Jump to content

Talk:A Christmas Story/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Heidi Parker

Er... latest revision has a character named Heidi Parker. There was no such character in the movie. Anyone know if she was in the book? (article is labeled as being about the movie, still...) Fuzzy 20:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, checking contributions by this IP address, it seems they have a history of doing this to various pages; they recently got the SImpons Character page. Reverting changes. Fuzzy 20:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Quick question - it says in the credits that Grover Dill was promoted to main bully in A Summer Story. I could have sworn that the main bully there was someone who had moved into town after Christmas Story, and that you could see Grover with Skut and the new guy. What's the deal?

Darren McGavin website addition

Someone posting anonymously keeps adding a line in the external links, "www.darrenmcgavin.net" As it barely even mentions A Christmas Story, I've been deleting it. He keeps re-adding it. Looking around, it seems he's posted it on several other entries, including the Darren McGavin site. He seems to have been doing this for Jack Grinnage too. *shrug* The Kolchak entry just cleaned up his link code and let it be. Personally, I think the link really only belongs on McGavin's entry. Some of the other shows, one could arguably link the secton of McGavin's page which deals with it, but he doesn't even have A Chistmas Story as a linked page on there. Am I in the right here or am I the (tragically misguided) villain? -Fuzzy 21:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the current version. I guess, as much as anything, the crude nature of the link and the fact that it was spammed across several articles bothered me. I still think it's more apropos on the Darren McGavin entry than here, but I'll live. -Fuzzy 17:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little miffed that the entire Trivia section is gone with no discussion and, unless I messed something, no merging in of that material. (Good job on the cleanup otherwise, though.) What say you to a brief "In popular culture" section in line with other articles, for those items that fit this description? It's not as it this article is overly long. Karen | Talk | contribs 15:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. The only problem with trivia sections is that they become a dumping ground for random information, but if it's an "in popular culture" section, we might get away with it. Mike 16:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What of Messy Marvin?

I have always thought the original marketing of the film, and its style, were greatly influenced by Peter's popular 'Messy Marvin' commercials for Hershey's. As a kid, I expected the film to be little more than a feature-length treatment of that quirky-kid and droll-narrator 'gag' which had been so effective in those ads. Of course, the movie is much better than that, but, I still think there was an intentional connection there, and its probably worth including in the wiki page, except, I suppose someone needs to do a little more research on the subject beyond my mere speculation. Examples: Commercial1 Commercial2 Shane 22 November 2006

Vandals

Some people are attempting to place inappropriate titles and images on this page. Given the season and the popularity of the film, such material would probably gather a large audience. Maybe the page should be locked? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ulairix (talk • contribs) 21:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

That is disgusting what was just posted! I'm not experienced enough w/ Wiki to fix what was just posted but could someone take this on?-Teofil Bartlomiej 21:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously its really messed up. I'm not even a member of wikipedia and I just tried to look up this movie...-_- 71.224.251.160 21:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

See WP:REVERT. I put the page on my watchlist. Grandmasterka 01:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not an Air Rifle

The gun sought by the young boy is a spring fired BB gun. A BB gun is very different from an air rifle. An air rifle uses compressed air to propel the projectile and has a much higher, and possibly lethal, muzzle velocity. The use of the term rifle should be removed from this article. The Red Ryder is NOT and air rifle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.14.172.51 (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

To the extent that the term "air rifle" is a direct quote from the film, that needs to be retained as an accurate description of what Ralphie called it at (if memory serves) at least two points in the film. When the Red Ryder BB Gun is referred to outside of such quotations, it is already correctly referred to as a BB gun. Thanks for the information, though. Karen | Talk | contribs 19:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, all BB guns/pellet rifles that are non-ignition propelled (meaning do not use fire to propel) are classified as air rifles. The spring in the BB gun on the old Daisy models did, in fact, serve to compress enough air to propel the BB. No, these were not the same as high velocity and, as you say, 'possibly lethal,' air rifles available today, but the Daisy model in the film is still an air rifle. Even though there is no pumping, or using a CO2 cartridge, there is some air compression. I had one when I was a kid, before graduating to a Daisy Power-line series which was a pump action. You're right, there is a big difference, but it's still air propelled... and in any case, Ralphie calls it an air rifle in the film. Ryecatcher773 00:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of info irrelevant to main article

