Talk:Pride & Prejudice (2005 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Featured articlePride & Prejudice (2005 film) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
    Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 2, 2013.
    Article milestones
    DateProcessResult
    February 29, 2012Good article nomineeListed
    May 24, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
    July 14, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
    Current status: Featured article

    }}

    Fair use rationale for Image:Prideandprejudice-movieposter.jpg[edit]

    Image:Prideandprejudice-movieposter.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 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 04:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Different Ending[edit]

    The ending that I saw, was with the Darcy's next to the lake, with Darcy calling Elizabeth 'Mrs. Darcy', which version is this? Saw it on HBO in Taiwan.--ValerioC 10:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe this is the American release version. See section of article entitled 'Changes between release versions'. Oberschlesien 06:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pride and Prejudice Template?[edit]

    I added Template:Pride and Prejudice, but since the Template:Jane Austen and the Template:Joe Wright are already in place, the section looks too crowded. Should we remove the P&P template, the JA template, the JW template or keep them all? Please discuss. ImperialJaineite (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Three templates is not a lot, but they should all be set to "hide" as a default. That will keep the vertical space short. - BilCat (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed - they are now collapsed on the article pages. - BilCat (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, don't forget to rename the template's name field when you move them to mainspace. Template:Pride and Prejudice was set to "ImperialJaineite/Sandbox 2". Easy mistake - I've done it a few times myself! - BilCat (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    GA Review[edit]

    GA toolbox
    Reviewing
    This review is transcluded from Talk:Pride & Prejudice (2005 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

    Reviewer: Grapple X (talk · contribs) 02:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

    I may start reviewing film articles again, there's only been about half a dozen passed all year. :(

    1. Is it reasonably well written?
      A. Prose quality:
      B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
      I bloody hate Rotten Tomatoes' "certified fresh" rating. There's something strangely surferish to it. I'd suggest replacing it with the less-catchphrasey Metacritic description—"universal acclaim" in this case.
      Link Bridget Jones maybe? I'm not sure where to point it (Bridget Jones's Diary (film), Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (film) or Bridget Jones).
      I know it's entirely valid to include terminal punctuation in a quote if it's in the source ("like this."), but since the article mixes such instances with instances of the punctuation coming after the quote. I tend to uniformly use the latter option to create a sense of consistency, but it's up to you if you want to go with that or not.
      I'm not sure all the instances of "Mr." are necessary. Beyond introducing characters like Mr. Collins and Mr. Darcy, it's probably best to revert to Collins and Darcy from there onwards.
      Something bugs me about the word "inputted". Perhaps try "inserted" or "added".
      I'm not sure the bullets in the "Editing" section are needed, this could probably just work as prose.
      "The 2005 film is rated 86 percent fresh by Rotten Tomatoes" -> I don't think we need the "2005" descriptor, since it is the subject of the article; I'd also rephrase the whole "fresh" thing again, perhaps as "The film has received an average review score of 86 percent according to Rotten Tomatoes", perhaps working in a link to review aggregator somewhere along the way.
      What's "9-dual layer" actually mean/do? I couldn't find an explanation with a search. Also, on the topic of the DVD, is the extra scene at the end of the US version included (and if so, as standard or an extra)?
    2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
      A. References to sources:
      B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
      C. No original research:
      Ref 40 should really be a note and not lumped in with the citations. There are templates that can be used (there's a templated note in Arkham Asylum) or it can simply be coded like the notes in Mike Patton discography, to pick some examples off-hand.
    3. Is it broad in its coverage?
      A. Major aspects:
      B. Focused:
      Looks good in terms of scope.
    4. Is it neutral?
      Fair representation without bias:
      Yep.
    5. Is it stable?
      No edit wars, etc:
      Not a bother.
    6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
      A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
      B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
      Pretty much grand, though the existence of File:Pride & Prejudice London Bus.jpg leaves me wondering how justifiable the essentially-the-same File:Prideandprejudiceposter.jpg is. What are your thoughts on it?
    7. Overall:
      Pass or Fail:
      Not a lot of working needing done, shouldn't take too long to sort this one out. Sticking it on hold for the time being. GRAPPLE X 02:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, thanks for the review (and for reviewing film articles; I agree they should be brought to GA more frequently). I think have addressed most of your concerns. I kept Rotten Tomatoes but replaced its mention in the lead with Metacritic (which I agree sounds better). I didn't touch any of the images, namely because I think a movie poster is extremely justified for an article, particularly in the infobox to help readers identify the movie. I considered swapping that particular poster with another, but then realized they are all more or less identical to each other (Darcy and Elizabeth together in the same positions). That said, there would be no reason to delete the bus poster, because it is a free image and it enhances the marketing section. Let me know if you have any other concerns (this will be going to FA eventually, though admittedly it still could still use a lot of work before it gets to that point!) Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 05:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, I was very careful with punctuation when citing quotes (the placement of the period or comma reflects the original quote). I would be hesitant to go back and change them as a result. I'll try to bring this up at the eventual peer review though for more opinions. Ruby 2010/2013 05:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything seems in order now. I'm aware that your use of punctuation is correct (I've done enough of these things of yours by now to know!), I'm just wondering if their consistency will be an issue at FAC—I'm far from the best copyeditor here, though, so don't worry about it unless someone much more professional about it, like FAC regulars Dank or Nikkimaria, bring it up. I'm just thinking that moving all of the punctuation outside the quotations would look aesthetically consistent whilst still keeping the quotes accurate to the source (I only even thought to consider it as could see this was going further in the future). Leave it be for now, and drop me a stern reminder at each point of this thing's progress to chime in on it. Going to promote this now so I can get to bed; well done again. GRAPPLE X 05:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Distributors[edit]

