Talk:Sunset Boulevard (film)

Template:V0.5

Merge Norma Desmond into Sunset Boulevard (1950 film) ?

I don't think the Norma Desmond page is of any interest. It is just another summary of the movie, with two or three additional quotes. 82.247.115.24 16:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree: I think one of the key features of the film 'Sunset Boulevard' is the cross-over element between the fictional Norma Desmond's character and the historical spectre of the silent movie period. Even if such an article is mostly rehashed elsewhere, and it need not be - the entry could easily be edited down-, it is still of cultural value.

Editing the Main Article

When editing the main article, care should be taken that the table of contents come up immediately, just after the first or second sentence. If you add too much stuff to the first sentence, the table of contents gets pushed down lower and lower, till it is no longer in plain view. Those who are new to the article should not have to scroll down to see the table of contents.

Why do people make major comments like this and then not sign them? It is Wikipedia policy that the section before the contents should be a reasonable summary of the whole article. In this case, that has been done quite well.

Londoneye 22:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Edits of Feb 1, 2005

I've just added a lot of info to this article. I saw this on Peer Review, and I think the subject has the potential to one day be a very good article. I just wanted to point out that I know what I've done here is very rough, and needs to go thoroughly edited. I also realise that critical comment on the film is required, and that some areas need to be covered in more depth.

Also I removed the photo of the DVD cover. I was thinking it was inappropriate even though I'm the person who put it there, because it uses a photo that was never part of the film. Therefore replaced it with a vintage movie poster, plus added several screenshots. It looks a bit overdone with images now, but I think when the article is finished it will be more balanced. Rossrs 14:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Change of article name

I changed this from Sunset Boulevard (1950 movie) because having the date as part of the name was not necessary. If there were other significant films with the same title, made in different years... then yes, but in this case it's not required. Rossrs 15:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite of article

Completely rewrote article after realizing my previous effort (see above) left a lot to be desired. Have expanded on some areas that were not previously covered, and have made the overall thing less patchy (I think). Also completely referenced the whole thing.

Images : Searched every place I could think of and wasted hours of my life, searching for public domain or free images, to no avail. Substituted the German/French language poster (of Belgian origin) for an American poster, because it's an American film after all. Plus the other poster was a bit too colorful for a film noir. At least the new one is mainly red, rather than every color of the rainbow.

Added promotional photo. Much more appropriate as a "fair use" image. Also by adding this was able to delete two screenshots that served no purpose but to depict cast members. Also deleted a third screenshot of William Holden and Gloria Swanson, because it did not add to the article, plus it went against the concept of using "fair use" images sparingly.

Will place on Wikipedia:Peer review Rossrs 14:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I like the new information very much but find the flow more patchy, not less. The recently designed poster is too red :) This is such an important film, though that I don't mind seeing the article take a step back in order to take two or three forward (so to speak). I'll work on the flow when I have time. Are there any better posters? I agree the previous one was too colourful but this one somehow gives a misleading impression as well. Also, the raised cite numbers break up the line spacing in a very distracting way. Wyss 13:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I searched for posters and found 4 on Allposters.com.

They are : 1. the one that was there before. 2. a weird "Salvador Dali-Norma Desmond on crack" thing that I thought was just way too weird. 3. A black and white one showing a scene from the film, not bad, but created for a British rerelease around 2002 (I think). It's good and fits the article nicely, but it lacks relevance. Then there's the DVD cover which I don't particularly like because although it shows Gloria Swanson it is not a scene from the film. She just happens to be in costume and on the set, so I think it's from an old publicity photo. This is it Image:SunsetBoulevardDVD.jpg. I ended up going back to the red one, simply because it's the original one. The color's a little jarring and a bit sordid, but I think it's more suitable than any of the alternative. Yes it creates a misleading impression, but it's the impression the studio decided to run with when the movie was first released, so it's valid historically.

