Talk:Good Night, and Good Luck

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

Tagline[edit]

The IMDB site says the tagline is "In a nation terrorized by its own government, one man dared to tell the truth", however the movie cover on Yahoo! Movies says "we will not walk in fear of one another". --Revolución (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

title[edit]

IMDB spells the title Good Night, and Good Luck. Maybe this article should be moved there until the USA release, when we will all be wiser about the punctuation, if any. What you think, Rev?-Ajshm 21:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Revolución (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

merge the articles to create one good article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.212.34 (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good Night, and Good Luck is the form of spelling used on the film's British Board of Film Classification certificate. Lee M 02:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally have a copy of the shooting script and it is with the full stop so it should stay as is.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Parable1991 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Venona[edit]

I am not a great fan of Joe Macarthy, but what about the Venona files?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.212.34 (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, fan is obviously the wrong word, you are to McCarthy, what what trekkies are to william shatner--172.143.240.29 22:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What about the VENONA files? According to the Wiki on Senator McCarthy, the VENONA files identify five people who were also accused by McCarthy. However, McCarthy accused them of being communists, which was not (and still is not) a crime under US law, whereas the VENONA files identified them as Soviet spies, which is of course illegal. Therefore, the VENONA files do nothing to bolster McCarthy's image as an exposer of criminals because he was never actually attempting to do such a thing. -- Hux 18:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also fail to see what bringing up Venona has to do with so much as the price of tea in China vis a vis a discussion of the film "Good Night and Good Luck." I mean, is user 12.10... saying that Murrow was "exposed" in Venona as a "commie sympathizer?" Or that all and any critics of McCarthy turned out to be bad people or "commie dupes" due to what was revealed in Venona? Quite frankly, if anything, Venona revealed what a scattershot and mostly inaccurate aim McCarthy had at his targets. Unfortunately, rather than a historical trasure trove of information and intel, I often get the impression that McCarthy proponents feel that Venona is some sort of miracle stain remover akin to a new laundry detergent, that the mere mention of it makes the man and his methods as spotless as 1951 all over again, and is supposed to make people alleged to have opposing viewpoints just shut up, and often gets applied to a wide variety of right/left topics, whether it is germane or not. --170.135.241.45 00:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
what about the Venona files? VENONA was highly unlikely to have been known to Murrow at that point. Even today (2014) it is not know if President Truman knew of preliminary, fragmentary findings from VENONA. The story I know is that Hoover sent a report to Truman's chief of staff <name forgotten> & it is not known if the report was shown to Truman. For certain it is known that Truman was NOT a Hoover fan. DEddy (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking[edit]

It seemed to me that the main charachter smoked in every scene in which he appeared. Thats crazy!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.159.168 (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rightly so good fellow! The Cigaretts were very popular in the 50s, especially since its harmful/addictive effects were not known at the time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by LorenzoRims (talk • contribs) 07:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They shall always follow their corrupt[edit]

I'm slightly disgusted that criticism of this film is ended with a quote from a Slate columnist. Things like this shouldn't appear as criticism to a film, especially if there arn't any references to actual film critics (eg. Who's looking at Slate for objectionable thought?! Where's Ebert?!).—Preceding unsigned comment added by LorenzoRims (talk • contribs) 07:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I added a relevant Ebert quote for balance. Fox News would be proud (*cough* joke *cough*). -- Hux 19:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia question (answer required)[edit]

How did they achieve the scene in which the characters are in an elevator that stops on different floors? Did they:

  1. Film the scene in an actual elevator?
  2. Use bluescreen to drop in different backgrounds every time the door opened?
  3. Move the scenery while the doors were closed?
  4. Something else I haven't thought of?

On an unrelated note, the London cinema where I saw the film presented it in a badly scratched and wobbly print with horrible optical sound. I'll be sure to buy the DVD on the theory that it can't possibly be as bad as the theatrical print. Lee M 03:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--> The elevator was kind of a box. While inside the elevator, they just turned this box around, so that, when the doors opened, another floor could be seen.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.0.231 (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the sets are adjacent. They just rotate the "elevator" so it opens facing a new direction. In the commentary, Clooney says he borrowed this technique from films of the era this movie is from.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasi2290 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

external links[edit]

I've added a link to the synopsis for this movie at moviecheat.com. This is my site, it's pure content; I've checked the rules and it shouldn't be a problem to add this link as long as it's relevant and informative. I think our Good Night, and Good Luck synopsis is absolutely of interest to anyone who wants a more detailed look at this movie. But if anyone truly has a problem, feel free to revert.—Preceding undated comment added by Rasi2290 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request to add my review[edit]

Dear Friends,

Earlier today I added this link to this article: Clooneyism: History Hollywood-style. I was unaware of the proper protocol. I am no spammer. I am a fan of film and a history teacher at a community college. I apologize for my presumptuousness. I would like to respectfully request that you add my review and commentary to the external links portion of the article. I would humbly argue that my piece offers something unique to the discussion. Thank you for your consideration.

