Talk:Atonement (2007 film)

Plot

No where in the plot section does it mention that Cecilia ad Robbie died before meeting up again. I'd say this was a pretty crucial point? I'd add it myself but I was half asleep when watching it. Vanillav (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed Plot section - copyvio

I removed the entire Plot section because it appeared to have been lifted from this Amazon page. --85.158.137.195 13:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have also just removed the entire plot section, because it was directly copied from The Focus Features site [1]. I strongly suggest anyone thinking of doing it again read WP:COPYVIO first. AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well someone desperately needs to write a new one, the article tells nothing of what the film's actually about. Nova Prime (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that a new plot was inserted recently and this plot has been profusely edited. But it still may come from a copyrighted website? — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 18:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Throwning Scene

I think it would be worthwhile for someone to insert into the plot, the scene where Briony throws herself into the lake for Robbie to save her. It provides depth into her character and gives her more motive. The current plot seems to skip over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sworded lion26 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I also do think this section is missing. I isn't only giving her "more motvie", it is THE motive for she obviously was in love with Robbie and later in the hospital confesses it was so. She not only misinterpreted the scenes between Robbie and Cecilia, she was obviously jealous. Roadrunner gs (talk) 06:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• You're wrong and doing the novel a disservice by giving Briony such a shallow motive. It should of course be considered that jealousy played a part, but there are so many other reasons that could also play a part in her reasoning; her wish to protect her sister, her fear of the raw sexuality in the letter, even her frustration at the events of that day leading to one silly childhood act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.25.22.11 (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the author of this article has severely misinterpreted the character of Briony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.91.196.77 (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Briony is not jealous of Cecelia and Robbie. She states, in the movie and in the novel, that as soon as she told Robbie that she was in love with him (when she was ten, and years before she accuses him of raping her cousin), the feeling immediately went away. Her motive for fingering him in the assault was threefold: she misinterpreted what she saw by the fountain (because she could not hear them talking, and because she looked at them halfway through the scene), she thought he had already tried to assault Cecelia in the library (and that she had rescued Cecelia from further harm by walking in on them), and she read the note with the word "cunt" in it. She was not aware that the scene in the library was consensual, and so I am going to change the plot as it is written now, since it suggests that she was jealous when she saw Robbie making love to her sister. The drowning scene is interesting as character development, but I'm not sure that it's all that necessary to the plot, so I am neutral about putting it in. If it is put in, though, please be sure to mention that as soon as she told him she loved him, the feeling dissipated. Keener Reed (talk) 05:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Headlines

• Exclusive: A Chat with James McAvoy
• James McAvoy Makes Atonement
• Amazing tracking shot —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimDunning (talk • contribs) 12:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Top Ten List list

How about if we convert the Top Ten List list to prose? It will make the article more readable if we summarize the list, identifying the significance and mentioning a few of the more notable lists. As it stands now eyes just glaze over and the import of the achievement is lost in the detail.
Jim Dunning | talk 05:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If the awards and nominations section could be changed to something of a table (as in the articles The Departed or Crash (2004 film)), it would be more readable. The top ten list can be taken out, possibly; just keep the very very notable ones and #1s I guess. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 23:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Converting the awards list to prose, with statements of their significance, would be more informative and readable, similar to No Country for Old Men. I vote against the table format in The Departed (and here), unless it were summarized on the article page and then table-ized (?!) on a sub-page. I find the list format difficult to read (scroll, scroll, scroll, . . .), like not seeing the forest for the trees. Same for the top-ten lists. Anyone else think so?
Jim Dunning | talk 01:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead unsupported

Most of the information in the Lead lacks support in the article body. Either the Lead needs to be changed or a Distribution section needs to be initiated and the Production section augmented.
Jim Dunning | talk 02:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've rearranged sections to be more consistent with Film Style Guidelines and started a Distribution section (which should be beefed up). The Production section also needs some work.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wild About Movies

I've trimmed down the usage of multi-ref tagging for Wild About Movies. A tag does not need to be used every one or two sentences, just at the end of the paragraph or before a sentence that belongs to another reference. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Dead nominations

I removed the Chicago Film Critics Assoc nominations since the awards were decided six weeks ago. I'm assuming three minor nominations are no longer worth mentioning in these long lists once the contests have been decided. So, that raises the question of how we maintain the numerous lists that are proliferating among the current film articles? I guess we could flag decision dates and maybe maintain a centralized list (yes, another list) of what nominations have been listed in which articles and then review and emend/update daily.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I disagree on removing nominations. Look at Crash (2004 film) and The Departed. Minor nominations are still in the table. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 20:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot redux

Err ... the plot section is entirely skewed. Briony isn't freaked out and scared over Robbie's perceived attentions to her sister; she's jealous, and that's plain nearly every step of the way. She doesn't suddenly realize at age eighteen she got the wrong guy ... she knew it from the start, and accused Robbie by way of lashing out.  Ravenswing  13:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association Awards

I was wondering whether the inclusion of the above trophy in the article is a good example of the alleged American bias of Wikipedia. Internationally, is it considered an important award? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.58.224 (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, in Australia we don't bother to see any film that hasn't won the D-FWFCA. In fact they no longer even try to distribute films that haven't won one. Greglocock (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Long take on the shore

I wonder if there is any way to insert a reference to the 5 mins long take on the shore, that I think is noteworthy. I am not so fluent in english to find a way to rephrase the sentences in the description of the Dunkirk evacuation... now they are a little too terse work on them... — Pietro Toniolo (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm planning on improving the article sometime next year. If sources mention it, I'll try to add the 5 minute take in, as I also think it was an important scene. Ruby 2010/2013 14:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There are many sources; we can choose from the results of a google search. Many of them are reliable, like IMDB and such... — Pietro Toniolo (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)