    I think we can add both Universal Pictures can Focus Features. Because: 1) there is no official rule to restrict infobox to contain only "home market" distributor. As discussed in here.[1] 2) After adding Universal Pictures and Focus Features, the size still isn't too big. 3) Some people in here states the important of listing the distributors in all English-speaking countries in English wiki.[2] And I simply use two lines to totally reveal the film's distributors in all English-speaking countries. --Marychan41 (talk) 6:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

    • You've been asked by two editors to discuss this on the talk page. Discuss does not just mean putting your side of the argument and then reverting other people's edits. It means discussing and gaining consensus before further edits take place.
    • Just for starters the information you added is incorrect: I know of eleven distribution companies involved in this film (and there will be a number of others as well as the ones I know of do not cover a numbver of major markets)
    • Just adding UP becuase of the connection to one market is not enough of a justification
    • The English-speaking connection was suggested by one person in the dicsussion. No-one else agreed or backed it up: that does not add up to consensus. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry. here is my Points.
    1) IMDB is wrong. StudioCanal only owns the France rights of this films, just like many other Working Titles films they produced.[3]
    2) In other countries except North America, Universal released the film theatrically through its distribution partners in different countries (including United International Pictures in English-speaking countries), but Universal still control all aspects of distribution and own the library rights of the film. (so "Universal Pictures presents" is still on the film's credit in the most versions of the film)[4]
    3) In North America, the situation is different; Universal Pictures gives the film to its division Focus Features. In the North America, Focus Features control all aspects of distribution and own the library rights of the film. (in the North America version of the film, "Focus Features presents" is on the film's credit instead of "Universal Pictures presents".[5]
    4) In that discussion, there are more the one person to suggest about English-speaking connection. (including me, of course)[6]--Marychan41 (talk) 7:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
    1. I didn't get my information from IMdB—I never do as it's almost always partially wrong. I'd advise against complete faith in snappy journalistic articles—they simplify the situation to the point of being wrong, especially when it's a US journo who can't comprehend what the rest of the world is like;
    2. Focus only distributed in one territory. Is that really sufficient reason for including them? Not really—we may as well list all the companies who distribute on that basis.
    3. In the discussion only one person (Ring Cinema) suggested listing the English language distributor. No-one agreed that that was the best way to go—so that hardly classifies as a consensus on which to build. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Variety isn't a snappy media. It is a trade magazine that is read by professionals in film industry.
    There is hardly any consensus from that discussion, except the fact that there is still no official rule to restrict infobox to contain only "home market" distributor.--Marychan41 (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Just weighing in here -- I am in favor of consistency across articles. Selecting one country (the US) because of its large market share seems arbitrary. If we started giving one country special treatment, what would stop that from spreading to other countries with large markets (China, France etc)? It's a slippery slope that could easily end up violating the purpose of the infobox (which is meant to be a concise summary). WP:FILMRELEASE is (in my opinion) perfectly clear on this.

