Talk:Les Amants du Pont-Neuf

	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 French cinema task force.

France Mid‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ninth Bridge?

According to the article, in Australia the film was released as Lovers on the Ninth Bridge, but according to the article on the actual bridge, the 'neuf' means new (being the masculine form of neuve - more detail on that talk page). Is the inclusion of the Australian title correct, and was just a bad translation by the production company? Should this be pointed out in this article? -Tpacw (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

There seems to be a minor edit war going on about the title of this article: Les Amants du Pont-Neuf or The Lovers on the Bridge? According to Wikipedia naming conventions, the title should be Les Amants du Pont-Neuf. This is because although the film was released as The Lovers on the Bridge in the USA, it was released under its French title in other English-speaking countries. 23:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Support the move to Les Amants du Pont-Neuf. WP:NC(F) is clear: sometimes different English-speaking countries use different titles, in which case use the native title instead. In this case one of the various titles just happens to also be the native title. Andrewa 01:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support removal of superfluous appendage. Reginmund 23:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been renamed from Les Amants du Pont-Neuf (film) to Les Amants du Pont-Neuf as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 06:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 07:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References are not visible/editable

Any idea why the references for this article don't show up as editable? I was going to remove the eBay listing of the Australian DVD as it's a dead link. PointOfPresence (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the ebay reference. These references are editable where the number appears in the text, not in the references section, in case that is what you were trying. -84user (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Production' Section

I think we need to add some citations to this section, which as I understand it uses the 1991 documentary as its source. This is the open-access text of a book chapter which appears to me to back up most if not all of the info here: [1]. Unfortunately, this seems to be the text as originally delivered as a conference paper, so the page numbers don't match what they would be in the book (which isn't accessible in my country anyway), and though there's a substantial bibliography at the end of material about the film, there aren't individual citations to this in the chapter. I'd like to add citations to this chapter first of all, then amend these to the original media articles once I've chased these up. Hopefully this is OK. Per$1$tenceofv1$1on (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Synopsis

The plot synopsis reads absolutely fine, but it's about 170 words and the Wikipedia Style Manual says they're meant to be at least 400: [2]. I'd like to add a few details to this without padding it out unnecessarily. Per$1$tenceofv1$1on (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I doubt it's any better, but the plot synopsis is now just over 400 words. Per$1$tenceofv1$1on (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JP Box-office site

A previous editor added content about how Carax's first two features had done at the box office, but there were no citations to back this up. To make sure that everything in the article has a source, and because I'd rather not delete another editor's work without good reason, I've used the citations from these two movies' respective Wikipedia articles, but I'm not sure how reliable this site is as a source.

Labarde's 1989 article on Les amants starts by talking about Carax being flush from the success of Mauvais sang, and Heymann's first Le monde article describes him going on a round-the-world tour to promote it, yet Marc Esposito makes it sound as if it failed at the box office. I think the only way to resolve this is that it's a cinéma d'auteur movie which got rave reviews and wouldn't be expected to turn an actual profit. Per$1$tenceofv1$1on (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Cinémathèque française website seems to be more of an equivalent to the AFI or BFI sites but I can't see that it gives information about box office takings. Per$1$tenceofv1$1on (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Black Eyed Boy" video

The video for "Black Eyed Boy" by Texas seems to me to pay homage to two Carax movies: Mauvais sang (the man running wildly down the street, Denis Lavant style) and Les amants (the subway tunnel with multiple burning posters of a woman's face). If someone could find a reliable source to back this up I'd be delighted (and also gutted that someone else got there first)! Per$1$tenceofv1$1on (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]