While it is interesting that the movie has reached a point where a museum has been opened to commemorate it, and also that the Chinese restaurant is taking part in the hype, certain details (such as C&Y's resultant business gains), are irrelevant to the main article and should not be included. The title of the article is, A Christmas Story. Before editing it again, you may want to look into the Wikipedia guidelines on indiscriminate information. Ryecatcher773 16:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, although personally I would consider the cleaver renactment notable. I did change the citation, though, on the basis that a news article in a major newspaper is a better source than a press release on a tourism site. Also, the full name of the attraction is "A Christmas Story House", per their website and other sources. Karen | Talk | contribs 17:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Good call. Including the chopping off of the duck's head is acceptable since it is a reference to the movie scene, so long as it is cited.Ryecatcher773 17:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That local businesses have taken advantage of the film's popularity to increase their own profits definitely is relevant. That a restaurant would double its business solely due to linking itself to a cult film is a sign of the film's impact on popular culture and worthy of mention. Furthermore, it's not necessary to have so many different citations in this section, since my citation of the New York Times article covers everything mentioned. SFTVLGUY2 15:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I have pointed you to the link (indiscriminate information) so that you might see what is being objected to here. The article is not about the house, it's about the movie. The house has been mentioned because it is a current event. Even the mention of the Chinese restaurant is there. But outside of that, however, the info you're posting (business figures, revenue numbers, package deals at a hotel, etc.) borders on something akin to a tourism-guide, which also goes against Wikipedia policy. Please do not keep reverting it back. If you want to start another article strictly about the house and the tourism industry in Cleveland that revolves around it, by all means, feel free. Thank you. Ryecatcher773 13:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
You are choosing to interpret indiscriminate information one way, and I am choosing to interpret it another. That the Radisson Hotel is offering packages in conjunction with the film does not constitute travel guide information, it is an example of how local businesses have jumped on the bandwagon now that the house and museum have opened as tourist attractions, which is a direct link to the film. That a bit player in the movie is using her connection to the film to promote a home business also is significant. Furthermore, you keep adding multiple citations to outside sources when one is sufficient. If the article isn't about the house, as you allege, then the section pertaining to it shouldn't be included at all. I didn't add it, it was already there - I simply enhanced it. Just because it's not to your liking doesn't make it wrong. Suggesting a separate article be written is ludicrous - Wikipedia is already overloaded with too many articles about one subject, for example, one article for a play, another for its film version, a third for the film's remake, a fourth for the remake's Broadway musical adaptation, etc., etc. Anything and everything pertaining to a subject should be included in ONE article. Happy Holidays! SFTVLGUY2 19:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If the article isn't about the house, as you allege, then the section pertaining to it shouldn't be included at all.

Good point. I have saved you the trouble and gone ahead making it into its own article. Merry Christmas. Ryecatcher773 19:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia Section

I have added the trivia section back to this article. Remember... this is a community article and most of the community members like the trivia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bamassippi (talk • contribs) 22:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Trivia sections should be avoided, per WP:TRIVIA. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Trivia sections, by definition, are unencyclopedic. "Fun facts" are unencyclopedic. Fancruft is unencyclopedic. Take a look at section Wikipedia:What is a good article?, particularly 3b. The JPStalk to me 23:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. Trivia sections are nothing but facts in a non-paragraph form. They are so for the fact that it is hard to build paragraphs around the short tid bits of information. And besides... who died and made you WikiGod? Trivia sections exist in thousands of Wikipedia articles. Why should this article be any different simply because you deem it "unimportant." Let's take a vote. User:Bamassippi

If you would like to amend the polict, go to WP:TRIVIA's talk page and give it a try, but edit warring about it here is not going to help matters. - Mike (Talk) 03:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, fudge!

Compare IMDB's trivia page[1] with text in this article. The "trivia" I've tried to merge into other sections of the article started off as an almost word for word match of the IMDB page.[2] For all I know both may have come from a common source, but either way, we'll need to do some rewriting to avoid copyvio issues. Karen | Talk | contribs 05:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Perfectly understandable. I double-dog dare you to keep it in. User:Bamassippi

Which is why there are many articles with trivia sections! It's much easier to add stuff, including copy and pastes from other sites, than it is no clean them up. There is a selection of what the community has judged as the best articles on film at Category:FA-Class film articles. The couple I've randomly clicked on do not have trivia sections.
As for copyvio issues, I believe Mavarin has integrated some of the trivia into the other sections? If we cite at the appropriate places we can avoid charges of plagiarism, if they are sufficiently notable pieces of information. The JPStalk to me 08:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Basically I've gone through and done my best to rephrase all the merged material in different words, expand or cut it down as needed, and cite sources for underlying facts. There's a long way to go on citations, but I don't think there are any whole sentences left that match IMDB. Karen | Talk | contribs 08:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ralphie's Mom and the 'Battle of the Lamp"

Whats the deal with the bit about turning the leg lamp off and leaving all other lights on having a spot in the trivia section? Isn't that just... story? If we're putting that in for trivia one might as well ad "Everyone tells Ralphie he'll shoot his eye out but he gets a BB gun away." Perhaps I'm missing the point here but it doesn't seem like trivia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.235.156.163 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 25 December 2006.

