Jump to content

Talk:The Conversation

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Erik (talk | contribs) at 13:39, 8 February 2022 (→Requested move 8 February 2022: added). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • King, Mike (2008). "The Conversation and Enemy of the State". The American Cinema of Excess: Extremes of the National Mind on Film. McFarland. pp. 58–59. ISBN 0786439882.
  • King, Mike (2008). "The Conversation and American Psycho". The American Cinema of Excess: Extremes of the National Mind on Film. McFarland. pp. 178–179. ISBN 0786439882. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs) 01:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coppola comment

Source of the Coppola comment is the Region 1 DVD audio commentary.

Missing plot spoilers

I get the feeling that this is an attempt to avoid giving spoilers, which is exactly what I came to this Wikipedia article for. If that's the case, I shouldn't have to argue that this is misguided. Anyways, I did find a spoiler. I would update the article myself, but I haven't seen the movie.216.195.28.24 (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

will sort that out soon, thanks for pointing it out. Geoff B (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if the plot description of the ending can really be taken as straightforwardly as it is described. My interpretation is that Harry has gone nuts, doesn't really have a bug in his apartment, and that there probably was not even a murder. I'm not saying that should be taken as canon either, but should it not even be raised as a possibility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.75.93 (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Sequal' (re: "Enemy of the State") should be taken out

While Gene Hackman's character Harry Caul is similar to his character Edward "Brill" Lyle in Enemy of the State, there has been no canonizing elements attributed by the producers of either film, despite some critics' comparison. Therefore, I would not use the title "Sequel" as it would confuse the reader. While there may be coincidental elements that may have been used, such as the identification badge Hackman's Caul wore being used as a legacy id badge used by Hackman's Lyle, there are too many elements that don't match up, including age, mental demenaor, medical condition (consumption of alcohol in Conversations by Caul contradicts Lyle's hypoglycemia), and career track. While it's not completely impossible that Hackman's two characters could be the same person, it is folly to call Enemy of the State a sequel to The Conversation.


Hey is it oke if I add some stuff regarding the films reception???? I don`t know how the whole English source citing works, in Dutch wiki we just have a source list, so if I make mistakes could you please help instead of undo my hard work that way wiki will never improve!!!! 62.45.130.67 (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Screenplay Development Timeline

There's a possible error in the passage about the film's production. If Antonioni's movie Blowup was 1966, and if, according to the quotation, Coppola saw it only "a year or two before," then it can't be true that the screenplay was completed in the mid-60s. Flagging this, but don't have time to follow up just now. Thank you. Eroston (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a 'cheat'

Careful listening to the phrase "He'd kill us if he got the chance" as spoken/played early in the film places virtually 'equal' emphasis on the key words "kill us", inferring (just) a possible threat to the speaker and his paramour. At the end of the film, when the phrase is heard, the word "us" clearly has heavier emphasis than the word "kill", inferring a different meaning, i.e., justification for the speaker to act first. Or, was this just Harry's perception of what was said? Tricky! Don't you just love what they do in movies?66.81.105.227 (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Box office

I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so please excuse me if I'm not approaching this properly, but I see a couple of brief edits that can be done to the box office section of this article. I think the edits show, rather than tell, and eliminate editorializing.

Could we rewrite to say the following:

The film made $4,420,000 in its domestic gross on a $1,600,000 budget. Coppola's The Godfather Part II, also released in 1974, grossed more than $47,500,000 domestically on a $13,000,000 budget.

Thoughts? Vivatheviva (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, feel free to make the edit yourself! There's really no need to discuss such a simple edit. To be precise the first sentence still needs a source though, but don't worry about it. I'll include the ref for that in the infobox template myself. Heinerj (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying! I will go ahead and make the change. Like I said, I'm new to this. Vivatheviva (talk) 06:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No alternative end mentioned?

Why is the alternative end not mentioned at all? Harry is arrested for the alleged murder of his girlfriend Amy and her alleged lover after their dead bodies where found in the hotel room, where the director was murdered. Any clue? VINCENZO1492 23:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good detailed summary, maybe could become a link?

http://www.filmsite.org/conv.htmlMarcin862 (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Conversation. 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) 09:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Conversation (website) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Conversation → The Conversation (film) – My bot and I just changed 150 instances of [[The Conversation]] to [[The Conversation (website)|The Conversation]]. There are only 140 articles linking to the article about the film. Since new additions of [[The Conversation]] could be either about the film or the website, I would like to have The Conversation be a redirect to Conversation (disambiguation). Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Vpab15 (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Film has been notified of this discussion. Vpab15 (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject United States has been notified of this discussion. Vpab15 (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 8 February 2022

The Conversation → The Conversation (film) – This is a very generic title, and there are several articles of the same name and likely more to come. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support per my arguments last time. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment :Sorry, I didn't see the previous discussion, but strongly support moving this article. The Conversation website is heavily used, and while the film is notable, the title is very generic and there are likely to be more articles with this name appearing over time. And, as time goes on, older films do lose their popularity as a target, however worthy. Also, a bit US-centric. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are several problems with this request. The movie is clearly the primary topic, with the website second. It's clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. We also can't move the page because of hypothetical articles that might be created, that is pretty clearly WP:CRYSTAL. Mannysoloway (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since the film article's main contender is the website article The Conversation (website), which has about one-fifth the pageviews in comparison. In addition, the film has significantly more contextual significance. Furthermore, I find "The" distinct enough here to separate "The Conversation" from other variations like "Conversations" or just "Conversation". To type "The Conversation" is a very specific thing to do, and it's much more likely this film than the other possibilities, further boosted by the significance that it has that the website does not. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it looks like the last RM discussion ended not even four months ago, so it seems premature to try for a new consensus considering no particular change since then. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Conversation&oldid=1070635139"