Jump to content

Talk:Julie & Julia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Evilhenny (talk | contribs) at 19:57, 24 December 2009 (→‎Anti-Republican Bias). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconFilm: American C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion 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.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Tags

Hello. Someone tagged this article and left no explanation aboutthe tags. I think they should be removed.--Andrewire (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the tags. The article is well-written and will be extended when more information becomes available. I will add production notes and other info. Thanks.--Andrewire (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a memoir by Julie Powell

is this available somewhere? Is it called something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.85.59 (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That memoir was referring: "a book, Julie & Julia: 365 Days, 524 Recipes, 1 Tiny Apartment Kitchen (Little, Brown, 2005). The paperback was retitled Julie & Julia: My Year of Cooking Dangerously (Back Bay Books, 2006)." --Mongol (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Profit Yet

I suggest that the line which says that Julie and Julia has already made a profit be removed. Whoever wrote that clearly knows little about movie budgets and making a profit. Simply making 3 million dollars over the budget does not mean the movie is now in profit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macy9 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The section doesn't even mention the word "profit". It only says that it has surpassed its budget which is a fact.--Andrewire (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trailer voiceover inaccuracy...

On the voiceover for the trailer of this film, it states that Julia Child was "the world's first celebrity chef". Surely Fanny Craddock was a celebrity chef at least five years before Child? Howie ☎ 18:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are forgetting this is an American film, anything that happens anywhere else in the world is, therefore, irrelevant. America was first at everything.94.196.120.204 (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're point being...? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(To User talk:94.196.120.204) Do you have any sources to back up that? I know we do not need sources for stating stuff on the discussion board, but... wow, that is a HUGE statement! - Mdriver1981 (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Republican Bias

The film carries a very anti-republican overtone, and has been criticized by several predominant conservative websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilhenny (talk • contribs) 06:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have links? BOVINEBOY2008 :) 14:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
look at the Hollywoodreporter link in reference section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilhenny (talk • contribs) 02:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Now write something specific while being neutral. Use quotes and names. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 02:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some law against someone not liking Republicans? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is wrong with liking Republicans or Democrats or Moderates or Purple aliens. There is something to say about poor writing and lacking in sources though. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hollywood Reporter sounds like a reliable source, right up there with Inside Edition and TMZ. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it looks good, never said it wasn't. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the Republican bashing accusations can be verified, why mention it in the article? This seems very stupid. We cannot just write that so and so says the film has a left-leaning taste if that person or persons cannot give at least one example. Pajama Media is probably not a reliable source. Mdriver1981 (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a source: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/julie-julia-cute-with-a-side-of-republican-bashing/2/ --- Okay, so, according to the source given, the "proof" of anti-repuiblicanism in the film comes from a few things: the scenes of Republican Senator Joe McCarthy angry at Julia Childs (the American Republican Party of the 1950s was very different from the Republican Party today). Another scene is based on a comment made by Powell's boss who says "A Republican would fire you!", due to her showing up at work late due to a cooking mishap. The blog also mentions that not enough attention was given to Powell's job at the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation in 2002-2004, that primarily dealt with the 2001 terrorist Attacks on the World Trace Center, - this was, according to the blog, due to the film's lack of sympathy towards the attacks, which must mean they hate America, and, of course, the Republican Party (if this makes any sense). Mdriver1981 (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some folks go out of their way looking for stuff like that. In any case, it's a blog, so it's not a source. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section trying to go up is referenced by blogs and nonnotable reviews, none of which belong on Wikipedia. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 13:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BS all are notable reviews

Inaccuracies

I am the one who started the "Inaccuracies" section. I invite people to add to my list. According to the author herself, the film has a pretty well representation of the facts. We cannot base the accuracies of the film solely on the author's books or any sort of testimony, as autobiographies have the tendency to be unreliable- that is why I state "According to the author" and so on. Also, there is much more inaccuracies I could write about, but they are inaccuracies that are very typical of films, such as the actress or actor having much more physical beauty than the subject they are portraying. - Kate Adams portrays Julie Powell as having physical beauty, despite the opposite being true. Powell has said on many interviews that she has always had a problem with weight due to her bad eating habits. - This fact is not shown in the film, as she is portrayed as being slender.Mdriver1981 (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Child's view of the blog

In the movie Julie tells her husband that a reporter told her something than made her think Julia Child hated the blog. Even if we suppose the best of intentions by both the reporter and Julie, this is hardly reliable evidence of Child's view. Did the reporter ever publish that? What is known of Child's view of it? Colin McLarty (talk) 10:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julie_%26_Julia&oldid=333856683"