The cite numbers - yep, I noticed that too, but I've used the same format elsewhere and it hasn't created the same disjointed effect. I don't know why it looks the way it does. I suppose the whole referencing part of the article can be done in a different format. I'll have a look at that when I get a chance. **noticed today's main page FA tooth enamel uses the same format and has the same spacing problem. Maybe there's no way of avoiding it, but will look at alternatives **

With regards to the patchiness, anything that you think will improve it, is welcome. I don't see it, so I'm glad you pointed it out. Obviously not everyone processes information exactly the way I do, (which is a good thing). Rossrs 14:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I've read through your edits. They all look very good, a significant improvement. Rossrs 14:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I've finished them. Turns out it was only a word flow and syntax thing. I've tried the 2003 UK poster. It looks too modern but captures the spirit of the film better than anything else I've seen. Understand the thinking behind using the "red blood" poster but I have so little respect for studio marketing departments that preserving the historical accuracy of their efforts is seldom of interest to me (there are many exceptions to prove the rule, though). I've no idea what to do about the line breaks. I tend to believe in simple formating to avoid such problems but since this is my biggest criticism of the article now, it's not much to dwell on (although I think somewhere there must be a coding solution to it :) Overall, the article is much improved, now likely among the best twenty or thirty movie treatments on WP. Wyss 20:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I've tried substituting the UK poster from 2003. The typography is clean but "wrong" for the period. I prefer it over anything else I've seen so far because the b&w photomontage (for me) does an ok job of capturing the look of the film. Wyss 21:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the editing changes you've made to the text are excellent. I'm only puzzled by the reference to Pickford and Normand being close friends. I think Pickford is closely linked to the silent era, plus to the film itself and to Swanson, that to provide another link to Normand serves no purpose. I don't understand what significance is intended. That's no big deal, just a minor point that I don't really get. I really don't like the poster, I'm afraid. It just doesn't work, and part of the reason is that it was obviously not designed to be shrunk down like that. The text looks all wrong because you can't read any of it, other than the film title. It looks busy, and detracts from what is otherwise a pretty powerful and appropriate couple of images. I particularly like the eyes at the top, but I can't get past the messy blur of the small text which detracts from everything else. I much prefer the "red" poster, and while I agree it doesn't have the precisely right "look", it does have the right "feel", I feel. Rossrs 03:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The new poster needs a fair-use rationale like those of the other images. --Carnildo 06:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I can justify fair use on the original poster I used because it has some historical significance to the film but this new image has no historical significance so I'd find it hard to find a rationale. I intend reverting to the previous image. Rossrs 07:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Retitling this article

There is going to be a 2006 film starring Glenn Close and Ewan McGregor, an adaptation of the 1990s Andrew Lloyd Webber musical, Sunset Boulevard. I haven't made an article for that, because I'm unsure of what the etiquette is with making articles for things that haven't happened yet. But perhaps in light of this, this article should become Sunset Boulevard (1950 film) at some point.

I think that's a good idea when the time comes. Rossrs 13:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Requesting Article Name Change

Okay, I'd like to officially request a name change for this article.

I've created a page for the 2006 film under Sunset Boulevard (2006 film), so believe it is only proper that this page be changed to Sunset Boulevard (1950 film). Anyone for thoughts? Daydream believer2 17:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

totally agree with you. Rossrs 02:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Moving. Daydream believer2 14:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Box Office

I'm discussing a Wikipedia project that is attempting to determine modern-day box office incomes. If Sunset Boulevard had been released in 2005, does anyone know what its box office would be? -64.231.70.46 20:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The name of the film

I removed this section because it isn't sourced and uses weasel words like Some authorities, if someone finds a reference put it back in:

"Nearly all references give the name of the film as Sunset Boulevard. However, the opening sequence does not give a title. Instead, it has a shot of the road Sunset Boulevard and zooms in on a street sign that says Sunset Blvd. Thus some authorities argue that it is the latter that is the true name of the film."

