Talk:Mom and Dad (1945 film)

Mom and Dad (1945 film) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 24, 2008.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 7, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
November 21, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
May 5, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 5, 2006. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the exploitation film Mom and Dad, grossed an estimated $40-100 million, and is the third highest grossing film of the 1940s?
Current status: Featured article

Film: American

	Film portal This 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
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Library of Congress Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Freedom of speech Low‑importance

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article

Editors - inappropriate comments inserted into the article (section just before mention of movie intermission) but they are not visible in the edit to remove —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.130.233 (talk) 07:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good article

Well written, interesting. Responded to all comments in multiple reviews. Congratulations. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody might think about letting the reader know if those named are actors (obscure) or characters (unstated). Sure I can scroll down to the cast and find out, but in a "featured article", I shouldn't have to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.238.92.21 (talk) 06:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distributor / DVD / tape available of this film?

I know Wikipedia is not meant to be a place to advertise films for sale, but given the significance of this film and what seems to me to be no online source for the film for sale, I'd like to ask if anyone knows how an individual might get a copy of it? It must exist, it was entered into the National Film Registry in 2005, and in August 2001 clips of it was released on the DVD set "Sex and Buttered Popcorn". I know it wouldn't have a very big market but given it's significnce there would be some market for it, at least among educators and film buffs. Does anyone know if the copyright is even still valid or if it's in the public domain? If it's in the public domain, I suppose it could be legally copied and shared, although one still has to find a copy somewhere. --User:ssc

Too much like Kroger Babb

I hate to say this since I know you've worked hard on it, but it's too similar to Kroger Babb. Most of this article seems to be just a copy and paste job from that one. This article really seems to focus too much on Babb's roll, rather then being about the movie itself. I realize that the movie is what it is and had the impact it did because of him, but surely there's got to be something you can say about it that you haven't already said in his article? I don't want to suggest that you cut information on this film from his article, since it seems to have been such a pivital part of his career; but now that Kroger Babb is a FA, imagine if it was on the front page. Someone who knows nothing about him would start reading it, get curious about Mom and Dad, come here to read this article, and find themselves reading virtually the same text as on Kroger Babb's article. See the problem?

Perhaps if you discussed some of the other people who were invovled in it; did it have a big impact on One Shot's career? What about the cast? Did this movie help their careers? Hurt them?

I'm sure you see what I'm saying. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do, and I was somewhat concerned about it. The problem, perhaps unfortunately, is that what there is to say about the movie has more to do with how it was marketed than anything else - there's little that's said that I've found as of yet that discuss the actual film at length, or the impact (or, really, lack thereof) on the folks involved. I've tried to mix it up a lot, I guess that's why I'm looking for more input at this point. I dunno, heh. Looking it over, forgetting the plot part that I'm working on expanding, the only part that's blatantly similar is the marketing section - the sections before and after are other information that wouldn't make sense in the Babb article, obviously. If GA is the end of the road for this article, so be it, but I'm wondering if there isn't more that can be done with the middle to differentiate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a lot of work, done in conjunction with more work on the article on Kroger Babb (yes, again).

I'm not nearly as afraid of Babb anymore at this point, haha. I wouldn't have asked for your help if I wasn't ready for some hard questions though, so thanks.

It seems clear that the (feeble) story is about a girl. But is she June Carlson or Joan Blake? If there's reason for ambiguity, explain it.

That's one part I have to expand, per above. When I wrote up the current plot line, I wasn't going to add the cast list. Now, with the cast list, it seems like I should be clearer, so I'll do that.

Yes, ONUnicorn's right. Minimize the overlap between the Babb article and this one (which now look like two versions of the same article, with a number of near-identical sentences). Both have a synopsis of this film. Choose the better synopsis and put it in this article; put a radically shortened one in the article on Babb. Say as little as possible about Babb and his approach in this article; it's in the article on him. Find some way of making the material about Babb's hawking of this film differ between that article and this one.

Here's the issue with this, though: the importance of this movie is largely due in part to the marketing scheme. There will have to be some overlap between the two for the sake of comprehensiveness, I am struggling to figure out how to handle it.

Don't redlink words and phrases that are unlikely to get articles.

I don't believe I've done so in this case.
- There's not so much of it, but I saw and fixed one glaring example: in the first or second note, you (or someone) had redlinked the title of Shaefer's book.