I think someone was trying to make a point that this was either a mistake, a gag, or an interesting bit of character development, and didn't know where else to put the observation. Considering that Trivia sections are deprecated on Wikipedia in favor of working such items in elsewhere, I deleted it. Better still would be a Character section describing each of the Parkers (and others) in more detail. Then Mrs. Parker's disingenuous excuse could be placed in the context of her tactics in dealing with her husband, not to mention her attitude toward the lamp. There are a few good quotes to be had about this from the commentary and so on - but it's a lot more work than a one-sentence observation marked "trivia". Karen | Talk | contribs 04:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Photograph added

I added a couple of recents photographs I had from the cast of Christmas Story that I took myself and I hope they help to enhance the article (hopefully no one has a problem with it) and I hope to be able to add some more of the cast in the future. Let me know if I formatted them correctly ?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 02:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yano Anaya
Yano Anaya
To be honest, I think they overwhelm that section of the article, and are kind of peripheral to the subject. It's great to have them in the actors' articles, but here they detract. I tried formatting them smaller, but I couldn't keep them from hiding text and other problems. By the way, the captions (which are a bit long anyway) only show up if you have |thumb| in the image format. I won't delete them for now; perhaps someone else will have some thoughts about this. Regards.... Karen | Talk | contribs 07:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If someone wants to start articles on the actors, then go for it. Otherwise, this is inconsistent with the article title. After all, this isn't a VH-1 segment of Where Are They Now... ya know? Ryecatcher773 01:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. If you create articles for the notable actors, then the images are definitely of use. But this is about the film, and only imagery from the film, or its production, is the primary relevance. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:A christmas story bunny.jpg

Image:A christmas story bunny.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Name changes and redirects and disambigs and such

Okay, I'm trying to wrap my brain around this. I think it's probably safe to say that 98.5% (or so) of people looking up "A Christmas Story" on Wikipedia want the 1983 film. Of the rest, most would follow the link at the top to Nativity of Jesus. I'd be very surprised to learn anyone was looking for the two silent films by this title or the Lassie episode, but if they are, by all means, yes, there should be a disambiguation page. Even so, IMO, the basic article about the film should have remained A Christmas Story, simply because that's the overwhelmingly common use of the term.

Instead the article was cut-pasted with no prior discussion or consensus to A Christmas Story (1983 film), moved back, and then redirected correctly (if ill-advisedly) to a title with the film's year in it. Now the title by itself is a disambig page, so that nobody gets what they want on the first try. I probably should have come straight here with my concern, but instead I left messages on two talk pages, and probably made things worse.

Here's what I think should be here:

A Christmas Story - should be this article. A Christmas Story (disambiguation) - should list this article, the Lassie ep, the Nativity of Jesus, and possibly the two silent films I found in IMDB, if anyone ever writes articles about them.

I can live with this change, but I really think it's a poor outcome in terms of people finding what they want quickly and easily instead of wading through an extra layer or two. But I'm just one person. What does everyone else think? --Karen | Talk | contribs 09:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Your new arrangement seems much more logical than the other recent ones. Thanks! --Karen | Talk | contribs 00:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Store info is incorrect

In the settings/locations section, the department store Higbee's is mentioned. Hammond Indiana never had a Higbee's. Their only large department store around that time was called Goldblatt's.[3]

Since I haven't edited Wiki before, didn't want to do something wrong and mess it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.161.202 (talk) 06:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Plot Synopsis

I haven't seen this movie since last Christmas (and I don't own a DVD player, alas), but it occurred to me that this article could benefit from a brief synopsis of the movie's plot. Any takers?--Marysunshine 18:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't 10. Ralphie was "a boy of 9" as per the narration during the decoding in the bathroom segment. Not a direct quote but something like "30 seconds later I was in the only room in the house where a boy of 9 could decode in private". I believe there were other mentions of him being 9 years old.Martyrc (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This article doesn't even have the MPAA rating?

Title says. Sorry if it sounds like I'm being a lazy bitch for not adding it, but this is just /palmface. TheKillerAngel (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Cussing mess up

Okay I'm confused about something. So Ralphie is 9 years old and he finds the "F" word bad (like everyone should), but later in the film he purposely says "Son of a ..". What's with that? 68.164.90.208 01:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  • It is a movie, but I think the premis was that Ralphie blurted out the f-word right in front of his father...meant getting in deep trouble. The SOB remark was whispered to himself in private (no parents around). Just an observation....Doctorindy 16:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I was 9 years old in 1960, and it appears that the seame 'rules' were in effect then as in 1940 (or whenever): while a child might be severly scolded for uttering something like 'S.O.B.', saying the "F" word was far more severe, and usually punishable the same way as it was in 1940 (soap in the mouth). I suppose those rules no longer apply, but that is the way it was not so many years ago. Just as Ralfie stated: it was the mother of all swear words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.116.182.251 (talk) 21:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The crime isn't saying it. The crime is getting caught saying it. 216.75.188.196 (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Setting

I'm watching this through AT&T U-Verse, and the description says it takes place in Indiana. The wikipedia article says it's in Ohio. This should be verified.