    Also, part of my concerns with Marychan41's edits to this article related to the fact that they were unsourced. I would be happy to enter the details s/he added to the infobox into the main body of the article, providing that reliable sources are given. Ruby 2010/2013 19:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Which parts of my info are unsourced? I would like to provide more info. And according to WP:FILMRELEASE, there is still no official rule to restrict infobox to contain only "home market" .
    Anyway, there are only three main distributors for this film in worldwide: Focus distributed the film in North America[7], StudioCanal released the film in French-speaking countries (through Mars Distribution)[8][9][10], Universal (through UIP) released the film in all other countries[11][12][13] It is just similar to what they did with Joe Wright's next film "Atonement" [14]. If we put both Universal Pictures and Focus in the distributor field, the size of the filed still isn't too big, and it can totally reveal the film's distributors in all English-speaking countries.--Marychan41 (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Marychan, what's your obsession with putting the US market distributor into articles? Do you work for one of these companies or something?! Please try and keep in mind the purpose of the infobox, which is not to put in every piece of information you can find. I'll summarise the policy again for you: "keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". The information you are trying to add is already covered in the article and does not need to go in here too. If we go down your path of putting Focus goes in, why not all the other companies—Mars, UIP, Bontonfilm, Solar Entertainment et al? - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not obsession and I'm not working for any companies. I also don't want to regard it as personal matter and I don't want to attack anyone personal, but your words make me feel rather rude (and I'm not the only one who think so [15] ). Why did I make you so angry?
    Bontonfilm, Solar Entertainment and Mars didn't control the distribution of this film. Solar Entertainment is only the local affiliate of UIP[16], so as Bontonfilm (the film's Czech Republic poster also show the UIP logo and states that the film is "Universal Release")[17]. Mars was StudioCanal's division [18].
    In short, there are only THREE companies control the film's distribution and has the library rights: Focus Features, Universal Pictures and StudioCanal. If all three distributors are added in the distributor field, the field still won't be too big. I agree with what Betty Logan said in the past: "if there is only a handful of distributors I don't see a common sense reason for restricting the listing. Common sense would only need to prevail if the list became inordinately large.". [19]--Marychan41 (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Goodness—what on earth have I said that's rude, either in this conversation or the previous one? I asked Ring the same question in the previous discussion and he couldn't provide any answer then either. I'm not attacking you and I think you may have misinterpreted an otherwise innocuous comment that way. As to Betty's comments, try quoting her in full, as she begins her sentence "If it were solely left to common sense then it wouldn't be listed for any"—a sentiment I would back up fully and delete the field from the box as being rather pointless in the grand scheme of things. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also bemused by your edit on Atonement (film) to—again—list the US distributor where there is no US interest in making the film. Would you like to go back to WikiProject Film about this to clarify what the point is of adding various random countries into the infobox is? - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't add Focus Features on the infobox of Atonement (film). Focus Features was already on the infobox and the article long before I made my edit. [20] Please check the fact.--Marychan41 (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you won't mind if I take it out then. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No. please start in talk before star an editing war. I will put the talk on the main page.--Marychan41 (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the talk: [21] --Marychan41 (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Congratulations![edit]

    One question: The film's themes emphasise realism, romanticism and family. Do you really mean "Romanticism" or do you mean "romance"? In a film that dealt with "Romanticism" one would expect rugged landscape with at least one cataract, a few lightening bolts and a shipwreck. Romanticism also demands a duel, bolting horses and at least one example of action that is truly heroic. I think the movie deals with "Romance". Amandajm (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, thanks for commenting. I see your point, but yes, romanticism is the correct term per the sources used (see in particular this, this, and this (p. 132). The scholars often seem to use romanticism and romance interchangeably, so both are correct. I've added the term "romance" into the themes section to help clear up any potential confusion. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 03:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "the Romantic conception of self" (with a capital R) is a good line from that essay that justifies the use of the term "Romantic". Amandajm (talk) 05:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources[edit]

    What makes the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror good sources for this article? --John (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi John, thanks for commenting. Neither citation is used to source questionable content. The Daily Mail source is an interview of the cast, while the Daily Mirror source is just an editorial review on the best Austen adaptations (used in the reception section, which is subjective by nature). I don't see either being a problem (and neither did any of the FAC reviewers). Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 17:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So this material can only be sourced to tabloids? In that case, I'd say it should be removed. --John (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. The content of the Daily Mail interview relates to the costumes, most specifically to the experience of the female caste members in wearing them. It would be a pity to lose that information, just because the source is a tabloid. Quoting a tabloid for an interview or on a purely subjective matter is fine.
    If the Jane Austen novel "Pride and Prejudice" was the topic of this article, then we would be looking for scholarly works as references, but what we have here is a romantic movie about five teenage girls, directed with the intention of pleasing those people who read whatever nauseating scandalrags it is that teenage girls read nowadays. I have no objection to the citing of the Daily Mail etc over interviews with the cast, and their rating of a popular movie. Amandajm (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The only way we could use material like this would be to say something like "According to the Daily Mail, ...". These really are the poorest of sources. I am greatly surprised this article made it through FAR with such poor sources. --John (talk) 05:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The Daily Mirror content already mentions where it's coming from ("Comparing six major adaptations of Pride and Prejudice in 2005, The Daily Mirror gave the only top marks of 9 out of 10 to the 1995 serial and the 2005 film..."). And I don't think it's necessary to mention that the interview was conducted by the Daily Mail every time the content is mentioned. Unless you're suggesting that the interview was in any way fabricated? (Something I rather doubt). Ruby 2010/2013 21:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would you doubt that? --John (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Symbolism and Art references in the movie[edit]

