Talk:Blowup

Coppola

Coppola cited Blowup as thematic inspiration on his R1 DVD commentary for The Conversation. Can anyone cite a similar citation by De Palma - I'm sure it must be out there somewhere, as De Palma has never been shy about acknowledging the influence of other directors on his work. Ellsworth 23:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Title

why do you spell the title blowup? the real title is blow-up with an - Kernitou 17:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the page should probably read "Blow-up (sometimes rendered as Blowup)..." and use the hyphenated title in all other places. It looks particularly silly with the poster right there. --Asterphage 23:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just watched the trailer on youtube. It sounds like the contemporary version and it has the hyphen. It looks like User:Reginmund was right with his/her redirect, now reverted. --Old Moonraker 12:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the trailer, but in the (old) version of the movie I have seen it is credited BLOWUP, with capitalization and without a dash. As to the poster, come on, in France posters are in French, in China they are in Chinese, so what? This article is not about posters and trailers, it is about the original film.Colchicum 12:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that. The title in the movie itself (I have the DVD) is rendered "BLOWUP," even though the box says "Blow-up." Canada Jack 18:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct. The title on the movie itself is BLOWUP, no hyphen. The title on the movie itself is the ultimate authority, not the movie's poster, trailer, or DVD cover. — Walloon 19:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

art film?

In 1966/7 the film was (IIRC) given major (ie not art-house) release. I think I saw it in a mainstream cinema and it received widespread coverage in the usual cinema reviews. Linuxlad 16:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hemmings.Autobiography.jpg

Image:Hemmings.Autobiography.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 22:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hemmings.Autobiography.jpg

Image:Hemmings.Autobiography.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 22:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 12:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Blowup → Blow-Up — This appears to be the more common name as indicated on the poster and as classified by the BBFC[1] —Reginmund 04:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support - As nominator. Reginmund 04:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose; The actual title of the film is "Blowup". Here's a screenshot from the film itself that confirms the title is one word, with no hyphen. "Blow-Up" is the way it's often written on posters, but that spelling isn't so common as to warrant renaming from the film's correct title. The article's current introduction; "'Blowup (also rendered as Blow-Up)" deals with the poster name correctly. Masaruemoto 20:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose; This has already been discussed (see #Title). The original title is BLOWUP, not BLOW-UP. The article is not about posters and trailers. Colchicum 20:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's a good case to be made for Blow-Up, but naming of the film seems to be somewhat inconsistant. So while these film posters all use Blow-Up, there is also this UK video which uses an un-hyphenated Blow Up, and this US video which uses Blowup. Given the ambiguity over the title, and the fact that the film itself uses Blowup, I think it's best to leave this where it is. PC78 00:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• The name has also been discussed in Talk:Blowup#Title. Masaruemoto 20:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• However, we should elaborate on this in the text and consider change of the main picture, as renaming proposals arise way too often here. I am not aware of relevant wikiproject guidelines, but IMHO an original screenshot would be much more appropriate than the DVD cover, as the article is not about that specific DVD release. Colchicum 20:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

entertainment factor

This movie is about the most boring I have ever seen. Nice photographs but it could be half the length. This article promises much more... --84.161.219.68 21:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This movie is about the most exciting I have ever seen. Nice photographs but it could be double the length. This article promises far less... ;-) -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.137.226 (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Velvet Underground correction

The article includes the following claim: "[Antonioni] also considered The Velvet Underground, but guitarist Sterling Morrison's drug convictions prevented the band from getting work permits in the United Kingdom." It cites the book Uptight: The Story of The Velvet Underground. Perhaps my edition of the book is very old, but the title of my copy says: Uptight: The Velvet Underground Story. On page 67 Morrison explains that Antonioni thought it would be too expensive to bring the band to London. There is no mention of a drug conviction being the reason that The Velvet Underground could not get U.K. work permits. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: One edition of the book is called Uptight: The Story of The Velvet Underground (WorldCat link), perhaps that is why it was cited as such. If some later edition actually mentions that Morrison's drug conviction prevented the band from appearing in Blowup, then please cite the page number. I can't find this claim anywhere in my copy (1983 edition). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hemmings blowup.jpg

Image:Hemmings blowup.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) 17:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yardbirds

The song performed by the Yardbirds in the film was "Stroll On", not "The Train Kept A-Rollin'". The two songs are very similar, but the lyrics are different, and this is definately Stroll On.

Also, the sentence

"Jimmy Page and Jeff Beck play side by side until Beck smashes his guitar copying The Who."

doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me, but i'm new to wikipedia, so maybe i'm wrong. . .

Jh39 (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is supported by the sources. I read somewhere it was a cheap Hohner. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't doubting that it was true, It just could've been worded better IMO. Looks better know anyway Jh39 (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

High Anxiety

From the paragraph on the parody in the Mel Brooks movie High Anxiety:

(Technically speaking, the chauffeur does not make blow-ups; the joke is that he simply makes bigger and bigger enlargements until he has one the size of a wall.)