EDIT: Sorry, this was either fixed right when I posted this message, or I read the article wrong.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.114.235 (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The Bully's Name

There seems to be some confusion concerning the name of the bully; I've seen it changed a number of times recently. According to the the film's page in IMDB, the correct spelling is "Scut Farkus." See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085334/. Additionally, although I do not know how reliable it is, the A Christmas Story House website also has the name as "Scut Farkus." Unless anyone has a reliable source with a different spelling, I think we should keep it like this. See http://www.achristmasstoryhouse.com/trivia.shtml. --Msl5046 (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Both the closing credits and the close captions spell it Scut. Jeran Sheperd's short stories also spell it this way. Those who change it to Scott are doing so in error. MarnetteD | Talk 16:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hohman, not Hammond

The movie is set in HOHMAN, Indiana not Hammond. Hohman is clearly a fictional version of Hammond, there's a Hohman Avenue in Hammond, but saying the movie is set in Hammond is not correct. I will change this information in a day or two. 76.29.42.98 (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The plot section in the Beginning lists the city as "Hulman, Indiana", But later in the locations section it lists it as "Hohman" I think we should at least be consistant, so I am changing both to say Hohman.Vettrock (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dating the story

The Dating the Story section has grown beyond absurdity. Way too many overly-literal "examples" made up by less-than-casual observations in the film. Does anyone really think Jean Shephered looked up NFL game results when he thought of the "Chicago Chipmunks" line? Not hardly. It's just one of those things people say. People today call their favorite teams a bunch of bums the second they have an incomplete pass.

Randy getting a zepplin means his mom was "thrify?" That's rediculous. This is a movie.

Whoever rewrote that section this week seems to have a tone of "NAH UHH...YOUR'RE WRONG". It's sloppy and most of it needs to be removed. It does not contribute to the article...it looks like an arguement between editors. Doctorindy (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


The oldest the setting can be is 1939 due to visual references of Snow White (in Higbee's display window) and the Wiz of Oz (in the mall while waiting for Santa). Both films were released in 1939. There is also a uniformed soldier gazing into the display window at the very beginning of the movie. That doesn't prove conclusively any specific date, but does suggest it may have taken place during the war years (1941-1945), although there still existed soldiers in uniform before 1941. The most likely date range I can surmise just based on the above is 1939-1941. TheDoof (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

All of this speculation about the date amounts to original research, and it is utterly irrelevant. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 05:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
You are right about that. That section was put in years ago when that kind of thing was allowed but you could certainly remove it if you want. That would certainly cut back on the edits stating that it takes place in this or that year. This page often gets a ton of edits for the next few weeks which just makes the removal a better idea. MarnetteD | Talk 16:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I removed it last night along with some other cleanup. But, yeah, the next month or so is going to be active as everyone and their brother watches it on tv and decides to add some seemingly-salient detail. Meh. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 21:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Oops completely missed that you had already made the change. Things going over my head like that are why I have a bald spot :-) Good work. MarnetteD | Talk 23:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Similarities with "The Simpsons"

The movie has a lot of similarities with the Simpson's premiere, "Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire." I had drafted a succinct line about it, but the Wiki Thought Police censored it. 108.23.216.206 (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

thought police - not really. Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS to begin with. There are plenty of places on the web that you can expound on your theories but unless you have an interview with the creators of that first episode stating that they were specifically referencing this film then any WP:SPECULATION is not suitable for an encyclopedia. In reality that episode has more in common with the episode of Married With Children that aired the same night than it does with this film. MarnetteD | Talk 03:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Musical

Shouldn't the musical [4] be included in this article? Geeky Randy (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sequel

A sequel is in production. Not much information about it yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.72.122 (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Time period?

