Talk:The Fast and the Furious (1954 film)

Trivia

"This version of the film was the only film shown in black-and-white." - What is this supposed to mean? It doesn't make any sense. What "version"? This can't possibly be saying there are no other black and white films, can it? I didn't just delete it because I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean. nichie 04:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia2

This section is unverified and should really be incorporated into the article fully(ARBAY (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The title rights to the film was bought so that it (the title only) could be used for 2001's film of the same name.[citation needed]

I doubt if a citation could exist to verify this statement. Film titles cannot be copyrighted and the same title can be used for more than one film without permission or compensation.--Evgraf13 (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I've thus removed it. jSarek (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It found it's way in again, possibly because it is mentioned verbatim in IMDB Trivia. Kid Bugs (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Attribution or Link?

In the second paragraph there is a link to "The American Releasing Corporation" referring to the film as the first release by this company. The link, however, directs the reader to a company that was only active more than 50 years before this movie was made SayRayJ1RN (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page for AIP says it was first called American Releasing Corporation, maybe that's where the link should go?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_International_Pictures Electron.rotoscope (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's what it was already set up as in the infobox, so I've changed the article to match Electron.rotoscope (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing incorrect information from podcast

I listened to the podcast where Roger Corman talks about the naming rights, and he doesn't say he retained the rights for sequels, so I've removed "although Corman retained the right to make numerical sequels in the future (such as The Fast and the Furious 2)" from the article.

Host: [Talking about the 1954 movie] I hear a rumour that you're possibly going to do a remake?
Roger Corman: I don't think I can. I made a deal with Neal Moritz and the deal was kind of interesting. He had made this sort of car racing picture and they were in post production, and he didn't like the title. And his father was Milt Moritz, who [was the] head of advertising for AIP [the company Corman worked for, which had released the 1954 movie]. And he was talking to his father and he said "Can you think of any title?" and his father said "You know, Roger made a picture a long time ago called The Fast And The Furious. Do you think that's a good title?" and he thought about it for a while and he said "Yeah I think The Fast And The Furious is a good title!" So I sold the rights to Neil Moritz, so I think I can't make a sequel.

This is what's said in the relevant part of the cited podcast, Ep 8 of Charles Band's Full Moon Freakshow, from around 4 min in Electron.rotoscope (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]