Talk:The Aviator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as high-Importance on the importance scale.
Editing Guidelines

In my opinion, this article about "The Aviator", the movie, has too much other details about Hughes' life (e.g. "inheritance", "Rice University"...) which are simply not covered in the movie itself. I think it would be much better if this article stuck about the facts of the movie itself, a review of it, and provide links to other excellent Hughes biography articles at Wikipedia and elsewhere.

But it isn't a review, its just a short summary of Howard Hughes. Considering that the film is a biopic, it's relevant. Xezbeth 18:25, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
When I read the article, I had exactly the same reaction as the anon. The "short summary of Howard Hughes" is at Howard Hughes. The only reason for this article to include Hughes-related information that wasn't in the movie would be to comment on the omission, e.g., if it were thought useful to say, "The film ends before the period in Hughes's life when he moved to Las Vegas and had a major impact on the development of that city." (I wouldn't bother noting that particular omission, because the statement about the time period actually covered is adequate; I offer it only as an example.) JamesMLane 08:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I concur. Most of the subject matter of the article should be forklifted into Hughes' bio. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Reviews

Hello, I agree with the unsigned post, and think that external links to reviews should be added. I would like to add a review by MIM, but it seems that others do not want it because they don't agree with the politics. This is not a valid reason for removal. I don't always agree with what MIM writes, but I find their reviews of movies to be very unique and insightful. People can choose to read it or not, and they should be able to make up their own minds about MIM's review and not have opinions made for them by others. Only allowing "movie lore" reviews makes things plain vanilla, and I don't think this is a rule of WikiPedia. (Anonymous post by User:Mista-X) (I appologize for not signing that --Mista-X 03:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) )

It's not the politics, it's the fact that it's completely unnecessary. There are many more significant reviews to list, but we don't list them because a list of every link related to every article would be incredibly long. --TheGrza 03:24, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Who are you to say it is "unnecessary"? Let other people decide what reviews are worthwhile by adding them and reading them. There is no "incredibly long" list to speak of at this point, so your rational is simply speculation. If things start to get out of hand, which I doubt it will, then we should - IMO - come to a consensus on talk pages or something in order to decide what is notable and should be allowed. --Mista-X 03:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A consensus has been reached, and you have breached it. --TheGrza 04:16, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Care to point out this consensus? --Mista-X 04:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Grass?

For anyone who has seen the film, throughout we see odd manipulation of colour, i.e. blue grass and orange flora. Although this is mentioned in the article is there a mre in-depth explanation?

Good eye! On the commentary track, Scorsese said because film was such a huge part of Hughes' life, he wanted the film stock he used to match the eras of his life. A good summary is here, and a detailed article is here. Specifically, in the early days of color film, they only shot in two colors instead of three (more details at Technicolor#Two-color_Technicolor), and those unusual colors you saw was characteristic of the limitations of that film stock. --Arcadian 21:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Famous names mentioned

I would like to question as to whether this section adds anything to the article. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Nixed. It amounts to nothing more than useless trivia. Wikipedia is not IMDb. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bio

Much of this article covers biographical information which should be forklifted to Howard Hughes, restricting article content to movie-specific information. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 05:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why the ref to historical liberties

Why does this article say "The film takes many historical liberties"? That's what fictional yarns do. Or does someone think this film is supposed to be a factual bio of Hughes? Moriori 08:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Umm...

I just saw this movie, and I thought it was great. But I have a couple questions about this article.

  • Are these years accurate? Again, it seems like the article contributors are playing mix-n-match with facts from Hughes' life in order to make more sense of the movie. I dunno, that's probably a good thing, but only if these years and movie facts, etc are accurate.
  • When Ava Gardner cleaned Howard up for the Senate hearing, at first I heard "Do it for me," but quickly decided that it was probably "You'd do it for me." That makes more sense to me, since Howard just finished thanking her for helping him. But maybe I'm wrong. Any responses?

--(Crnk Mnky) 65.13.21.153 04:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A section on critical response?

It seems to me a section on the critical and popular response would be in order.Loodog 18:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Aviator_f7d1.html"