What time period is the movie supposed to have been set in? I know it was made in the 1980s but the settings in the move certainly makes it feel like it's a bit older than that. This info should probably be in the article. --69.138.178.196 21:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the pop culture references place the film as taking place in 1939 to 1942. I've added a paragraph about this. Karen | Talk | contribs 00:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
A couple of points as to the time period - the Look magazine that Ralphie hides his Red Ryder ad in is the December 21, 1937 issue. But, the Old Man seems to be reading the Sunday comics on Christmas morning (they are in color) and Christmas was on a Sunday in 1938. But, I do agree it is supposed to be ambiguous when it is set. (unsigned)
In one really quick shot, when Ralphie is deciphering the Little Orphan Annie code, you can see on the side of the decoder "1940". I don't know if this is a date or not but I've paused the DVD on that frame and it's a clear "1940" stamped on the side.Martyrc (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Under Plot it says it takes place in 1954, while under settings it says it may take as early as 1939. Where does the 1954 date come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.184.29.217 (talk) 02:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because it is the 1950s because I remember watching this before and there was already a MALL of America in the movie so it must be during that time. Punkymonkey987 (talk) 06:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
That's not a mall. It's a large department store in the downtown area of a small city. Every town of any size had at least one. A multi-story building, with areas of open space suitable for special promotions. Such as Santa Claus greeting children at Christmas time. The movie clearly shows this as a store named "Higbee's", occupying half a city block, and several stories high. I see nothing that resembles a shopping mall in this movie. Eelb53 (talk) 09:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
My wife and I are watching the movie now, and we were discussing the time period because of the fact that Ralphie's school is integrated. If this movie were set in the late 30's - early 40's the schools were not integrated yet. So, it seems quite likely that the movie is set in the mid-late 50's. davidsmith82 (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The fact that the school in the film is integrated is probably an anachronism overlooked by the director and probably not even taken into account when they were casting children for the roles of the students. As mentioned, the director mentioned first hand in the DVD commentary that it was supposed to be "late 30s/early 40s," a loose, ambiguous date. Doctorindy (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
In the northern states (where the film is obviously set), it's not universally true that schools were segregated. Neighborhoods were definitely segregated on a de facto if not always de jure basis, so schools were often de facto segregated, but it's not inconceivable that the school would have a few nonwhite students in this period. There was not a system of entirely separate schools as in the South. Moncrief (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Watching the TBS marathon as I write. I was Ralphie's age in the mid-1950's, and have always seen the film as reflective of the world I knew at that time. I do think though, that 1940 is an appropriate year for the movie's setting. Although the late-1930's-mid 1950's time frame saw great changes due mostly to WW II, American pop culture and consumer products are largely stagnant during this period. Coal furnaces were prevalent, cars looked the same, and many families got their entertainment from large piece of furniture radios. TV had come along, but wasn't in every home by any means. Fashion and popular music changed very little over this time period. Anyone whose childhood Christmas' occurred in this 15 year period, relates to the setting.Eelb53 (talk) 09:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)eelb53

This issue never really got resolved, did it? I'm amazed there's no discussion at all of time period in the article, even to say that there's uncertainty about when exactly it's set. To a person wholly unfamiliar with the topic, by omission they would assume the movie is set in 1983, the year it was released. Can a mention of it being a period film be put in the article somewhere, please? Moncrief (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

  • You might want to continue reading both this page and the article. There was a resolution in a section below and it resulted in this A Christmas Story#Dating the story section in the article which can be easily accessed from the table of contents. BTW if anyone would assume this is set in 1983 - well all I can say is that they must have had slept through all of their history classes in school. MarnetteD | Talk 18:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Moved from the article (posted today)
Director Bob Clark stated in the film's DVD commentary that he and author Shepherd wished for the movie to be seen as "amorphously late 30s, early 40s," but a specific year is never mentioned. Wizzard of Oz characters are seen in the parade and department store. It can be assumed this was following the release of the motion picture in late 1939. The Little Orphan Annie decoder is also dated 1940. If the story was from Christmas 1941, WW2 would most certainly have been on the minds and in the culture of the day. Christmas 1940 is a reasonable assumption based on facts in the movie.  – posted by IP:99.116.4.99 earlier today on the article.
Moved by – Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 15:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
This article sees this kind of entry of and on but we will get more of it in the next month. If you dig into the history we had a much larger section of it a long time ago. It is, of course, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH so its removal is quite proper. The mention of Clark's DVD commentary is quite sufficient to cover the subject. Thanks for your vigilance in this GG-J. MarnetteD | Talk 16:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Considering the lack of historical knowledge of today's youth, I can understand someone born post 1990, possibly thinking that the movie reflected contemporary life in 1983. I don't think the evolution of home heating, automobiles, and popular music, is covered in K-12 history classes anyway. Eelb53 Eelb53 (talk) 05:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
I meant a person just reading this article would assume as much, one "wholly unfamiliar with the topic" -- i.e., not one who had seen the film. Thanks for pointing me in the direction of the one sentence in the article that deals with this issue. Generally with period pieces, that information is presented a bit further up in the article, but it sounds like this issue was resolved to people's satisfaction. Moncrief (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I am sure posting this way is incorrect. Sorry about that. Anyway, after seeing this film more than a hundred times through the years, I've only just noticed that the Little Orphan Annie Decoder thingie has a date of '1940' inscribed on it. If the movie takes place in the 1950's, I am sure the fan club would not send him a decoder that has a fifteen year plus date on it. I wonder if this was a subtle way for the producers give a clue as to when it takes place? Anyway, I think it's 1940. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.51.196 (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Not at all.
You are, apart from the lack of any indenting – please read this for all you will ever need to know – quite correct in posting your comment here. Thank you for doing so and continue to watch for any response from other readers – I have taken the liberty of tidying-up the indenting from the top to assist other readers following this thread.
I would refer all readers to the post above, dated 18:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC) by MarnetteD, which I have highlighted with a bullet point.
Happy New Year! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 09:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Auchansa

