Jump to content

Talk:Out of Africa (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:114624 africa l.jpg

Image:114624 africa l.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) 04:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing needed

About editing the "Out of Africa" entry:

On 23Sep02, the section was begun about the film Out of Africa and has been expanded/revised more than 40 times.

During Nov. 23-26, 2005, details on the book were expanded to include publisher/year, time/places of events, literary style, and availability of the book.

During Nov. 23-26, 2005, details about the film Out of Africa were expanded to include: actors Bowens/Iman, 28 film awards, extra plot-resolution details, production details (location/cast, musical score, scenery, pace, mood), and detailed comparisons between the film & book. Sources were added to "External Links" and the entry about Denys Finch Hatton was created.

On 26Nov05, began this Discussion section & removed "We Don't Have an Article" to avoid total erasure of article. [-SBS, 4.152.105.15 20:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)]

There are sections of this article that are very poorly written and in drastic need of editing and attention. One such example is the section entitled "production." The word sophisticated is used many times for no reason and I'm a bit unsure what facts the paragraph is trying to promote. Since this should be encyclopedic in nature, I think it should be rewritten or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.4.229.75 (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree on this point. I found that section entirely confusing and unnecessary. It didn't seem to relate to the film in the least; it's only point seems to be that the script is more sophisticated somehow than other films, which doesn't seem quantifiable. Evixir (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I deleted the third paragraph, the one mostly about "sophistication". It read like a school essay -- someone inventing a dubious claim then trying to justify it with tenuous examples. The other two paragraphs in that section could also be improved, but are not as irrelevant as the one I deleted. Chris Loosley (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I have also reorganized this section to place the comments in chronological order. Chris Loosley (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Technical

There seems to be some confusion as to why Pollack claimed the film was shot "4:3" instead of "widescreen". Though he put it rather awkwardly (actually, he phrased it in laymen's terms), he was right (in a manner of speaking).

An aspect ratio of 1.85:1 is achieved by shooting non-anamorphic and (during filming, printing or projection) masking the top and bottom of the picture. Obviously, Pollack referred to shooting flat instead of anamorphic (which would have given the picture more scope).--Dvd-junkie (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Production

Quote: "Robert Redford became Finch Hatton once Redford thought he had a charm no British actor could convey." Could it be that it should read Pollack? --31.18.218.72 (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Out of Africa (film). 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) 20:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Photo of Robert Redford

User:HAL333, you added a photo of Robert Redford to the article, and I removed it on the grounds that it adds nothing that's informative about the film that's the subject of the article. He's a member of the cast, but his photo can be found at the article on him, and the photo isn't related to his appearance in the film decades before it was shot.

You restored the photo, with the surprising edit summary "There's already a precedent to do so at film articles and Redford is one of the two main characters if this film." It's surprising because you linked "precedent" to Wikipedia:SSEFAR, which not only doesn't supply evidence of any such precedent, but is in fact a counterargument to justifying what's done in one article by pointing to what's been done in some other articles.

I submit to anyone else who'd like to comment my original objection: the photo simply isn't useful to the reader in the context of this article. In addition, as he played the number two character and there isn't a photo of the number one character, it appears a little unbalanced anyway.

Returning to WP:SSEFAR, it follows that it may be worth reviewing articles to which you're referring to see whether such photos are more relevant to the articles in which they've been placed, or whether they might possibly be removed as well for the same reasons. I've given for this one. Largoplazo (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

See the featured article Die Hard, which has a photo of Bruce Willis from 30 years after the film's release. For comparison, the Redford photo is from 27 years after Out of Africa' release. ~ HAL333 00:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Have to say I agree with Largoplazo. Pictures of actors decades removed from their roles don't inform us in any way about a movie. The Die Hard example is especially silly because there is already a picture in the article of Willis from the Oscar ceremony of the time. Much more relevant and informative. Just for comparison, would you use this picture to illustrate the article for the movie Poor Little Rich Girl? --Khajidha (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
After I'd already pointed out to you "It's surprising because you linked "precedent" to Wikipedia:SSEFAR, which not only doesn't supply evidence of any such precedent, but is in fact a counterargument to justifying what's done in one article by pointing to what's been done in some other articles", what should we make of your responding by attempting to justify what's been done in one article by pointing to what's been done in some other article? Largoplazo (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)