Jump to content

Talk:Some Like It Hot

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

Critical reception

[edit]

The article says of the film's critical reception, "Some Like it Hot received widespread critical acclaim. Rotten Tomatoes reports a score of 98% out of 100, with an average score of 8.9 out of 10. Roger Ebert says ..." Rotten Tomatoes and Roger Ebert are what critics today are saying, as it is now unquestioningly regarded as a great film. But the view of most major papers and magazines at the times were very negative, and the film made some "Worst Ten" lists. That info should be included in the section. --67.180.44.133 (talk) 07:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds interesting! You got sources? Put it all in! --JakobvS (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monroe dress

[edit]

The current article is too timid, with no mention at all of Monroe's barely-there dress!

Some Like it Hot—Just Not in Kansas

March 29th, 2011 | Author: Rachel Chambers

Talk about attention-grabbing fashion. When Some Like It Hot was released on this day in 1959, the Orry-Kelly costumes offended so many puritan moviegoers that it prompted a statewide ban in Kansas and an “adult entertainment” restriction in Memphis, Tennessee. The reason? The film’s plot is centered around the taboo of two men cross-dressing, and star Marilyn Monroe wears a dress that is so revealing that it stops just short of granting the actress her first nude scene.

--71.174.188.43 (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced material

[edit]

Article has been tagged for needing sources long-term. Feel free to reinsert the below material with appropriate references.

--DonIago (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

University assignment

[edit]

We have been given the task of editing the page for an assignment at university, and just wanted to keep everyone updated on the areas that we are thinking of adjusting. While the work already on the page is already excellent, our main goal is to add some more accademic references to back up some of the points as a lot of them have a lot of detail but no references to back these points up.

We are also going to add some more information on Casting, the Screenwriting proccess, Critical Reception, some more Production information and a section on Pop Culture. We only have 500 words to use for this so that changes won't be too drastic! Please let us know if there is anything that we're doing not quite right as we're very new at this and want to make sure that we're doing a good job. --Gracesimone (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a task for university we have been asked to change. add and edit this page. As at the moment it is rated a C class we would like to add more academic references especially on issues such as casting, production i.e. sound, lighting, editing. We have found a few academic resources from the BFI library and hope this will enable to page to be brought up to a B class and for the page to be more useful to academic researchers who are researching this film. Any suggestions are welcome also! --Chiaracollu (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As part of one of my university assignments I have been asked to edit/add to a wikipedia page. For this I would like to edit the production section and make sure it is all accurate. I hope this is ok with everyone! Any help would be much appreciated! thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgiawilliams94 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As part of our university degree, we have been given the task of editing/contributing to a Wikipedia page of our choice. We will be predominantly concentrating on adding to the main summary and the production section, creating a section based on casting and also possibly adding another section referencing pop culture. Any comments or ideas would be greatly appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libbygiverny (talk • contribs) 18:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted a reference from the casting section which was to do with Mitzi gaynor which was referenced with imdb and added the same information but with a reference from a book which is more academic. Hope this is okay Libby! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiaracollu (talk • contribs) 14:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For our research assignement at university we have been asked to edit a wiki page and make it more academic in terms of its referencing and content. I will shortly be adding a sub section in production about style (sound and cinematography) and fully refernce it. Any suggestions are welcome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahpchesby (talk • contribs) 14:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For my editing on the page I have changed the paragraphing of the film's Plot section slightly, as well as making a few sentences in the plot summary more concise. I have also edited the Reception section of the page, adding in some reviews of the film as well as its profit. I also added citations to the Roger Ebert review and Rotten Tomatoes ranking. --Gracesimone (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Production

[edit]

The article lacks information on the actual filming of the movie. There's not even one mention of the Hotel del Coronado, where almost half the movie takes place. There must be sources available to flesh out the production section some more. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but there's no one to stop you from adding them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the sources. I'm just pointing out an obvious omission in the hopes that someone who knows this movie better and has access to some sources will take interest and want to improve it. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a few informations and sources from the German wikipedia article. It would be nice if you correct them because I'm not a native speaker of English. --Clibenfoart (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Some Like It Hot. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Nail in the coffin"

[edit]

The last sentence of the intro states that the movie was the final nail in the coffin for the Hays Code; then there's the inline citation.

Well, I went to the source and NOWHERE in the article does it say or state "final nail in the coffin." It does say that the movie WEAKENED the code.

I also have a problem with this source since it comes across to me as ONE PERSON'S OPINION, not as a documented fact!

And, if it was the "final nail," why did NINE YEARS GO BY before the Code was replaced? Typically, "final nail" means something new or a replacement is nearly immediately put into place. Maybe I'm strange, but I don't consider NINE YEARS to be immediate.