Re- your contributions to this article. I noticed that you have twice added commentary to this article. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments here, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you.  –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 06:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Please refrain from continuing to make non-constructive edits to A Christmas Story. Your edits could appear to some as being vandalism. Please don't worry about it; they have been reverted. Thank you.  –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 06:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I see that you zealously watch and guard that article. However, the section heading is inaccurate. The rifle in the film is not the same as any sold or presented elsewhere. Auchansa (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Good morning Auchansa,
Thank you for your response. I appreciate your doing so. I have modified the notice above to read less severely.
You must learn about indenting. I have inserted the correct indent for your posting (above)
The sub-heading is just that ... a heading, not a description. I'm here to help you. Please continue ...
Good editing! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 10:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I concur with GG-J's assessment. Per the MoS section headers are meant to be brief. The section is then used to describe the necessary details. I would support any consensus to keep the section header in question as is. MarnetteD | Talk 21:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

2012 ratings

Subplots?

I don't think I've ever seen a film plot summary with a "Subplots" section before, but I grant that this may be a special case. That said I think there's far too much information here, and much of it lacks sourcing. My gut instinct is to at least trim it down to sourced material. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? Thanks. DonIago (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello D. The subplots probably (I did not add them) came about because this film was based on several shorts stories by Jean Shephard. There is little doubt it could use some trimming or even a reworking so that the plot is told in chrono order. Be aware that the film is such a part of the US culture that you will find a number of editors (IPs and named) who want there favorite part in. I know you have dealt with that kind of thing before but I just thought I would mention it. Best of luck in your endeavors. MarnetteD | Talk 22:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I slimmed down the main plot to just the BB gun plot. I think the current form works, but I wouldn't object to trying to tie all the subplots into one chronological plot. ParacusForward (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks all. I may just trim out the unsourced subplots and see how close that gets us to the recommended word count. I'm not sure I'll feel up to the task of trying to integrate the subplots into the primary summary, but I won't rule it out either. Giving this at least a couple of more days to see what other editors think. DonIago (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Eh, nevermind, going to work on it now. I'm distinctly bored at work. :p DonIago (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Table of contents?

Why is there no table of contents on this page? A t_o_c should be automatically generated when there are three or more messages, which there are on this page, yet there is no table of contents. Something is amiss... ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 04:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Well that is odd. You might ask at the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Maybe @Redrose64: can figure out what is going on if they have the time - and many thanks if you do. MarnetteD | Talk 06:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 Done Adding table of contents template. Cheers to all three named here! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
And  Done, the correct fix was this edit. Whenever a talk page with 4 or more (n.b. not 3 or more) sections fails to show a TOC, it's almost always something in the WikiProject banners; and 9 times out of 10 turns out to be a to-do list which includes a heading of some kind. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
My thanks to you both for working this out. Your time is much appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 17:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Location

Several scenes were filmed in Toronto, not just the one mentioned. The scene where they are buying the Christmas tree and the scene where they are viewing the store front windows for example. Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) street cars can be seen prominently in these scenes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.113.232 (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

