Jump to content

Talk:Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931 film)

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

References to use

[edit]
Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Senn, Bryan (2006). "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931): Science, Society, and Sexuality". In Hogan, David J (ed.). Science Fiction America: Essays on SF Cinema. McFarland. pp. 17–23. ISBN 0786421495.

References

[edit]

Bold textToday I build the article somewhat (plot, awards, cast) and at the same time deleted sections that did not have references. Please do add the info back in with appropriate references. It's good stuff, but I do not know if the info is correct, how can anyone? Non sourced info does not belong on Wiki, please. I hope the info w/ refs is added back in. Best-- Luigibob 05:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Non sourced info does not belong on Wiki"? No, rather, "Sources do belong on Wikipedia".


Please don't delete material simply because it is not yet sourced. A great deal of Wikipedia content was originally added without sources, and sources added later. Some Wikipedians devote themselves primarily to sourcing unsourced statements. By deleting, you make it highly unlikely that such a specialist will come along and add sources, since they would have to have read your comment, and searched the history, to find out what needs sourcing.


Instead of deleting, tag statements or sections with the curly brackets like this:

"[Unsourced statement, blah, blah, blah. . . ]" {{Fact|date=Nov 2008}}

Which results in:

"[Unsourced statement, blah, blah, blah. . .]" [citation needed]

There is also a big box tag you can add to the top of the article to indicate that the article lacks citations (I don't know the code for that). This makes it easy for citation specialists (or those who are particularly interested in the subject matter) to know that citations are needed, and the individual tags show specifically.
[Additional note]: Consider, Wikipedia wouldn't even have these tags if the correct procedure was to immediately and permanently delete unsourced content. --63.25.28.184 (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--63.25.28.184 (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Verifiability says:
"This page in a nutshell: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. ... The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. ... Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them."
I believe that this mandates a higher standard of verifiability/citing than User talk:63.25.28.184 describes above. (My bold in quote.) -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1931 or 1932?

[edit]

Is this a 1931 or 1932 film? This DVD cover on IMDb states the latter, even though its corresponding IMDb article states the former. Neelix (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1931, since it was filmed in the autumn of that year and released on 31 December. (92.13.47.233 (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

No, 1932, since its general release was on January 2, 1932. It had its New York City premiere on December 31, 1931, but that's not the same thing. Both the AFI film catalog and the TCM database list it as 1932. It's true that IMDB lists it as 1931, so they must be going by the premiere. A premiere that lakes place in the previous year geberally has more to do with Oscar eliigibility than anything else, but we should go by when actual real people across the country got to see the film, which was in 1932. BMK (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

[edit]