As such, I think that sentence should either be deleted or re-written. 2600:8800:787:F500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible homage?

[edit]

At the end of the movie, when everyone is getting away, Jack Lemmon's character -- Jerry dressed in drag as "Daphne" -- ends up in a speed boat with Joe E. Brown's character -- Osgood Fielding III. Osgood has been 'chasing' after "Daphne" in his attempt to woo 'her.' At this point in the movie, Jerry has become fed up with Osgood thinking he (Jerry) is a she ("Daphne") and pulls off the wig and says something like, "I'm not a girl, I'm a man!" -- someone can get exact quote from the movie -- to which Osgood replies, "Well, no one's perfect" as he ogles Jerry/"Daphne" and Jerry/"Daphne" does a double-take.

To me, this is an homage to an earlier Joe E. Brown movie, 1934's "The Circus Clown" (also a comedy). In it, Joe plays a boy -- Happy Howard -- who wants to join the circus like his father did, but his father won't hear of it. Happy runs away and joins one anyway. Happy falls in "love" with 'Millie,' a bareback rider. But unbeknownst to Happy, 'Millie' is actually a female impersonator ! !

Granted, in Hot "Daphne" tries to dissuade Osgood, while in Clown 'Millie' encourages Happy as a fun joke.

I just find it very interesting that Joe E. Brown played two characters that fell in love with men dressed as women in roles 25 years apart.

Is this mention-worthy enough for the article or just a unique coincidence that has no place in the article?

I leave it up to all of you to discuss.

Enjoy! 2600:8800:787:F500:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 10:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there were in-depth discussions of the two roles, and their similarities/disparities, then yes, it might warrant a mention, else it is simply trivia. Onel5969 TT me 11:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Some Like It Hot. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn's takes

[edit]

Sebastian James, BRD is not mandatory but as you have invoked it it is incumbent upon you to abide by its provisions. You made a BOLD edit, you were REVERTED, it is now for you to DISCUSS the change you want to make - it is NOT for you to repeat your bold edit and instruct others to discuss. I have reverted to the status quo in order that the BRD you invoked can take proper course and you may initiate discussion here on the talk page as to why you want the sourced, relevant, and significant material removed. Please do NOT transgress the process you have called for by again removing the material, that could be construed as edit warring. Captainllama (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two men betting on how quickly their co-worker will do the job. How relevant and significant. Sebastian James what's the T? 19:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions

[edit]

Sebastian James: Please stop reverting edits without taking due care. You claimed that an outside article title was something entirely different from what it was, and then you removed standard title case where it was clearly called for. Jcejhay (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted only one of your edit, and you can't change the title like that. Show us your evidence (where it was clearly called for) that says "a list must contain capital letters even if its title is shown otherwise". −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 14:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pretty fundamental practice, and here's the documentation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Titles#Capital_letters Jcejhay (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any mention that is close to what I described above in this WP:MoS, and there is no obligation anyway ("... should be capitalized"). I'm trying to stay true to the original work, and you should be too. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 16:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, reviewing the situation, I understand why it seems like that title should be italicized. However, the title here is the title of the BFI article, and such article titles can be in sentence-case. It does seem odd to quote the title that way in the Wikipedia article. Since the list does not have a formal title that warrants title-case, the wording in Wikipedia can simply be paraphrased? Like, "The British Film Institute listed Some Like It Hot among the top 50 films for children ages 14 and under"? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Erik. While I don't necessarily agree that the BFI piece doesn't warrant having its heading treated like an article title, your suggestion strikes me as a good alternative, and preferable to the way it stands now. (But I'm not going to make that change—or any further change of any kind—to this article myself, so maybe you'd care to make it.) Ironically, this all began with a paraphrased—but inaccurately and awkwardly paraphrased—version of the list title. I'll assume you're correct that the title of an article like this (if it is taken as an article title) can be in sentence case, but, imho and just for the record, that doesn't mean title case isn't preferable or that it was appropriate for the title case to be reverted. Jcejhay (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

[edit]

I think I am being edit-warred, both on the article and here on the talk page (see history). Jcejhay (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mistake, no need for more drama. Also, an edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. This never happened. You can find more about it here. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 16:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I guess I misunderstood or misapplied the RfC option's standing as a first recourse for getting new eyes on a dispute. (And there didn't seem to be any more neutral way to describe the issue than saying "I think" I'm being subject to edit-warring.) I chose policy/guideline rather than a content-related tag because it was a conduct issue more than a content issue. But anyway, sorry that it wasn't the right choice. Jcejhay (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, WP:DISPUTE should be followed. In particular, WP:3O would be the next step before involving even more editors. Also, you can post a neutral notification on WT:FILM if you would like additional opinions in a film-related discussion. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image use

[edit]

