Talk:It's a Wonderful Life

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
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.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top
This article has been rated as Top-Importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] LOL Poster

Um, for the "original poster" for the film it just has a porno picture, it seems to be some sick joke, what the heck?

I fixed it, btw

Xaritix 03:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Initial Commentary

I was doing a little websearching, and there are many references to this movie's public domain status. Seems pretty well established to me. But then I came across this tidbit:

" Only recently (1994, to be exact), when NBC obtained exclusive rights to the film, has the Christmastime tide of broadcasts been stemmed. "

(from http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/i/its_wonderful.html)

Wha? I was under the impression that public domain status was forever, and that there was no way to place a public domain work back into copyright (derivative works, sure, but not the original). Does anyone know what's going on here? Bryan Derksen, Tuesday, July 2, 2002

Some lawyers argue that the movie itself is a derivative work, and for that reason is not on the public domain. See http://www.film-center.com/canishow.html

I've heard the same thing. What I've heard--and I'm not sure it's true--is that Ted Turner acquired the last physical copies, had the negatives colorized, copyrighted the colorized version, then desaturated them, in effect creating a new copyrightable b/w work. Sounds sleazy to me, and also a lot of damn work just to give everyone else the finger. I'm not at all sure that that is what did in fact happen. Koyaanis Qatsi, Tuesday, July 2, 2002

the movie was virtually unknown until it fell into the public domain in 1974

"Virtually unknown"? It was nominated for 5 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Actor and Best Director! -- Zoe

I deleted that part. I still haven't seen the film--shameful admission, really, for a film lover. Anyway, here's the excised bits in case someone has the evidence to back it up (I suspect the author meant that it was not popular in some specific era some time after it originally came out--but I don't know) Koyaanis Qatsi:

However, the movie was virtually unknown until it fell into the public domain in 1974, after which it was played frequently by PBS television stations.

Seen it on a ton of Canadian stations, too.

What Turner did was perfectly legal - by creating a "remastered" black and white version he started a fresh copyright term on it - another example is the recently remasted Beatles recordings - while the "original" recordings made in the '60s will soon be public domain the remastered versions have only just started their period of copyright!

Note that this is only the copyright in the *recordings*. The copyright in the *songs* (i.e. the words and music) remains in force for 75 years after the death of the last contributor. So George Harrison songs will be out of copyright in 73 years time, John Lennon's songs (incl. Imagine) will be out of copyright in 2055, but Lennon-McCartney songs will not be out of copyright until 75 years after McCartney's death.

210.49.196.232 07:45 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)

According to an article on Slate.com (http://slate.msn.com/id/1004242/), Republic was able to regain control of the copyright in 1994 because of a couple factors. They own the copyright to the original story, they didn't let that one lapse. And they own the copyright on the musical score. Technically, they don't have copyright over the movie, and it would be possible to cut up the scenes into a different story, replace the music, and publish such a Frankenstein's monster of a film.

Ted Turner's copyright was only for the colorized version, not any black and white version derived from a colorized version. Ironically, during the colorization fad of the 80's, many TV stations paid copyright fees to Turner to show the color version, rather than show the superior black and white one for free.

I find the discussion of copyright in this article to be inaccurate and misleading. A copyright exists in a work whether the artist registers the copyright or not. Renewals are of copyright registrations, not of the copyright itself. A registration merely entitles the registering party to certain remedies and protections, not to the actual property rights. Derivative works always have a copyright, whether or not the underlying works have maintained their copyright registration or have fallen into the public domain. A work falls into the public domain once the copyright has expired, which has nothing to do with the registration, but the date of the author's death and when the work was published (the law in effect at the time the work was published determines how many years to add after the author's death). There are nuances to the rules covering works for hire (such as a film) but they are essentially the same idea. Once a work enters the public domain, it cannot be purchased or otherwise retained.

I'm afraid you're incorrect. Renewals are CURRENTLY of copyright registration, but AT THE TIME the work was supposed to have been renewed, renewal was required for copyright itself. Such formality has not been required since the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, but because of when the work was published registration was required for copyright protection. Therefore, what was not renewed is no longer protected by copyright. The company used the "underlying story" and music copyrights to attempt to retain copyright over the film. Furthermore, derivative works in themselves do not always have a copyright. A work based on another work that is not authorized does not have copyright protection beyond the original work's copyright. Additionally, property rights are not the same as intellectual property rights.

[edit] Swedenborgian angel

Does the concept of an angel as a former living human come from the Swedenborgians?

I think it's just part of folklore. In Hamlet, Laertes says of Ophelia "A ministering angel shall my sister be, / When thou liest howling." It may not be theologically accurate, but it's been a common belief at least as far back as Shakespeare. Narsil

[edit] Plotline

Surely slightly more can be given of the plot?