To this unsigned contributor (silly not to sign it; you're in the edit history): OK, I've added an authority. Happy?
Londoneye 12:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you MechBrowman 15:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Plot / Queen Kelly

To the contributors for this article, well done, a worthy Featured Article. In light of that I'll briefly discuss a couple of changes here rather than paraphrase in an Edit Summary. Firstly, under Plot, not trying to be overly pedantic or make the story more of a mystery than it is but the narrator never refers to the corpse in the pool at the beginning as Joe Gillis, as was indicated with the prev. wording. His name (or to be more exact at this stage, the narrator's name) is first mentioned by the repossession agents in the initial flashback scene. Secondly, there's discrepancies re. Queen Kelly's release date. I always thought 1928 was correct, as stated in this article, but I now see it more often cited as 1929 (same as in its Wikipedia entry). If a contributor to this page has a source that towers over all others stating 1928, please change it back here but keep consistent with the Queen Kelly article. Cheers, Ian Rose 15:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Pop Culture References?

This is, indeed, a fine article. It's already quite long, but I'm surprised that there is not a section about popular culture references and parodies of the film and its characters. (For instance, Carol Burnett's several hysterical send-ups of Norma, with Harvey Korman as Max). Might be worth adding (I didn't want to start a new section without consensus as I would hesitate to mess with such a well-crafted article). Discuss? StanislavJ 01:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there is definitely a place for it, perhaps after the "Other films about Hollywood section" (I also think the last 3 short sections need to be absorbed into the article, but I'm not sure how to go about it). When I was writing the main part of the article, I didn't come across anything about popular culture references, but I have to admit, I didn't think of it anyhow. The Burnett send-ups are particularly noteworthy, and I would welcome discussion of them. Wasn't Gloria Swanson an occasional guest on Carol Burnett's show? I have some recollection that she was somewhat involved in the sendups, but I can't remember where I read that. My only concern is that sooner later we'll get the inevitable "the name "Norma Desmond" was uttered without context by a supporting character in episode #12345 of Family Guy" ;-) As long as it's sourced, and remains relevant, I think it would be good. Rossrs 13:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, many articles have a 'Pop culture references' (or 'Appearances in popular culture') section. I'd say it could go after the 'Musical version' section. Re. absorbing the last 3 sections, IMO the 'Musical version' section should remain but 'The Movie Musical' should be merged with it (wouldn't even bother with a subsection heading). 'The name of the film' I think isn't bad where it is, as a sort of footnote. I think it deserves its own section or subsection but putting it further up could disrupt the flow of the article. Cheers, Ian Rose 14:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

About the poster copyright

I need a few informations about it so that I can use it on the French wikipedia (where everything is really much more complicated).

- Was this the original poster (1950), or at least was it a poster published before 1963 ?
- If so, has it been renewed (I suppose no) ?
- Then, isn't it in the public domain ? According to this link, it would be...

Please, please, this is important information. I need to know that before I can use the picture on the French article. The French wikipedia is really careful about all that copyrights stuff...

Title

It would seem to me that this article should more aptly be titled Sunset Blvd., with or without the "(1950 film)" qualifier. Imdb (dubious as a source, I think, except for the names of films and to some extent the cast), lists it as Sunset Blvd. and, as the article notes, that is the only title given in the film. The qualifier, I believe, is unnecessary, since the film in development of the musical will almost certainly be titled Sunset Boulevard (though, even that remains to be seen, as my original CD uses just the sign/logo as the title: "Sunset Blvd.", but my sheet music has both the full title and the logo....). However, my DVD (of the original 1950 film) gives the title as Sunset Boulevard.
Any thoughts? 69.253.193.234 22:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would have to be Sunset Blvd. (film) at least, since Sunset Blvd. redirects (correctly IMO) to Sunset Boulevard the road. However, because it's often referred to with its full title, I think the current naming of Sunset Boulevard (1950 film) may as well stay, at least till we know for certain how the new film's title is offically rendered. Cheers, Ian Rose 23:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)