Jump to content

Talk:Julie & Julia

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

Tags

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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...

[edit]

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]
A Trailer is an ad, and in ads lying is mandatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.125.53 (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Republican Bias

[edit]

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilhenny (talk • contribs) 19:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:N and WP:RS. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 20:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes all sources fall under those guidlines.Evilhenny (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

No, none of them do. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 20:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are not valid sources. Also, if some Republican still wants to align himself with the infamous Senator McCarthy, that says a lot more about that politician than it does about this movie. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the movie itself cannot be used as a reference? The scene with her boss bashing Republicans was an obvious insertion to attack Republicans. Why does it have to have "notable reviews" to make it the truth? That seems silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.246.33 (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

[edit]

Evilhenny has violated the 3-revert rule, and Bovineboy is right at it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've stopped for now; s/he hasn't and doesn't seem to be interested in discussion. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 20:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reported the user for stomping on the 3 revert rule, and if the admins are attentive today (Xmas eve) he will soon be blocked for edit warring. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leave this crap out. It's undue weight. If it was worth mentioning, there would have been discussion from multiple reliable sources about the theme. Erik (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Julia and Paul Child in France during the post-WWII era were long before today's Democrat-Republican adversity. But they were exposed and subject to the conservative and tyrannical House Committee on Un-American Activities questioning. Read the book My Life in France by Julia Child, and you'll understand and sympathize with all they went through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.109.173 (talk) 05:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tyrannical = something I disagree with. 216.236.164.177 (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]

English Grammar of This Article

[edit]

As I found it, the 3rd paragraph, last sentence read: "Julie & Julia also reunited Streep with Stanley Tucci, having previously shared the screen in the 2006 box office smash The Devil Wears Prada." I am changing the word "having" to 'who'. The subject of the first part is J&J the movie. The subject of the run-on is Streep & Tucci. I think this is the best way to fix it, the minimum change. Friendly Person (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Original blog no longer in existence

[edit]

As mentioned recently on an internet studies e-mail list, the original blog, of potentially useful/valuable importance both to the context of the project itself as well as the movie, has gone down, and seems to have been gone for quite some time. If anyone finds a mirror, it would probably be smart to add that as well as adding a note that the original blog now is 404'ed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.70.47 (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Child's sister & her husband

[edit]

I am watching the movie "Julie & Julia" and I see the character of Julia Child's sister, Dorothy McWilliams. Dorothy married Ivan Cousins, whom she met in France while visiting Julia and Paul. Prior to meeting Dorothy, Ivan's Paris roommate was the beat poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti (per My Life in France by Julia Child and Alex Prud'Homme (Julia's great nephew).

Trivia, but I like to fill out the connections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.109.173 (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The info is interesting, and if this were an article about Cousins or even Dorothy McWilliams I would say it should be added (with an accompanying reference to the book and page in the book). To introduce something like that into the article would likely be considered undue weight and eventually would be removed. Lhb1239 (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Julie & Julia. 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) 06:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Julie & Julia. 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) 13:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julie_%26_Julia&oldid=1236969704"