Talk:To Kill a Mockingbird (film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Summary??
- The summary doesnt seem to be a summary at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.99.38.61 (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Separation
It was better off with this new article joined with the one about the novel. People could learn about both topics at the same time. 16:18, 18 April 2006 69.151.221.28
- See discussion at book talk page [Talk:To_Kill_a_Mockingbird#Two_Separate_Articles?] Petersam 01:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Elaboration
This article needs a lot more textual content. I'm going to try to add some over the next few months, but no promises. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rtcpenguin (talk • contribs) 03:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] A significant expansion is coming.
I will be chasing down some sources, and working on this article quite a bit over the next while. Please place suggestions and ideas here for sections, sub-sections, and general thoughts. Bellwether BC 09:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to put back the plot summary that has been deleted, otherwse I have no special thoughts on the article.JeanColumbia (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Sorry, my error-there was no plot summary to be -- or that was--deleted. So, obviously I'd like to see one! JeanColumbia (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I thinks that the Plot is critical to this article since there are several differences between the book and the film user:topio
[edit] Need a section on differences between film and book
While refraining from original research, we need to pull together some material from the sources that compare the two versions. Here's a little list to start with (for me, it's too hard deciding which bits to cite, and we certainly can't just paste in the material verbatim):
Lawikitejana (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I concur with your reasoning here. A section comparing the two would be helpful, and should be available somewhere in a secondary source. My students (middle-schoolers) have written some on this very issue, but I don't think WP would like citing the work of 12-year-olds ... ;) -- Bellwether BC 18:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. That's actually the section I came here looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.138.213 (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Importance assessment of this article
I have assessed the importance of this article as "Top", for the following reasons:
- It is widely considered a classic movie, appearing on every "Top 100 Films of All-time" list I can find.
- A legendary actor (Gregory Peck) considered his work as Atticus Finsh in the movie to be his finest role.
- It is a movie based upon a book that is considered a classic of American letters.
If anyone wishes to contest this rating, please do so in this thread. Regards, -- Bellwether BC 18:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Copyright
I've spent much of the last week researching films alleged to be in the public domain, and, having started off with the wikipedia PD Film list as my starting point, I've been kind of shocked at how many were wrongfully listed as PD. Kurosawa's films, for example, which seemed to be in the PD in Japan for a short while before the courts reversed themselves last year. Triumph of the Will, before Riefenstahl's copyright was restored under GATT in the mid-'90s. The Man Who Knew Too Much, before the Hitchcock estate had the copyright restored in 1998. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, the soundtrack to the Broadway play of which is in the public domain, but the movie of which is not. And so on. I ended up making a lot of corrections.
When it comes to this movie, I've found some very circumstantial evidence that it *could* be in the public domain: it's been issued by some discount houses known for re-releasing PD titles (as well as some non-PD titles). It is also available for viewing on a couple of websites. I've run into other evidence that it may still be under copyright, and that the book is definitely still under copyright (the reason Capra's It's a Wonderful Life is no longer considered PD). Archive.org won't touch it, the consensus there is that it's copyrighted. http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=137652
Now, I'd love to have this movie truly be in the public domain, but, with penalties for mistakes being pretty severe, I think that some evidence to support the claim is needed. Has anyone got any reference for the PD claim which is even slightly reliable? It's been tagged for several months. 68.124.190.92 (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Copyright of To Kill a Mockingbird is expired. I indicated [1][2][3] for citation. In Japan, pre-1954 films are public domain (Roman Holiday, Shane,etc.), but copyright of post-1954 films are continued for 70 years, except in public domain in created country (Charade, McLintock!,etc.) If copyright is continued, these are illegal. Mikomaid (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I have also been under the impression that the film is no longer under copyright. I need an impeccable source for this, as I've placed movie stills in the article for the book, and that is under review for a Featured Article Candidate. If anyone knows of a source that can either dispute this or confirm this, please post it - English, please. --Moni3 (talk) 05:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Renewal of the book's copyright can be found here: http://collections.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals/bin/search/simple/process?query=to+kill+a+mockingbird So this movie probably comes into the same category as It's A Wonderful Life, where the film itself is public domain, but cannot be treated as such because the contents of the film are copyrighted. 69.108.216.8 (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I found renewals for the screenplay and music used in the movie as well. http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=75&ti=51,75&Search%5FArg=to%20kill%20a%20mockingbird&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&PID=11095&SEQ=20080416020
- I'm going to go ahead and remove the PD tag now, since clear evidence to the contrary seems to be lacking. 69.108.216.143 (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- ^Your link makes error. What's those 3 DVD-links?Mikomaid (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- I comfirmed that rights of Roman Holiday abd Gentlemen Prefer Blondes are renewed, but, I can't find To Kill a Mockingbird in 1962. Look Type of Work! If you point here, it's error. The link points text (book), NOT motion picture. Probably, To Kill a Mockingbird is in public domain.Mikomaid (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Sheriff
A pivotal character and performance is not mentioned - the Sheriff, memorably portrayed by Arthur Franz. Jmaster1999 (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)