Can someone explain to me what the distinction is? A "blow-up" is an enlargement. — Walloon (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind High Anxiety is a paraody, a joke, a comedy. This said, two ways of enlarging/blowing up a photo are shown in the film. One is by making a big print with an optical enlarger and another is taking a another photograph of a small area of the already enlarged print with a high resolution camera (in those days, on a big 4x5 negative) and "blowing it up" even further on the enlarger. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Rising Sun

I cannot independently verify that Rising Sun (1993) staring Wesli Snipes and Sean Connery was influenced by Blowup, but it is clear that Blowup may have been inflencial on the filmmaker. Thoughts? --74.226.98.94 (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Could be. Antonioni has influenced lots of filmmakers, so this wouldn't be too remarkable. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Original Short Story

I was under the impression that this film was based on/inspired by Cotazar's short story of the same title and not "Droolings of the Devil" unless the latter was renamed after the film? Can anyone confirm this? See: Blow-up and other stories by Julio Cortazar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.119.43 (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the unsupported bit about "Droolings of the Devil." Gwen Gale (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone explain all the symbolisms in the movie. The story kind of incomplete leaving reader confused. Was there actually a body in the garden or just imagination of an intense photographer? 123.50.165.134 (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Anil

Locations

I have added a {{fact}} tag for the photographer's studio at 49 Prince's Place W11. James, who has proved reliable for the other locations in this paragraph (and some not mentioned) has 77 Pottery Lane W11. Comparing the street photographs on Google Maps (strictly original research and not allowed) favours Pottery Lane. Is there a source anywhere to confirm James's London Film Location Guide identification? --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems Antonioni used both addresses for exterior shots of Thomas' studio, this from independent.co.uk: on-the-trail-of-the-swinging-sixties. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice find. Will you add The Independent? --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Perhaps an address for the inside shots of the studio will show up. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

US film?

No one really thinks of this film as American.
The IMDb lists it as UK/Italy/USA.
If you check the IMDb's production company section, the producer is listed as:
Bridge Films [us]
An American company which, according to the IMDb, made 2 clearly British films in the 1960s, and right now, this very second, has 2 new films in the works. (You need IMDbPro to see them.)
As a former IMDb researcher, I am suspicious that we are seeing a mix-up here, of the type I used to rectify.
More likely is that there was a
Bridge Films [uk]
which made Blowup, then now a new US company happens to have the same name, and the US origin of the film is false. Companies do not have 40 year production gaps during which they pay for heat and light but don't produce anything.
Does someone have access to better sourcing on the financial origins of the film?
Varlaam (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The daisychain of errors pathway for this, which is very IMDb, would go like this:

New film in production in the US. Bridge Films.

Somebody adds film and company. Creating a new production co. is harder than just piggybacking on an old one.

So US film gets Bridge Films [uk].

But then someone notices, "Bridge is US, not UK" and "corrects" the IMDb to Bridge Films [us].

At that point somebody looking into the famous film Blowup notices that the only production company listed is American, while the film is marked UK/Italy.

So clearly the missing USA is an error, which gets corrected.

QED

Now, the proof of all this is in the other 1960s Bridge film.

It is not famous. No one gives a d*mn about it. No one is checking it or updating it.

Right now, today, it is listed as a UK film made by Bridge Films [us]; in other words, it is totally inconsistent.

Varlaam (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, if it is not easy to declare the nationality of the film, it does not have to be done in the lead sentence. MOS:FILM#Lead section says, "If the nationality is not clear-cut, clarify the circumstances at a later point in the first paragraph." This seems to indicate that Blowup was an Italian film that moved away from the neorealist movement. Erik (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Language was English, production was Italian/UK, money was mostly US (MGM). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Full frontal nudity

Someone tagged this as needing reference.

I saw the film on original release and thought it significant at the time since it was not 'X' rated — this was at the end of the movie and it was cut from the VHS version that I saw many years later - Leonard G. (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Reception - Critical

I suggest deleting the following statement:

It is widely understood that people with at least slightly-below average intelligence will quickly notice that this movie was made solely for the purpose of being "artsy", and is therefore of no value to society in any way.

This is very POV.--Natpaw81 (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's fixed, by IP editor at 74.72.194.76. Don't forget WP:BOLD!--Old Moonraker (talk) 05:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It looked more like a prank than unsourced PoV, to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The Who

The text about The Who and Steve Howe needs to be fixed. In one line you mention A. wanted the who because of Townsend's guitar smashing, then the next line has a quote from Steve Howe, not of The Who, who says Tomorrow (or at that time The In Crowd) was replaced by The Yardbirds and Beck smashed his (Howe's) guitar.

216.158.164.2 (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)