Talk:Woman in Gold (film)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Relevance of "Books about Maria Altmann" section
[edit]I've added a {{relevance}} tag to the "Books about Maria Altmann" section because it's unclear as to why they are discussed here. The O'Connor book should be discussed, for example, if the title of the film is derived from its title and/or there is some other connection between the material of the book and the screenplay. I'm not sure if mentioning the book by Collins is relevant here; yes, it is the same subject as the film, but it's somewhat tangential to link, for example, every biography about Kennedy from JFK (film). --Kinu t/c 17:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Steve Mitchell
[edit]I have added a brief comment on the re-production of the painting, with-out going into the details covered in my source. Considering the amount of work that the scenic artist, Steve Mitchell, has done, maybe he should have a page.Kdammers (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Requested move 21 June 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: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 03:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Woman in Gold → Woman in Gold (film) – After discovering the root of where this film received its name, it seems that this subject may not be the primary topic, especially considering that it seems that the major point of film's plot is to get the "Woman in Gold" painting, an alternate name for Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I. So, since the root of the film's name, as well as its plot, seems to involve the subject called The Woman in Gold (a redirect towards Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I), I propose that this article be moved so that its current title can be a redirect to Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I. Steel1943 (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support — Makes sense. Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 23:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)ng
- Support, recently saw this very good film and the film is named after the alternate name of the painting, which should redirect there. Randy Kryn 23:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- SUPPORT PER NOM - NO BRAINER. –Davey2010Talk 01:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -Completely agree. "Woman in Gold" is a common alternate name for Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I and the name of this article could be changed to help direct people properly. Beifong3 (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
- Please make sure all incoming links to Special:WhatLinksHere/Woman in Gold are fixed. Jenks24 (talk) 03:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Grammar Issue
[edit]If someone is not alive at the time of an incident then how can they be the cause of such crime. You have to beg my indulgence as the following sentence seems out of sorts and I am not fully in command of the language to determine just what is wrong. And I would not want for WP to have a wrong statement in it making it appear stupid: "In Austria, the arbitration panel hears the case, during which time they are reminded of the Nazi Regime's war crimes by Schoenberg." Schoenberg was not alive at the time of the Nazi's therefore the crimes s=could not be of his doing. therefore would it not be better expressed by the following: "In Austria, the arbitration panel hears the case, during which time Schoenberg reminds them of the Nazi Regime's war crimes." Mind you I am not anything close to an expert but someone there must be aware of what is more correct than incorrect otherwise if I had not seen the movie I would be led to believe that Schoenberg was alive during the Nazi's time. Why would he be arguing against himself before an arbitration board for the very crime he caused. I know that attorneys can be cleaver but this is not reality.