era of remakes (aka king kong, Resident evil, superman etc...), is there any nod to a 21st century version?86.31.236.116 10:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Its funny you mention that because I was wondering about a remake myself. I checcked IMDB and it does have a mysterious listing for 1984 and next to it (2010). When you click on it there is nothing at all, no listing of possible actors or who is directing it. This would suck since Iwanted to do the remake, Im a wannabe screenwriter. How's this for some ideas. Anthony Hopkins as O'Brien, Clive Owen as Winston Smith, Kate Beckinsale as Julia and finally Ian Mckellen as Goldstein. --76.31.242.174 (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

V For Vendetta

Why the hell is there "V For Vendetta" in the See Also list? Just because something similar happened to both films? Why dont we add "Fahrenheit 451" and the "BAFTA awards" in the same way? I suggest the removal of these links.

Well, since after 2 weeks I got zero responces, I'll just proceed and delete the V For Vendetta entry, feel free to add it back if you see a reason to.

Well, it's one thing I noticed very quickly after seeing the two films: quite ironic that the actor who played Winston Smith should also play the Big Brother-like figure in a very similar film. That's the link, not the situation. Backgroundbob 01:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove from Category:Films which explore libertarian themes

1984 is more about totalarism and its perils than libertarianism. futurebird 21:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

1984 (film) or Nineteen Eighty-Four (film)

I'm starting this talk section to discuss moving this page. I'll move existing comments from the top of the talk page here and continue the discussion. --Steven J. Anderson 01:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please register your views and your reasoning below.

Nineteen Eighty-Four (film):

The on-screen title is Nineteen Eighty-Four. Vote for adopting this as the official title. Lee M 12:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) (copied from above)

The film is listed this way at imdb. "1984" is listed as an alternate title (not the primary title) in the UK. If someone else has information to the contrary, please provide a source.--Steven J. Anderson 02:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The UK title on screen and as certified by the BBFC is Nineteen Eighty-Four. 1984 only gained currency because of the stylised logo used in the UK and elsewhere. Nick Cooper 21:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

1984 (film):

1984 is the British title of this film, it was released elsewhere under the title Nineteen Eighty-Four. (This unsigned comment was posted on 3 August 2004 by Dlloyd copied from above.)

more differences from the novel?

Are there any more differences from the novel? Differences in events? Differences in dialogue? 218.215.143.107 01:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This part in the main article

"In the novel, Winston admits making love to a prostitute - in the film, this is omitted. "

Is not true as he admitted paying $2 to make love to a prostitute. However this is no editable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.245.27.182 (talk) 11:03, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

1. In the film, Winston is served some wine by O'Brien himself. In the book, a servant who is identified as a member of the Brotherhood serves Winston and Julia some wine.

There is a servant in the film, too. He definitely serves Wiston! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.64.54.248 (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Why does it say that Winston is killed in the novel? I've never come across that interpretation before. Mariavite (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The quote I seem to remember from the end of the novel was something like "As the long awaited bullet was entering his brain ..." But it's been years since I read it, I could be wrong. It doesn't seem like a novel interpretation to me. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Release Date

is the 10th, Oct. 1984 the release-date for England or for the US? -- Hartmann Schedel (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Brownell's comments

In the production section of this article it is written "Sonia Brownell, Orwell's widow, owned the film rights to the famed novel. Shortly before her death in 1980, Brownell eventually agreed to allow the film to be produced only under the condition that no futuristic special effects be used."

But there is no reference given to this statement. One would naturally assume that in allowing for this film to be made, Ms. Brownell would have also set some other preconditions asides from 'no futuristic special effects be used.' The film is dogmatically faithful to the book, I'd say, and it does not even shy away from showing the old technology that Orwell spoke about in the book ('floating fortresses' and so forth). Can someone please add a reference to this section?--The Diamond Apex (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Smith killed?

The novel does not depict the killing of Smith. In the final scene, as in the movie, he is sitting in the Café drinking gin and listening to the news. He just realizes that now that he has achieved his goal of learning to love Big Brother, he will be killed, and he imagines and welcomes his coming death. I edited the "differences" section to reflect this.