1940 decoder pin

This reversion [5] was the right thing to do, however, the content on the decoder pin was actually correct. The article states that the year of the film's setting is ambiguous by design. I agree that the year is never mentioned, however, it's actually not that ambiguous if you pay attention to what's happening in the film. The Wizard of Oz film characters appear in the Christmas parade as well as at the department store. The film was released in August 1939, so it's safe to say the film takes place past that date. No one mentions a thing about the December 7, 1941 Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese in the film, nor is WWII mentioned. The clothing, cars, and other items in the film are obviously not later than WWII, so I think it's safe to say the film is set prior to the US involvement in WWII. In the Little Orphan Annie decoder pin scene, the year "1940" is clearly superimposed on the decoder pin. All of the LOA decoder pins made during that time period had the year on them. Because of this as well as the previous points, I think it's obvious the film is certainly set in December 1940. So, not really so ambiguous if you are paying attention. It would be nice to add something to the ambiguity-by-design content that mentions all this. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH would keep it from being included unless a reliable source is found, of course. I think it would be a good addition to the article if a source is out there to support it. What with DVR technology and the ability to see the film over and over again at Christmas, I'm sure I'm not the only fan of the film who has deduced that 1940 is the year in which the film is set. If anyone can find a reliable source to support 1940, it should be added, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that all of this is WP:OR. If you dig into the edit history you will find that, years ago, the section was fairly large with all sorts of OR and WP:SYNTH about items in various scenes. As the film comes from several Shepherd short stories which also were set in various years it was decided to only use Clark's referral to this in his DVD commentary. This is IMO more encyclopedic and avoids the "if we mention one item then why not mention a dozen others" situation. One other solution is to remove the section completely. Remember Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are plenty of other sites like fansites and IMDb's trivia section for this kind of stuff. MarnetteD|Talk 18:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
First, per WP:BURDEN entries need to come with a reference - making the entry with a "cn" tag does not meet the burden. Second, per WP:BRD when two editors have removed the item it should not be reentered until a consensus has been reached. MarnetteD|Talk 18:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I already stated that it was OR, so your reiteration of it is redundant and unnecessary. References have been provided, all acceptable and reliable, that state the film was set in the 1940s. One reference is from when the film was released. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The references you provided - which were malformed BTW - have nothing to do with the decoder ring and that is the item that I was referring to - as well as being the title of this thread. MarnetteD|Talk 19:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Malformed, and I was trying to correct them while you continued to edit war, creating endless edit conflicts. And it's a decoder pin, not a decoder ring, "BTW". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Reliable reference for information on the decoder pin found, content on pin readded with reference attached. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I generally agree with MarnetteD. The source for the decoder ring actually cites IMDB trivia as its source. That's pretty weak. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Same here. The year on the decoder device is immaterial as a means of establishing the intended timeframe of the film unless there's evidence to indicate that it was anything more than a goof. DonIago (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
NRP is correct. Of the three sources mentioned in the San Antonio article neither Bos Office Mojo or TBS have any info about the decoder ring. It is mentioned at IMDb. Per WP:RS/IMDB that site cannot be used as a ref. Thus, the current mention in the article should be removed. MarnetteD|Talk 20:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The article lists three sources, one of which is TBS. The author of the article doesn't say which sources were used where, nor does the author state how much of the article is sourced through the three sources listed. Saying that because the author used imdb.com as a source the article is not a reliable source? To quote you, NinjaRobotPirate, "That's pretty weak". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
As has been pointed out only one of the three sources mentions the decoder ring and that is IMDb. There are other policy based reasons for this not being in the article. Please stop treating this as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. We are WP:CONSENSUS building here and attacks on other editors hinders that. MarnetteD|Talk 20:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I haven't attacked anyone. Your erroneous accusation, however, is an attack. The content is not harming anything and has been sourced reliably. Saying because the author of the reliable reference/article ambiguously used imdb as a source, therefore, the source is not reliable IS weak. Build consensus, but do it honestly, ethically, and within guidelines. And without erroneously claiming editors are being attacked, please. Doing so actually makes this a battleground as it doesn't sit well with those being wrongly accused. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The links I have provided are WP:Verifiable as to where Rene Guzman gathered the information for the article. Please provide evidence as to where there any dishonest or unethical posts by any of us that have responded to the thread that you started. I am happy for any uninvolved editors to examine this thread for any dishonesty. MarnetteD|Talk 20:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
And now the License Plate has been added. This is exactly the point I made in my first post. The information is indiscriminate. It allows for bloating the section with other "this ad" or "that song" are from year XXXX and, in the end, "what does the info add to a readers understanding of the film?" MarnetteD|Talk 20:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree that the attempts at 'dating' the story constitute WP:Original research. If the film does not clearly provide a specific date we shouldn't be trying to pin it down. It is not unusual for films to use props from a certain period only for them to not match up exactly. Using a 1940 car and toy to "date" the film proves nothing beyond the director's desire to evoke that particular period. The dates from the DVD commentary and the NY Times and CBS are sufficient. Betty Logan (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
It's not original research if there are reliable references to support an actual year/time-period portrayed in the film. Verifiability, you know? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Let's say a car made in 1987 was visible in the film and that a RS noted it. Does that mean the film is set in or after 1987? No, it means that there was a goof, as there are in many films. If we're going to discuss the time period of the film we should be discussing things the filmmakers intentionally did, with sources that make it clear it was intentional. DonIago (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
A closeup shot of a 1940 Radio Orphan Annie decoder pin. A license plate with 1940 as the registration year. Intentional or not? Who's to say? Who's to make that determination? Us? No - that would be synthesis. But we don't need original research or synthesis to make that determination. More than one reliable source already has and they are all referenced currently in the article. The section title is "Dating the story". Undue weight would be allowing only one viewpoint in that section. More than one viewpoint is now represented, I see nothing wrong with that. In fact, I don't see how that section can be balanced without more than one viewpoint, otherwise, what's the point of the section? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
If all the RSes are doing is saying "You can see a 1940 decoder pin so the movie must be set in or after 1940" then I'm going to formally Oppose including this information. The filmmakers' intentions are of far more interest to me than observations of minutiae within the film that may not have even been intended to be observed. DonIago (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean, "If all the RSes are doing is..."? You haven't looked at what the sources say? If that's the case, how can you intelligently comment on whether or not the content should stay and is reliably sourced and then honorably make a recommendation? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed the way I started my concern with "If"? DonIago (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
If you saw the registration plate of my car would you assume we are in 2007? We have two reliable secondary sources that date the film to the early 1940s, and the director himself said he was aiming for a late 30s/early 40s vibe. That is enough for the purpose of relaying the particular period to the reader. The year in itself is not important i.e. it makes no difference if the film is set in 1939, 1940, 1941 etc. Betty Logan (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Marnette on this one, sorry WV. Doesn't look like you a consensus on this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