My email address: acruseturner@mclennan.edu

PS Now that I understand the procedure for adding external links, I will definitely go through proper channels from now on. Once again, I apologize.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.108.130 (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there -- first of all, welcome to Wikipedia!  Secondly, although your post is well-written and interesting, I'm not sure what it offers that isn't in other reviews and the Slate article.  What would you say is your review's unique contribution? Greyfedora 15:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the kinds words and consideration, Greyfedora.  In a nutshell, I think my review combines the historical angle (in fewer words and less emphasis than the Slate article; the historical is the thrust of the Slate piece) with the artistry of the film, and the influence of the director, Clooney.  I deal with the intersection of Hollywood, history and a person of great talent (maybe even genius).  That is, my acknowledgement that "presentism" makes an impact on this film is not unique--but worth considering in this context.  Thanks again for engaging.  Also, my discussion of Bobby Kennedy is something I have never seen in any other work.  Ashley—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.159.6 (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "overacting" rumor[edit]

Screen test are not public. There's never "authoritative reports" about them. George Clooney did attend them, since he directed and produced it. And he knows for sure what reactions he got during those tests. Asking for more evidences here seem quite weird because of the nature of those events. No studio has ever published their results. And those of GNGL made no exception. So the only facts we'll got there are the quotes of those who attended and reported them . George Clooney was definitely one of them. So it was not a rumor but a fact.Annegc1 21:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's just it. There are claims that Clooney said this, but no actual quotes of him to this effect. In other words, Clooney never said what those who have spread the rumor claim he said.—DCGeist 22:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while you might be right, the way it is written is original research, as it tries to lead the reader into disbelieving what Clooney sayd, on the basis that it was "just a rumour". While it might be, you cant write it down in such way here in wikipedia, UNLESS, there are articles and reviewers that have come up with the topic stating that its rumour, demanding proof and evidence of it. As of right now that section, for the way it is written, lacks of any source that confirms that such piece is worthy enough of being written that way, to say it in another way, you are pretty much writting a rumour about a supposed rumour, and as such, its not only poorly written, but also unencyclopedic and in violation of the rules of Wikipedia. Either you get some sources or the section has to be re-written or deleted.190.161.198.196 16:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where the current article text "tries to lead the reader into disbelieving what Clooney said", or where there's any original research, or where there's any statement that isn't sourced, or where it's poorly written or unencyclopedic or in violation of the rules of Wikipedia. RedSpruce 17:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reception[edit]

Thank you for not erasing my adding about Terry Teachout. There's nothing untrue about this link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.20.62.185 (talk) 15:44, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

An edit doesn't have to be untrue to be misleading. Since the overall reaction to the movie was very positive, it's misleading for the "Reception" section to quote two reviews that criticized it and only one that praised it. RedSpruce 16:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you put another one which is positive then ? The movie's subject is politics, and McCarthy, so there's a controversy, it's normal. There's the popular reception and the critics, which know a little more than the average person. If you erase it, it means nothing more but liberal censorship : to strech history IS misleading as does the movie. Commentary is a respected journal, not a pulp magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.20.62.185 (talk) 17:15, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
The quote you're adding doesn't say anything that the following review quote doesn't say, so it adds nothing to the article. Also, criticizing a historical movie for inaccurate history is silly. No historical movie in the history of movies has been thoroughly accurate. Also, your punctuation is lousy; most people put a space between a period and the start of the next sentence. Also, sign your talk page posts by typing 4 tildes: ~~~~ RedSpruce 18:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "CBS News" font[edit]

There's been a debate among typesetting buffs as to whether Helvetica (a typeface not created until after 1957 and first seen in America in the early 1960's) or Akzidenz-Grotesk (a.k.a. Standard Light, which was indeed in existence at the time of the McCarthy broadcasts) was used in the picture for the scenes in the CBS News offices. I checked old kinescope clips and other contemporary photos from the 1950's and found that, in fact, no light-weight sans serif font was used in their offices or studios, contrary to what was seen in the film. Instead, a typeface called Dom Grotesk No. 9 - an extra-bold, extended sans serif font - as offered by a now-defunct typesetting firm in New York called Photo-Lettering, Inc., was used for "CBS News" on their walls. (The "O" from this font was used for part of the 1950's "walking eye" logo used by Columbia Records.) So on that basis alone, Clooney and the producers took license with typesetting. If they'd used Venus Extra Bold Extended, on the other hand, they would've been closer . . . &#150;Wbwn 07:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this reference as it is by your statement original research --Bedel (talk) 11:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overacting Rumor 2[edit]