Rearrange the notes from (a) the format to which a couple of people objected while the Babb article was an FAC to (b) the format when that article was made an FA.

On the shortlist.

Print out the result and go through it slowly with a red pen. The next day, go through it again with a red pen. Then make the changes. Print it out, and go through it slowly with a red pen. Et cetera. -- Hoary 23:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the help so far. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to look again -- when the two articles are very different from each other. -- Hoary 23:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feaured:Star Missing on article's page!

Please fix it --~KnowledgeHegemony~ 12:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did it myself!

--~KnowledgeHegemony~ 12:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that there were some malicious edits to the article. not sure how to revert, but it seems like its required —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.111.214 (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA

Why is this considered a FA? I've seen tons of better articles. Vinson 01:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a very early example of FA. The FA process itself, however, is so flawed as to be useless to its stated purpose. There are lots of B articles better than FA articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.238.92.21 (talk) 06:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that early. It was promoted in May 2007. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 12:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm having a hard time seeing how this one made FA. It's not that it's a bad article, it's just really short, not all that informative, and doesn't have that many notes or references. OK, it's actually a bit bad. Maybe a B, but certainly not an FA. CatBoris (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with the above (as of Oct 2024). Listing at WP:FARGIVEN. Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very hard to know what this is about

It's a film made by an exploitation film maker... that's what the intro establishes (it also establishes that the film has a genre, which is nice, but doesn't tell us what that genre is). In the middle of the second section we find out that it's about a person and we find out her name. That, perhaps, could come earlier....

In the third section we find out that this is considered a "sex hygiene" film... really useful info to anyone just finding this article!

Honestly, it took me quite a while to figure out what this article was about, other than "a film". -Miskaton (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, my thoughts exactly. I had to go to IMDB to find out what the plot if the film was. Good article, but a plot synopsis section is definitely needed. -- Noj r (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is very well written, but I have no idea what an "exploitation film" is, nor what "genre" this film is. Both need to be explicitly explalined in the first sentence. Both have multiple meanings when discussing film.-- Nick Beeson (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's something that is probably difficult for many modern readers to understand. As far as I can make out from the article the film used the pretense of being an educational film about "hygiene" as a means of talking about and showing sexuality on-screen in a comparatively open way, thereby titilating the audience, presumably mostly consisting of teenagers. --86.135.122.45 (talk) 03:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article? This is well-written in most places, but its thesis is vague, its organization is average to less-than-average, it has glaring errors in punctuation...FA is a political game, and here's a good example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.238.92.21 (talk) 06:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also find this confusing. Was the film an genuine attempt to offer sex education or was it using sex education to present titulating material.--Frimbia (talk) 10:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Certainly a plot synopsis is needed in the lead paragraphs, per WP:LEAD. Madman (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Running Time

All the featured article says is that it's feature length. How long? MMetro (talk) 07:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third highest-grossing film of the 1940s?

This claim, that the film is the "third highest-grossing film of the 1940s", needs more citations. As far as I can tell, this is only supported by the Library of Congress press release which contains just 1 paragraph on the film. Certainly a press release, a genre known for its exaggeration, is not solid enough to make such bold statement. I have edited this slightly to say "it is claimed . . ." Madman (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Endings

"Mom and Dad is believed to have had a number of endings, although most typically concluded with the birth of the girl's child, sometimes stillborn and other times put up for adoption" Does it have multiple endings or not? This says that they may exist, and then gives examples of them as if they do. DocRocktopus (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is for porn

What's next for the main page? Deep Throat? 65.175.152.153 (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That depends. You should create an account and try to get it featured! :) –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPIN OFF

This interesting article woke me up to the fact that the tremendously successful Hindi film 'Aradhana'(1969), often thought of as an original classic, had borrowed the basic plot from 'Mom and Dad'! Arun Saxena (played by Rajesh Khanna, whose career soared after this film making him Hindi's biggest star till then), a pilot, seduces and beds a naive lass Vandana Tripathi (Sharmila Tagore). He is killed in a plane crash and the bereft, pregnant Vandana is not accepted by his family as they know nothing about the affair. Thereafter the film is a maudlin tear-jerker. AbhijitDe (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mom and Dad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]