Talk:It's a Wonderful Life

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's a Wonderful Life is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
July 6, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics 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 priority scale.


Contents

[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)

U.S. copyright law, either statutory or case law, does not recognize a separate copyright for "remastered" versions of recordings. U.S. copyright law covers the creative portions of works, not technical matters. The Copyright Office routinely accepts registrations for such remastered works because it is not within their duties to judge how much and what portion of each work is new. — Walloon (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2008 (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.

Legal or not, it just proves certain people (especially with power and wealth) will do anything to make a buck. Kind of ironic how it goes against the entire plot of the movie. Heck, I should claim copyright, but unfortunately I can't afford a high priced lawyer to make it "legal".

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)

The final episode of Dallas is a take-off of IAWL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.142.158 (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have noted the comment in the hypertext of the article discouraging Simpsons references. However, I would like to point out one extremely important reference that really ought to be there. Surely it is incontrovertible that the character of Mr Burns (posture, steepled hands, high chairback, sidekick standing behind) is heavily influenced by that of Mr Potter?

so? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

I suggest adding The Hebrew Hammer to the pop culture references. It's a Wonderful Life (dubbed "the most addictive Jewish pride weakening substance known to man") is a plot element of that movie.—Graf Bobby (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2008 (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)

[edit] This Article needs a kick up the rear!

Sorry but for such a great and important film this article is very poor, it does not follow the Project films style guide at all, it has little or no references for any of the quotes / claims in the article, there are too many images, the trivia section belongs on IMDB not on a Wiki article and the plot section, well would it not have been easier to cut and paste the script into this article? This should be a Good Article and a Featured Article, this film does not deserve to be a B class article (to be fair i am not sure how it got that!)

Sorry if this is harsh but it needs to be said, I have a plan however, is there anybody here who would like to help me get this article up to scratch and turned into a GA as well as a Featured Article?? Let me know please. Murphy Inc 13:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Version

Hi, i am sorry if i have upset anyone who may have put lots of hard work into this article but it did really need a drastic change, and i did give plenty of warning as to my intentions (above).

It is by no means finished, I felt it was important to at least get the basics down and get the format in order as per the Project Films Style Guide, there is still a lot of work to do to get this up to GA status. I would appreciate any help that anyone can give, urgent requirements are references, the article is still very poorly referenced, i have made a start but still a lot to do. Problem is there is little on the web so if anyone has any books or documentaries they can reference some of the claims that would be great.

I have shortened the article loads, the plot has been reduced from OVER 1900 words!! to 555 and i have completely removed the trivia section and most of the images. I think it looks much tidier and is going to be much easier to improve from here.

Any comments please feel free. Thanks. Murphy Inc 15:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of references sources besides the usual internet websites and I have listed them. Editing the text is useful but removing images may not be as well received. Citations and references are still a problem and follow no standard style guide. I can help here since I have a background as a librarian. FWIW Bzuk 04:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC).
I think you've done a superb job. I disagree with User:Bzuk's comments that the removal of images might not be well received - I think the previous version looked like a scrapbook, thrown together without much thought, as if someone found a whole bunch of images and felt compelled to use them all. Images should be carefully chosen and should be illustrative rather than purely decorative. I think you've achieved this aim - all of the images add to the overall presentation. You've removed the cluttered, random appearance, while also reducing the excessive text, particularly in the plot section. Rossrs 05:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully, I do think the edit was a good one but "superb" is a bit much as tiny errors and omissions were evident. I will "put my money where my mouth is" and make contributions to the article in the next while. IMHO Bzuk 14:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC).
No offence taken, but although calling the edits "superb", I was not going to immediately nominate it for featured article status as I realize that it is not a finished product. However, considering how poor the previous version was, how much work was needed to be done, and how much has been done, the effort is superb and the improvement is vast. Rossrs 15:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks folks, i appreciate the support. I was actually really worried that i may offend one or two people and end up in an edit war or something!. Of course it is nowhere near finished yet, and yes there are still errors, grammar has never been my strongest point and i do rely on other editors to spot the mistakes i sometimes miss, but aint that how Wikipedia works?. All this edit was intending to do was just get the format and style into shape, to give us a base to work on, I am please that i will not be doing this on my own, your help on this is greatly appreciated. I really think this article should be a featured article just going by the subject alone and it would be nice if we could achieve that. Cheers Murphy Inc 22:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I should look at the article before coming right to the talk page, great work on the references, you have been busy. It is starting to look like a proper article now! ;-)Murphy Inc 22:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English spelling

