Talk:Finding Neverland (film)

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

Jordan Fry[edit]

It's great that Johnny Depp was impressed with Jordan Fry's performance in CATCF, but what does that have to do with this movie? Shouldn't it be in THAT movie's information? 68.116.143.113 15:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Plot Summary![edit]

There's no plot summary! I came here to read it, but find that there isn't one! I haven't seen this movie, so I can't write one myself. — « hippi ippi » 11:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Plot of this film is very basic...

Mr barrie leads a normal busy life..late afternoon walks help him write a play called peter pan. Then theres a new woman on the scence bla bla bla bla (can't be bothered)

Cast[edit]

It was my understanding that prose information about the casting of the film was preferred to lists. -JasonAQuest (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just double-checked. It still is. The prose version of the Casting section contains substantial information that is missing from the plain (improperly formatted) cast list. - JasonAQuest (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Cast and crew information is an outdated format. Please refer to any number of film articles to see casts uniformly are presented in a list rather than narrative form. Thank you. MovieMadness (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such thing as an "outdated" style guide on Wikipedia; it says what it says. If you think the style guide should be changed, change it... don't ignore it. There are plenty of bad articles that can be pointed to as examples; that doesn't mean they should be imitated. Furthermore, your edit removed valid useful information from the article, which I intend to restore. - JasonAQuest (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awards[edit]

Should the awards/nominations be listed in a chart rather than the current list? I've seen this format used in a number of other articles and I think it might work better. Vpw (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Critical Reception[edit]

This section usually begins with a summary like this: "The film received generally positive reviews. It holds a favorable rating of 72% at Rotten Tomatoes, with an average rating of 6.8/10, as well as a 67/100 rating on Metacritic", but it is not present. Instead we get several reviews (which may be overkill). I suggest a summary followed by one positive and one negative review (which appears to be the norm on Wikipedia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.101.163 (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Accuracy[edit]

Shouldn't there be a section pointing out the dubious liberties this film takes with actual history? Barrie met Sylvia and the boys while their father was still alive - apparently he wasn't keen on Barrie manipulatively inserting himself into their lives. The grandmother character is pure invention - Sylvia wanted her sister Jenny to be guardian of the boys after her death, but in a sinister move Barrie changed the handwritten wishes to "Jimmy", effectively stealing custody from their rightful family.

While Barrie may not have actually sexually abused the boys, I can't imagine anyone making such a credulous fantasy film about Michael Jackson's relationship with vulnerable young children.Gymnophoria (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It goes without saying that films "based on", or in this case "inspired by" true events take liberties with them.
It would be naive to watch this movie and take the grandmother, or much of anything else, at face value.
However, I agree with you that it's worth mentioning the discrepancies you bring up. The business about forging the will, sure, much more plausible than the film version, but there would need to be some evidence you can cite for that if you're going to put it in the article. 71.93.172.99 (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't do original research identifying "discrepancies", because it isn't our place to decide what differences are important.
But I would like to point out that this discussion itself suffers from speculation and "discrepancies". We know that in making a copy of the will Barrie wrote "Jimmy" instead of "Jenny", but we don't know whether it was accidental, intentional, or what, so this talk of it being a "sinister move" and "forgery" is inappropriate. Also, Gymnophoria has the facts incorrect: Sylvia had no sister Jenny. "Jenny" was a sister of Mary (the boys' nanny), and Sylvia merely suggested inviting her to help. Also, it had no bearing on guardianship, because Sylvia had already jointly given that to: her mother, her brother, her brother-in-law, and "J. M. B." For him (and Mary) to take care of the boys was explicitly what Sylvia wanted, and if any one in either the Davies or du Maurier family wanted otherwise, we don't know of it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be the place to do original research, but then again, the article does nothing to say that it *isn’t* a straightforward retelling of facts - it’s not a matter of deciding what is and isn’t important, it’s the relevance to understanding what went on. To describe it thus: “The story focuses on Scottish writer J. M. Barrie, his platonic relationship with Sylvia Llewelyn Davies, and his close friendship with her sons named George, Jack, Peter and Michael, who inspire the classic play Peter Pan, or The Boy Who Never Grew Up.”, and leave it at that is deceptive and wrong for an encylopaedia: it would be perfectly acceptable - and indeed desirable - to say that it is a fiction based upon characters and events. It does not depict the events, people or relationships which made “Peter Pan” in any qualitative fashion, and this should be addressed. For example, inking directly to the “real” Barrie does have implications of authenticity about the character of the same name in the film, which this film does not have a right to. Jock123 (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If "historical fantasy drama" and "based on the play" don't clue the reader in to the fact that it isn't a documentary, I'm not sure that any further editorial commentary would be effective. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for Gymnophoria's initial question: You don't know what kind of films would've been made about Michael Jackson a hundred years from now, hadn't it been for the recent post-mortem accusations by two boys after Jackson's death. But in any case, Gymnophoria's original motivation may warrant a classical Historical accuracy section as many fiction movie articles on WP have them, even if the "Jenny" anecdote may be false. One example for such could be Alexander (2004 film)#Criticism by historians. --2003:DA:CF14:9500:ECBE:7F83:266C:7858 (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Finding Neverland (film). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not just the bench[edit]

The last line says that Barrie and Peter fade out and "all that is left is the bench". Now, this is a small detail, and I personally think the plot summary is way too detailed anyway, but it is not true that only the bench is left. If we're going to go into microscopic detail, we should get it right. Peter and Barrie fade out, but Barrie's bowler hat and brolly remain on the bench. I guess he doesn't need them where he's going. 71.93.172.99 (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it stands for the fact that the relationship between Barrie and the boys left something of Barrie's behind until our days, and that are his stories. --2003:DA:CF14:9500:ECBE:7F83:266C:7858 (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Finding_Neverland_(film)&oldid=1204940246"