Talk:Noises Off

Meaning

What is the meaning of the phrase "noises off"? --Dwchin 08:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Noises Off" is acting shorthand for sound effects coming from off-stage. For the movie, it refers to restarting the sound effects loop-tape of chirping birds.

Characters

I really don't like the "characters" section, as it devolves quickly into the sort of thing you would read on the inside cover of the published play. The only thing it addes to this article is much needless plot summary. I'm going to be bold and remove it but I'm sure someone might come along and put it back in.... --Dmz5 02:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made the character list more brief and easier to read. Let me know what you think! 207.237.198.152 (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

I don't know how to reference one footnote from another. If someone who does know happens by before I get around to seeking expert advice, please fix the occurrences of <sup>[1]</sup> to refer to <ref name="Screenplay2000"/> and the occurrences of <sup>[2]</sup> to refer to <ref name="Screenplay_authors_note"/> —Dan Hoey 18:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Theatre Assesment

Rated as Start - needs section on Critical Reception, as well as improved formatting and citations.--Dereksmootz (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added formatting and returned a better-summarized character list. 207.237.198.152 (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke

The version I just fixed called Brooke an "improvisational actress". In any version I've seen Brooke is quite the opposite - she continues doing exactly what her directions say, no matter how inappropriate they are to the chaos around her. Have I missed something? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dot is the one who improvises. 207.237.198.152 (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the first act, Lloyd says to Brooke that he knows she used to play in a classy place in London where the actors made up the lines as the went along. Unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Stoppard plays

I tried to insert the two famous Tom Stoppard plays, The Real Inspector Hound, and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead as "see alsos". An editor could not understand that these were also "no fourth wall" plays. There are really not that many famous ones. Student7 (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal, for several reasons.

As it stands, there is nothing in the article which gives a reason for linking these particular plays, so including the links is just confusing.
You could add a discussion of how Noises Off breaches the fourth wall, but only if you could find a reliable source that makes this case; otherwise it would be original research, and not permitted in Wikipedia.
For me, I don't agree that Noises Off (or Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, for that matter), breach the fourth wall. The Real Inspector Hound does, in that Moon and Birdboot interact with the audience, but AFAICR in neither NO nor R & G do the characters address, or even acknowledge, the audience. They're both instances of Play within a play (which TRIH is not) and so there is a fourth wall within the action; but I don't see them as 'no-fourth-wall' plays. --ColinFine (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

Ref 4 says it is a broken link, which, apparently it is not. But the ref is in the wrong place - it should be tied to "Weston-Super-Mare" not "(fictional.)" I would fix it myself, but I'm not sure how.ExpatSalopian (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising this, the link is indeed live. However, I looked at it and didn't see any reason to have this ref, as it does not support the WP text. It's also not needed to provide info on Weston-super-Mare, since that town is already wikilinked in the same sentence. So, I've just removed the ref. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The portion of Ref 2 that cites OED could well be joined with ref 3. The rest of it looks like original research. And I've never seen a reference to the earlier Wikipedia editing process in an article. 108.35.46.150 (talk) 10:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]