I apologise in advance for use of English spelling in the article, i know this means more work for others in fixing my typo's and i will try to use American spelling, but when it is natural to me it is hard to change. Cheers Murphy Inc 22:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologize and I will try to catch your typos; no worry, I am an editor and these types of edits are commonplace for me. I am a Canajan, BTW, where are you from? (|:0})Bzuk 23:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC).
Canajan?? what it that? I am Irish but living in Australia. Sorry a bit busy at the moment so not really much time to do anything else on here for a couple of days, will try to spend some time on this later in the weekMurphy Inc 18:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
...and then I go ahead a make a spello/typo?! The "Canajan" is a crude expression for a Canadian who spent too many hours watching old reruns of Frank Capra movies. I do have an appreciation for "Capra corn" and have the advantage of having the original screenplay and a very authoritative reference source on It's a Wonderful Life in which I have "dipped." Like yourself, I look forward to seeing the article "come to life." (|:0}) Bzuk 19:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Failure to win Oscars

From the article: "These losses can be explained in part by Best Years' box office success in 1946, and its relevance to the movie-going audience of the time. Best Years of Our Lives is a dramatic look at the lives of servicemen returning home after World War II, and is itself considered a milestone film. The ingredients of Best Years of Our Lives – drama, social relevance, a character overcoming disability, another character facing madness – are all quite in keeping with what is considered an "Oscar-winning film". Seen today, the movie still retains much of its power, though not as highly regarded in the American psyche as the poignant It's a Wonderful Life."

I think this section could/should be rewritten or removed as I don't think we should be attempting to explain why it didn't win. I don't think it's possible to explain why it didn't win, and although the reasoning appears sound to me, it looks like original research and as a conclusion being drawn by Wikipedia. If it could be attributed to someone of note that might help. I think it also conveys an unsuitable degree of POV as the underlying message seems to be that Wonderful Life was robbed. I think it's sufficient to comment on it's nominations and that the major winner that year was Best Years and leave out the attempt to "explain away" it's failure to win. I'm happy to rewrite this section, and I can also add some information about RKO's Oscar campaign, however I would like to know the opinions of other contributors before I do. Rossrs 02:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I said I'd wait, but decided to be bold. I guess it's easier to comment on what I think should be included if I actually write it. Of course, it's easy to revert if there is a disagreement. Rossrs 09:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flop

Just to comment on the disagreement about whether the film was a flop - from The Hollywood Story: Everything You Always Wanted to Know About the American Movie Business But Didn't Know Where to Look, Joel W. Finler, Pyramid Books, 1989, ISBN 1855 10009 6. (Despite the dumb book title it's a fairly detailed look at the business end of Hollywood, full of facts and figures).

Under a Chapter "RKO" and subchapter "Finances", it states that Wonderful Life recorded a loss of over $500,000 when released. It was RKO's second highest loser for the year (Sister Kenny was the biggest loser with a loss over $660,000). The book identifies 1946 as the most profitable year in Hollywood history so the loss is probably even more notable. RKO suffered a series of losses during 1946 and 1947, and five films lost more than $4 million between them. (Wonderful Life ($500,000), Sister Kenny ($660,000), Tycoon (1947 $1,000,000), Mourning Becomes Electra (1947 $2,300,000) and Honeymoon (1947 $675,000). The result was that the major shareholder sold his interest in RKO to Howard Hughes, and the studio never recovered. Interestingly (see the section above), the most profitable film of the decade was Goldwyn's The Best Years of Our Lives. Anyway, I think it's fair to say Wonderful Life was a flop.