@Randy Kryn Explain, rather than keep reverting with non-explanatory summaries, why a drive-in ad image is relevant to the film's "plot" and/or "cast" section, and why an image described as "Marilyn Monroe from the film's trailer" (as if that scene is just in the trailer) is relevant to the "critical reception" section. Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They should provide important explanatory aid to understanding the section to which they are linked. ภץאคгöร 15:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nyxaros, and thanks for bringing this here (proper place for a change in the article). I reverted your removal of two long-term fair-use images (you had linked to an information page for the reasoning, not applicable to guidelines or policy). Where is the policy above quoted from (thanks)? Both images are usuable, both for publicity of the film which is relevant for film history. Maybe they should be moved but certainly kept on the page. I'll be signing off in a bit so if you answer and I don't reply will do so later. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because they are "two long-term fair-use images" doesn't mean they should be used on the page in question. Those sentences are from MOS:IMAGES. In addition, "usuable, both for publicity of the film which is relevant for film history" (?) is not a valid reason. How does an advertisement and a still image fulfill the need for so-called publicity on this encyclopedic page? What exactly do they provide, unlike the functions of the other photo in the cast section and the film poster, that requires their presence and that increases readers' understanding of the article topic? Can you point to the (relevant) guideline or policy that shares your point? Even if a consensus is reached to keep them on the page, the descriptive text and the placement of the images will have to be changed as you did not explain why they are placed in those sections. ภץאคгöร 21:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nyxaros, I've moved the images to more appropriate sections, with captions. These seem to work in context. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While the drive-in image is more acceptable now, I still don't think Monroe "in character, from the film's trailer" image is needed. There's already an image featuring Monroe AND Curtis in character (which was in the cast section but you moved it to plot section for some reason?). What's the reason for this one? ภץאคгöร 10:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Curtis-Monroe image features both characters but doesn't really catch the Monroe character's nature. The photograph you seem to object to does, as it reflects Sugar's innocent and caring side accented by her seemingly self-accepted "not too bright" attitude in going through life in a well-acted facial expression as well as her undeniable sexuality by simply leaning forward a bit. Monroe was an expert at facial expression and character development, and rivals the best-of-the-best living actresses in those aspects. Some original research - I've purposely tried many times to pause Monroe's face in a bad picture, a facial expression which isn't just-about-perfect, and haven't been unable to find one. I've mentioned this to quite a few people over the years. She was an extraordinary actress. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And how is Monroe "in character, from the film's trailer" supposed to display the "nature" of the character to the reader? It is a synthesis that can be considered successful on your part, but neither a reliable source nor the current state of the photo validates what you wrote. Maybe you can find resources that support your opinion and contribute by writing a paragraph and placing the image next to it? ภץאคгöร 09:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have added the film's trailer in addition to the still, better? My analysis above, which you quote and seems concerned about, is of course my personal opinion and not to be used on the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not concerned about anything. I'm saying whatever you think the image is giving to the reader is just not happening, because as you wrote that is your opinion only. Why would we want multiple pictures of Monroe in character from the film and now the film's trailer? To prove the image (and now the trailer itself?) is from the trailer? Plus you still haven't shown any guidelines or policies for "relevant for film history". Stick to MOS:IMAGES if you are not gonna present the solutions to what is described above. ภץאคгöร 15:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What solution, you're the only one seeing a problem. The images and trailer fit well and describe the page. What better place to add the trailer for Some Like It Hot that in the Some Like It Hot article. Seriously, what is wrong in adding the fair use trailer of the film to the film's Wikipedia page? There is nothing broken here as major page content problems. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating yourself won't get you anywhere. Your own thoughts are not valid reasons and you still haven't been able to present a guideline or policy, when I did, you froze up and started repeating. Your changes regarding this topic will be reverted unless you prove your point. ภץאคгöร 07:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat myself again one question at a time: first, why shouldn't the film's free-use trailer be used on the page? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are not doing yourself any favors by continuing your disruptive behavior months later and choosing not to read my responses, which answer your (at this stage of the discussion, meaningless) question. ภץאคгöร 12:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but the question was about the use of the film's trailer, which is allowed on film pages. You removed it again so the question is both viable and timely. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Junior's accent

[edit]

Is Junior's accent meant to be an English one? He sounds a lot like Carry Grant. I'm surprised this isn't mentioned in the plot section. 81.141.204.155 (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would his accent be mentioned in the plot section, unless it was somehow relevant to the plot? Also, if you're claiming that the similarity is intentional, we would need a source that discusses that. DonIago (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wholly agree we need sources. I'd be amazed if none exist. I'd argue that the fake "millionaire" accent is essential to the plot and Curtis ought to have been praised for that comic touch. 81.141.204.155 (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Some_Like_It_Hot&oldid=1252172220"