I haven't seen the movie in a while, but the plot bit -really- needs to be fleshed out more. The bit with George's bank vs. Mr. Potter's, George's brother, and "Potterville" all merit addition to the article.

[edit] Depression

Cut from critique section:

(since in many cases of depression, chemical imbalances are its cause)

This is not a fact, but a Wikipedia:Point of view. The extent to which chemical imbalance is an effect or a cause has not been firmly established but is still controversial (see rational-emotive therapy). Uncle Ed 15:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The FBI

The assertion in the critique section that the FBI labeled the film subersive is not supported. See the second page of the FBI memo at www.paperlessarchives.com/compic.html. It is clear that the someone at the FBI documented and reported the views of a number of external sources. That is not the same as the FBI itself "view[ing] the film as subversive[.]"

Xtrmst 21:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bank run

Hey, do we really need this section? Brutannica 09:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur, if it stays, it has to be incorporated to the Trivia section. IF it stays. Mrbluesky 23:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Public domain?

I was patrolling for vandalism and spotted this (diff: [1]). I don't know if this edit is in good faith or not; is there a more knowledgeable editor who could corroborate or refute this information? Especially if they can do so by citing a reputable source? Thanks in advance. Luna Santin 05:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I added Template:fact because I don't know. The screenshots are labeled public domain so, if it is true what is considered a derivative work? Are the visuals fine since they don't incorporate dialog from a copyrighted script? gren グレン 11:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

I have watched this film countless times and the last time I paid close attention to the actors. I propose that Lionel Barrymore did a sort of “cameo appearance” in the first dance hall scene involving Violet Biggs acting hysterically on Main Street as she is taken out of the hall yelling “I know Potter”, etc. I suggest that Mr. Barrymore is the police officer that had a speaking role while putting Violet in the “Paddy Wagon” and acknowledges her name to George Bailey. It’s a wonderful thought if it is true and once confirmed adds to the trivia.

If you look at his article in wikipedia, you will see that he was confined to a wheelchair at that time because of multiple hip fractures. So I don't think he could have played a character that required mobility. --rogerd 06:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appearances and References in Pop Culture

Small thing, but in the section on appearances and references in pop culture there is a Simpsons reference missing. In "When Flanders Failed" Ned Flanders opens the Leftorium, a store for left-handed people. The store fails and the Flanders are ruined, until Homer tells him to open the store. As Ned starts up the escalator, his wife is at the top telling him hurry Neddy it's a miracle. Homer has rounded up every left-handed person he knows and the store, and the Flanders family, is saved. Ned stands with his family and everyone faces him, Homer raises a glass and says to Ned Flanders, the richest left-handed man in town.


Good catch. I've added it to the page. Claude 05:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

During the South Park episode 'Mr Hankey's Christmas Classics, the song 'Christmas Time in Hell' features George Bailey walking by at the end shouting "Merry Christmas movie house!"

The Red Dwarf novel 'Better Then Life' prominently features Lister being trapped in his fantasy of living in Bedford Falls.

In National Lampoon's Christmas vacation, Chevy Chase has a "George Bailey"-esque relationship with a rickety staircase banister. I think that's an obvious nod to it's a wonderful life.

What about adding a note to the Trivia section that Loinel Barrymore is acress Drew Barrymore's great-uncle?

Thanks for the suggestion, but this article is about the film only. The family connection of Lionel and Drew is already mentioned in wikipedia's Drew Barrymore article. Roaming27 07:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot summary WAY too long

This movie is one of my favorites, but this plot summary is much, much, MUCH too long. In fact, I'd say its by far the longest plot synopsis for a piece of media I have ever seen on Wikipedia, and that includes the one for the 800+ page-long Lord of the Rings trilogy (and that is not a good thing). This fact, along with the excessively long "appearances in popular culture" and "trivia" sections, are the main problem with the page at this point and should be consolidated, and summarized (in the true meaning of the word) as soon as possible. -- Grandpafootsoldier 06:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The plot description is indeed way too long. It should be condensed to half its current length. — Walloon 08:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Rather than focusing on adding more information to this article, the summary should be chopped in half. - Angleterre 02:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
are we going to run out of paper...oh yea wiki's not paper. People look something up they want detailed info not a quick summary. The detail is just that in the details.--Xiahou 02:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Just split it off into a separate article, and write a short summary for the main page. It's much better-written than most synopses. Cop 633 20:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry dude, but read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not again. We don't need a sentence by sentence retelling of a novel and we don't need a shot by shot retelling of a movie either. This plot "summary" is obvious way too long and needs to be halved at the very least. -- Grandpafootsoldier 07:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/t/27/Talk%7EIt%27s_a_Wonderful_Life_0623.html"