This is a loss recorded on its original release. According to the Eliot source in the article, the break even point was 6.3 million - how long did it take to reach that break even point? Also this information contradicts Eliot's quote that it wasn't the box office failure that today everyone believes it to have been. How then do we deal with this? Rossrs 02:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The things is, there is more than one way to measure whether a particular movie was a "flop." Yes, one way is whether it made a profit or loss on its initial release. But another way to measure is whether it was popular with audiences. By that measure, the answer is yes, it was popular: it was in the top 7% of that year's films as ranked by box office. Another measure is what the rest of Hollywood thought of the picture. The fact that it was nominated for three major Academy Awards, including Best Picture, indicates that they thought highly of it, that it was one of the five best movies of the year. So let us keep all of those measures in mind, and give a more qualified statement about whether the film was successful, than to write that it was "widely considered a flop." We can do better than that. — Walloon 02:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we can do much better. You are quite correct and the word "flop" doesn't convey the whole story. OK, in a nutshell, the film was popular with audiences and with critics, but because of its high production costs, it returned a loss. Wonderful Life seems to have had a higher budget than most films produced that year, so it needed an exceptional box office to recover its costs, and that didn't happen. We need to expand on this within the article and give a full and clear explanation. The article can only benefit. Rossrs 02:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The many sources that had described the film as both a financial and critical disappointment are legion. Even a cursory search through articles and reference sources reveal an overwhelming number of reviewers that comment on the "1946 flop" but most use it as a counterpoint to make the argument that it is also acknowledged that it was not as poorly received as was thought. There were many more critical reviews than positive reviews at the time according to Capra's biography consequently the contention that the previous editor has made that it was "popular with critics" is not supportable. A more defensible position is that it did receive a favourable reception from audiences but few contemporary sources exist to support this viewpoint but it would stand to reason given its initial box office receipts. Eliot has made a more cautionary statement about its popularity but Cox has made the most definitive statements of all; he notes that the film made an immediate impact on release but then faded significantly in the weeks that followed. He also contends as do many other film historians that only a more modern reappraisal due to its repeated showings in the 1970s and beyond, saved the film from an ignominious end. I have qualified the contention that it was a "flop" by citing the varying contemporary opinions that historians have now put forward. IMHO Bzuk 03:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC).
The film had its supporters but 'popular with critics' is obviously too broad a statement. At the moment the situation is explained far more clearly here on the talk page than it is in the article. I feel that the "reception" section needs to be expanded. The lead paragraph also contains information that does not appear in the article, and as the lead is meant to be a summary, some of these points need to be carried into the article. It's interesting that Cox notes the film made a quick impact and then faded. It certainly had a strong marketing campaign on its release, so perhaps that wasn't sustained. Another book I have notes that there was criticism at the time about the Academy Award contenders being rushed into release over a 5 week period and that they were being lost in the rush. (Wonderful Life, Best Years, The Yearling, Duel in the Sun and The Razor's Edge) In fact, The Best Years of Our Lives was released only a week after Wonderful Life so maybe it stole its thunder. It's also interesting that the films have such a similar title, and were each a reaction to World War II. Why did audiences favor one over the other? Anyway, this is theorizing - ok for the talk page, but no help to the article :-) Rossrs 03:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Dudes, i am not 100% happy with the chages to the introduction section i wrote, i understand there have been some discussions around my use of the word 'flop' and can understand this but what has replaced it does not flow very well at all. There is a section on reception and really comments and quotes regarding how succesful the film was need to be there. The Intro should be snappy and flow well, easy to read and a way of setting up the article without going into too many details. I will make a change now but just want you to understand why. Murphy Inc 15:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note on notes

Advice from a former book editor: It's not necessary to write "Note:" at the beginning of a footnote. The reader knows it is a footnote. — Walloon 17:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

But this is not the case, when I place a "note" it is because it is a paraphrase of a passage. All the "Notes" in this article are exactly that. {:0}) BTW, I am a book editor. Bzuk 17:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Pop Culture references

A submission was recently made that said: "A reacuring gag is a charactor who finds out that his friends and family would have, in fact been happier had he/she never existed." I could not find a way for this to fit into the section. Any ideas? FWIW Bzuk 04:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC).

  • Parodies of "It's A Wonderful Life" appear on Fairly Oddparents "It's A Wishful Life" and also an Xmas epsiode of "Married with Children" {guest star Sam Kenison As the "Angel"} in which Timmy Turner and Al Bundy find out that everyone else lives would have been better if they never existed!
Kinda falls into the "so what?" category, and not really meeting the standards of notability. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Colorized versions

"They are widely considered by some as inferior to the black and white original, and are often held up by opponents of colorization as examples of the flaws associated with the process. In the scene of the dinner table chat between George and Peter Bailey, for example, James Stewart's shirt is conspicuously pink."