This thread has been open for ten days. The results are five editors for removal of the decoder ring and license plate mentions and one for their inclusion. So per WP:INDISCRIMINATE they should be removed. Of course WP:3O and WP:RFC are available but they do not supplant WP:CONSENSUS at this moment. MarnetteD|Talk 19:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I guess it makes no sense to me that consensus would be against what reliable sources are saying. That in mind, and despite the obvious agenda some seem to be pushing in this thread (and has been status quo in the article for too long), I've done some rewording in the section and re-added two more reliable sources that date the film at 1940 and/or the early 1940s. It seems to me that the references are what we should be going off of, not what has been the general (inaccurate) belief of the film's fans. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced material

Below information was tagged for needing sources in 2013. Feel free to reinsert with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Dating the film

The family's car in the flat tire scene depicts a 1940 Indiana license plate, even though the 40 is torn away from the bottom right corner. In an era when a new license plate was issued every year, no other Indiana plate set in the time period of the movie (late 30's, early 40's) with the exception of 1940 has silver numbers on a black background with Indiana stamped in the bottom left corner. To see actual pictures of Indiana license plates reference; License plates of Indiana at www.worldlicenceplates.com/USA/US_INXX.html. Go to plate history 1940's-1950's. Demoon57 (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems you chose to ignore my replies to your post on my talk page so I will place then here (with some amendations) as well. First, a discussion was held above where WP:CONSENSUS was reached to limit the number of items in that section. Second, this is a fiction film and haggling over a given year is WP:INDISCRIMINATE info. Third, the "reference" does not mention the film at all. It is just a list of license plates. That means that the entry was still WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as well. MarnetteD|Talk 21:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Location

Several scenes were filmed in Toronto, not just the one mentioned. The scene where they are buying the Christmas tree and the scene where they are viewing the store front windows for example. Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) street cars can be seen prominently in these scenes.

Awkward sentence in the "sequels" section: "Another sequel, A Christmas Story 2, a direct sequel to the original film and ignores the references and events of My Summer Story." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.136.129.196 (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on A Christmas Story. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 08:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Please do not arbitrarily delete fully cited content

User:Gareth Griffith-Jones deleted every word of fully-cited content that I had added, without explanation. His explanation referred only to Plot while most of the content he deleted was in other sections.

Which of this content is not relevant?? Which of the sources is not reliable?? 

  The schoolyard bully, Scut Farkus, was played by Zack Ward, now an actor, writer and director, who had actually been bullied himself while in elementary school. In 2017, he said he was surprised at the impact his role had had over the years. "I saw that I was ranked — as Christmas villains go — higher than the Grinch. That’s amazing."http://nationalpost.com/pmn/entertainment-pmn/canadian-a-christmas-story-bully-zack-ward-on-making-the-classic-film

  Both networks were running 24 hour marathons in 2017, as well.http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-ca-st-1224-tvhighlights-20171224-story.html The most recent reference was in 2014

  (about the Live musical) Reviews were mixed; on Rotten Tomatoes, the production received a 46% rating based on 13 critics' reviews and a very low 14% based on 44 audience reviews.https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_christmas_story_live/

Let's discuss this if you wish. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, fine, delete the info as to when the story takes place, in Plot. But I do feel it would make more sense to a reader if he understood that the story takes place in the 1940s, not currently. That is covered but much, much later in the article; I doubt that most readers would ever get that far down. Move the section about the date of the story to a spot earlier in the article? Peter K Burian (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Christmas_Story/Archive_1&oldid=1088791232"