There should be some mention on the film's reception (rotten tomatoes rating).--Paleface Jack (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 March 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. There's much to consider here. For one thing, it appears that many reliable sources treat this as a 1932 film. On the other hand, the sources verify that the film was released on December 31, 1931. The relevant naming guideline, WP:NCF, recommends that we disambiguate a film with "the year of its first verifiable release (including film festival screenings)", which in this case is 1931. It further appears that the consensus to go with the guideline's recommendation. It's important to remember that disambiguation exists only to distinguish articles from others with the same name; it's unlikely any reader will be confused by using either date, so neither is necessarily better or worse on those grounds. As such, I find that the consensus, supported by NCF, is to move the article. Cúchullain t/c 15:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1932 film) → Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931 film) – The film premiered in 1931. Koala15 (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The film's general release was in 1932. In discussion on my talk page Koala15 said that using the premiere year is "just how it's always been done", but was unable, when asked, to cite a guideline which said so. This is an issue which should not be decided on an article talk page, but in a centralized discussion, preferably on WikiProject Film. Contrary to Koala15, my understand has always been that the general release date was the date we used, but I'm happy to follow a guideline if one can be cited. I am not happpy to follow a localized consensus of what should be a community-wide discussion. In any event, both AFI - which is authoritative, and TCM list the film as 1932, while IMDB lists it as 1931 (but we're all aware of the problems with IMDB as a reliable source). As I said to Koala15 earlier, either the premiere date or the general release date is acceptable, but we need to be consistent. For the moment, based on my understanding of precedent, I oppose the move. BMK (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC) (See below for change of !vote). BMK (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A neutral pointer to this discussion was posted on the talk page of WikiProject Film. BMK (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been listed on Centralized Discussions. BMK (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A neutral pointer to this discussion has been posted on the talk page of WikiProject Disambiguation. BMK (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "(1931 film)" – The date of first release seems the most natural method. Despite "other stuff exists", it's worth noting that every other Wikipedia which needs a disambiguator uses "1931" in this case. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to 1931, per WP:NCF - "...add the year of its first verifiable release (including film festival screenings)." Also WP:FILMRELEASE goes on to state "Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release..." As there is a WP:RS from the AFI to say it was shown in 1931, then it's a 1931 film. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It can be hard to pin these down, but if it's good enough for the Oscars it should be good enough for us. bd2412 T 11:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, which makes me wonder if you "support" the 1932 date that the Academy uses... See my link below. Pinging BD2412. Carrite (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It does say, though, "Premiere Information: New York opening: 31 Dec 1931". Maybe this was a gimmick, but the film was obviously made in 1931, advertised in 1931, and shown at least once in 1931. bd2412 T 16:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, it's the year the film opened, began making money, and would be the year listed on actor's and director's credits and resumes. And per BD2412. Randy Kryn 12:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I dove into Newspapers.com to take a look at this. It is clear from press advertising that general release was to start at midnight of New Year's Eve 1932, see THIS LINK for example. The question becomes whether there was a verifiable pre-release, it seems to me. Carrite (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose change. The American Film Institute lists this as a 1932 film, per THIS LISTING with an official release date of Jan. 2, 1932. There was a widespread prerelease scheduled to start at midnight on New Year's Eve, clearly an organized promotion, see for example THIS AD, which lists an 11:30 pm start time, but also which had other material on the opening bill. One can argue that this was a Jan. 1-released movie, but it is almost certain that there was no scheduled release and no festival release before this date. Carrite (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The AFI state the date as 31st Dec. Saying that the advert with the 11:30pm start time would have the film starting after midnight would be original research. So unless there's something that clearly shows it started after midnight, all the sources (currently) point to a start date/time in 1931. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, unless there is a reliable source that mentions a public showing which was scheduled to end before the rollover second (00:00:00 at the beginning of January 1st), local time at theater. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the end time be a factor? Even if it was started one second to midnight, it would be on the 31st Dec. If you were catching a flight tonight at 23:59, that be a Tuesday flight and not a Wednesday flight. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is an absolutely pedantic argument. This was slated by Paramount for a New Year's eve midnight launch. See my AFI link. You are misrepresenting their call on the issue date of this film, which should be definitive... Carrite (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pedantic, but correct, which, incase you've missed it, is how things work around here. And I'm not misrepresenting anything. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a New Year's Eve event, and it's intended to go into the new year, then it should be treated as part of the new year, not the old one. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unusual for us to agree, Betty, but I, too, think that we should be consistent. As I said above either the premiere or the general release date should be used, and we should be consistent in doing so throughout all film articles. Is it really the case that nowhere on Wikipedia is a guideline for which should be used as a disambiguator? (Although this question arises even in films that don't need disambiguation, as the date of the film is generally included in the first paragraph of the lede.) For this not to have come up before is quite a surprises to me. BMK (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BMK - I don't know if you saw this. Does that help? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, actually it does, although I wish it was better written and more explicit. For instance, to my understanding neither a film festival showing nor a premiere is a "release", they're just "showings" - especially the film festival, when the film is typically shown once. Premieres, I guess, could be considered differently, as a premiere can lead to a general showing in the city of the premiere (although it is not always immediate - that is, I myself have seen films that premiered on, say, Saturday, and did not start regular showings until Thursday, the normal changeover day.) In any event, the intent of the page you cited seems clear: use the first showing (exempting previews, I assume?), whether a film festival, a premiere, or a general release. Were we starting from scratch, I'd argue for the general release or, at the very least, the premiere + immediate local release, but I'll bow to the previously established convention and go with what the page you cited says, which means a date of 1931. So, reluctantly, against my own personal better judgment, I now Support the RM. I'll strike through my previous !vote.
Lugnuts: Thank you for bringing that to my attention. BMK (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No probs. In essence, it's the first screening excluding a preview. I do a lot of work around films at film festivals (esp. Berlin, Cannes, Venice, etc), and it can be a bone of contention for some films. In most cases, the film does get screened a few times at the big festivals before being released. A recent good/bad example is Mud. First screened in competition at Cannes in May 2012. Then some more festival releases, before getting a limited US release in April 2013, and finally a wide US release in May 2013, almost a year to the day since it's premiere. Happy days. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per evidence of Betty Logan, Lugnuts and others.Pincrete (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Citation and Missing Information

[edit]

This article is off to a good start, however there are several issues that need to be fixed. The production section of the article could be expanded more, this section also has a major portion of its information that is unsourced and needs to be given proper citations for its information. The reception section could use more reviews from notable critics as well as more information on the film's box office. This article is also missing important information on the film's theatrical/home media releases which needs to be added to the article with citations given to its information. The article is also missing important information on the film's legacy hand how it changed the audience's view on the character of Edward Hyde and the film's impact in popular culture. All of these changes and additions need to occur in order for this article to meet Wikipiedia's guidelines and standards of a well developed and properly sourced article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dr._Jekyll_and_Mr._Hyde_(1931_film)&oldid=1201641487"