As someone who owns several fine dress shirts that are pink, may I ask how it is a flaw that James Stewart's shirt is pink? — Walloon 04:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legend Films

I suspect that it may be speculation that Legend Films was the company behind the latest colorization of the film. I may be wrong, but I have added text to articles on films that have been recently colorized, associating these releases with the company, and then found out that Legend wasn't involved with the colorization. However, I do not want to remove reference to Legend from this article if it turns out that they did do the colorization for the new edition of the film. I've contacted their official website about it and I am waiting for a response. Amazon.com does not mention Legend at all. Perhaps the "color version" advertised on the front cover of the new edition is just a reissue of the old colorized version. (Ibaranoff24 10:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

Isaac - the one time you credited my company with a film we didn't produce I was the one that corrected you. Please check out that correction. I believe my name is on it... don't worry, I'll keep you honest. You emailed me to ask if Legend Films produced the latest version of It's A Wonderful Life and I responded in the affirmative. In my most recent email I gave you contact info at Paramount to confirm. The next time you email me for a confirmation, ask for references rather than simply confirmation. I'll provide what you need. —Preceding Barry B. Sandrew, Ph.D. comment added by 68.166.131.17 (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the email was all I needed. Thanks for the confirmation. (Ibaranoff24 04:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC))
Actually, your edits showed up credited to your IP address, and did not have your name on them, but thanks for the confirmation. (Ibaranoff24 04:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Angel credits

Of the two angels that talk to Clarence, only one seems to be credited in this article. Does anyone know who the other one is? I'm not sure which one is which but one of them sounds like Maurice LaMarche on Pinky and the Brain. Obviously, the time period isn't right, but maybe it was someone who sounded like him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizzadinosaur (talk • contribs) 22:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violet

Who is this person? (It's been a while since I last saw this film.) She's mentioned just once in the plot, but without any explanation of what she was like before the change. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I’m also drawing a blank of who this is. It’s been a while for me also since the last time I viewed the film. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 08:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Violet Bick is a childhood friend of George and Mary Bailey. She is first seen with them in the soda fountain scene. She seems to be fond of George, not so much of Mary. We next see her as an adult when George is getting a taxi, and Violet walks by, attracting the attention of all the men on the street. Later she is at the high school dance. — Walloon (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

The name "Mark Eliot" is prominent in the introduction. Who is he? There is a dab page for a different spelling "Mark Elliot". Snowman (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Mark Eliot wrote "Jimmy Stewart: A Biography" which was one of the sources used in researching background for this article. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC).
Yes, I saw the ref. So is he known as an author and an autobiographer? Is he a film critic? Is he an economist? When I read the introduction, I thought that he might be a well known person in USA, but not well known here in the UK. Why not just make a statement and give the ref without using his name in the introduction, like for most other sources. Snowman (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Since you've just come here, this was originally a reference note not found in the main body of the text. It was only recently moved because there was a dispute over the "flop" comment and it was to indicate that there was some authority behind the quotation, and that author-quote device is not uncommon. Mark Eliot's biography is probably the most current and authoritative work on Stewart's life. He is considered a film historian and biographer and the book is well recognized as a detailed and comprehensive study of Stewart and his life and times. With "It's a Wonderful Life' being a pivotal film in Stewart's career, considerable attention was devoted to it. Having said all that (now I'm beginning to sound like my father-in-law who "owns" that phrase), I will massage the passage a bit. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC).
Yes, I read the introduction without knowing the history of the edits. I accept your explanation of the authority of the source, but I thought that I aught to know who ME was, and I did not know why he does not have a wikipage of his own, yet there is a wikipage for "Mark Elliot" to which "Mark Eliot" is redirected. So perhaps, just add something like; "The film historian, ME wrote ......" --Snowman (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
No need, changes already made. Bzuk (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Copyright renewal

That the motion picture copyright of It's a Wonderful Life was not renewed when its first 28-year copyright term expired can be seen by the Renewals section of the 1973–1974 volumes of the U.S. Copyright Office's Catalog of Copyright Entries. Therefore, its images did enter the public domain. However, its story did not, because it was a derivative work, derived from the short story "The Greatest Gift" that was still under copyright. — Walloon (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)