    The main article might benefit from a section that highlights the use of symbolism in the movie (e.g. Darcy's hands throughout the movie, ham on the table during Mr. Collins' proposal to Elizabeth, Elizabeth's visit to Pemberley's art gallery as eye-opening and sexual awakening, Elizabeth's earthy clothing colors, blackbirds singing in the background every time something is happening with Elizabeth, the same music playing at beginning of movie (Elizabeth's home), at Rosings (badly played by Elizabeth because it's not her home), and at Pemberley (Elizabeth's future home).

    The movie also sets a few scenes in a way reminiscent of classical paintings, e.g. the scene in the drawing room at Netherfield, when the Bennets visit the day they pick up Jane, the scene at Roslings with Darcy, Colonel Fitzwilliam, and Mr. Collins standing in the middle while the ladies sit on the couches). Macauley86 (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    RomCom?[edit]

    Would romantic comedy be a better descriptor than romance film? The book is accepted as the first and best romcom and the film is faithful to the book. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

    Yes. — Film Fan 09:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, done. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

    External links modified[edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified 4 external links on Pride & Prejudice (2005 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.

    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) 02:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    External links modified[edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified 7 external links on Pride & Prejudice (2005 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.

    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) 18:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    External links modified[edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified one external link on Pride & Prejudice (2005 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.

    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) 09:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing deprecated source[edit]

    I've removed claims sourced to the Daily Mail. It's a deprecated source, and it absolutely should not be present in a Featured Article - it's literally the opposite of a Reliable Source, and grossly unreliable sources are a reason for defeaturing.

    I see the use of this awful, awful source has in fact been questioned here in the past. #Sources

    Per extensive WP:RSN discussion, and two wide general RFCs (WP:DAILYMAIL1), the Mail literally cannot be trusted for factual claims, nor for fidelitously recording the words of claimed interviewees. Recent discussion on RSN is about the Mail being caught fabricating past content on dailymail.co.uk - you literally can't trust the Mail as a source for the content of the Mail.

    Rather than using such a stupendously bad source in a FA, I've removed the cites and the claims backed by them - which were generally added-colour side details, of the sort the Mail specialises in pleasing its readers with when it's being careless with facts, so shouldn't damage the article structurally. Those little details can be added back piecemeal as and when there are RS cites for them. - David Gerard (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    David Gerard is on a crusade against the Daily Mail. He thinks deprecated means any reference to the Daily Mail should be deleted on sight. For anyone checking here's the diff where he deleted two references to the DailyMail.co.uk and any text that appeared to depend on those references.[22] It might be possible to find alternative references for at least some of what was deleted.

    One of the sources was from the "Mail on Sunday"[23], and it has been argued that as the Mail on Sunday is a different newspaper with separate editorial oversight, it should still be allowed as a source. The discussion is/was ongoing, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Mail_on_Sunday. -- 109.76.143.144 (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    See WP:RSPS, The Mail on Sunday has been deprecated.Archive of discussion to deprecated Mail on Sunday.
    The discussion was closed with the words "editors should make reasonable efforts to find an alternate source for that assertion when removing this source." which will certainly be ignored as editors have already shown they will take a source being deprecated as justification to delete on sight, and not bother to make any effort to find replacement sources. -- 109.79.166.37 (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    American Ending[edit]

    A subsection titled "American Ending" was recently added to the Plot section. I think it should not have been added and should be deleted. This is not an essential plot detail, and should be trimmed on the basis of WP:FILMPLOT alone, but also the different ending is already covered in the Production section under "Editing". -- 109.77.195.80 (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Trimmed.[[24]] -- 109.77.200.213 (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I am new to editing Wikipedia (it is a requirement for my Digital Media Literacy course!) and hope to successfully contribute to this community. I would like to add in an interesting fact regarding the 2005 Pride and Prejudice film starring Keira Knightly and Matthew Macfayden. It is in regards to the iconic "Almost Kiss" scene that is unique to this particular adaptation since it is an action that was created during the screen test between Knightly and Macfayden due to their chemistry. Adding this to the blurb about casting and the difficulties of finding the right actors for the roles would add a unique piece of trivia for fans of the movie. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). https://screenrant.com/pride-and-prejudice-2005-behind-the-scenes/

    Ashchurch (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pride_%26_Prejudice_(2005_film)&oldid=1209868103"