I have removed the reference to whether or not the test audience incident happened or not because mainly I find it to be an irrelevant piece of trivia for this article.
Also the story is true. It's remarkable to me that DCGeist has literally created a controversy out of thin air. Here is the full text of the Clooney interview that was cited in the article:

I read that when test audiences saw footage of McCarthy, they thought he was some bad ham actor. [Laughs] That happened a lot. It’s interesting how nobody—I think not even 50% of the [test] audience—had even heard of Murrow. Most of the audience had heard of McCarthyism, but about 30% didn’t know who Joe McCarthy was. A lot of people asked us who that actor was, and said, you know, he was a little too much. [Anne laughs] That’s why I said we want to take out a “For Your Consideration” ad for him [seeking acting award nominations] in the trade papers.

Gee, sounds like an admission to me. Somebody, obviously being clever, chose to only quote the first part of the paragraph and forget what came after.
As I said I consider this matter a bit of unimportant trivia, but I hope this settles this issue once and for all. annoynmous 18:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Release[edit]

Is there a reason why information from the DVD, release dates, etc are not listed on this page? I don't usually edit movie pages, but the special features of this movie interviews some of the real people portrayed in the film and I think that would be an interesting graph to add.--I'm Nonpartisan (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SketchUp[edit]

I removed the following sentence because it did not seem noteworthy, and the reference link was dead: "Production designer James Bissell used the 3D computer graphics software program SketchUp to model the entire studio set including all sets and camera angles." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzhim (talk • contribs) 06:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot a bit confusing[edit]

In the plot, it says that Murrow defends Radulovich. It then says that as a response, McCarthy attacks Murrow as being a red sympathizer. In the movie, Murrow purposely attacks McCarthy before McCarthy can strike first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.166.185 (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, Murrow is smeared before the attack happens. --79.223.17.37 (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Accuracy[edit]

someone should also add a section on the historical accuracy of the film —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.167.245 (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was support for move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Night, and Good Luck. → Good Night, and Good Luck — The fulltop/period st the end of the name is contrary to WP:MOSTM. Similar request being discussed at Talk:Adaptation.. Cf. Warning (album), Nimrod (album), and Kerplunk (album). — AjaxSmack 20:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also of note: I remember Clerks being at Clerks. (with the period) for the longest time; not until now did I see it at the former. —harej (talk) (cool!) 05:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's ridiculous that a title should be changed from what the screenwriter intended and from how it was released just because a fullstop or period the end of a name is "contrary" to WP:MOSTM. Since when does an encyclopedia, which has a responsibility to provide readers with accuracy, decide what is or isn't "contrary" instead of being factual? 209.247.22.164 (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:MOSTM and perhaps the common name approach? From what I can tell, secondary sources about the film drop the punctuation as they refer to the film throughout the writing. We can title the article "Good Night, and Good Luck" and say briefly in the lead sentence that it ends with a period and from thereon use the title without the period in the article body. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. I don't know of an instance (except for screenwriting gurus) where someone might actually type the name into search with a period at the end. This needs to be done without delay. UnitAnode 20:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, have marked for {{db-move}}. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

period / full stop in article[edit]

I'm changing the title w/in the article to remove the full stop, to accord with the article title and with WP:MOSTM. Should anyone have qualms about this, I'd like to point out that Slate, Ebert, the Telegraph, Rotten Tomatoes, and even the official Warner Bros website all omit the period when using the title on its own, in text, or both. It is merely a stylistic device used in the poster. Moreover, even if the final period were part of the "official" title, WP:MOSTM explicitly says that such styles should be avoided in articles. --76.121.3.11 (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Production cost and box office take?[edit]

Took me a while but I found one source with the box office result for this movie. $39 million, adjusted to 2012 dollars. That's about $32.9 million back in 2005. How much did it cost to make this movie? Bizzybody (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: on-screen credits for Good Night, and Good Luck.[edit]

Opening credits[edit]

Cast in closing credits[edit]

—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 September 2017[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. Consensus is clearly against the proposed move, and the existence of reliable sources using the current formulation amply demonstrates that it is a permissible title. bd2412 T 03:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good Night, and Good Luck → Good Night, and Good Luck. – Over eight years ago, in August 2009, three editors, in addition to the nominator, !voted in support of deleting the period at the end of this title. Film titles contain various forms of end punctuation, most frequently question marks and exclamation points. Sometimes the punctuation appears only in the posters and publicity literature, but not in the film's on-screen credits. Such was the case in the recent RM at Talk:The Damned Don't Cry#Requested move 24 June 2017 which brought out that although the posters for the film had an exclamation point, the on-screen film credits did not. In this case, however, both the posters and the on-screen credits contain the period. One of the votes for deletion of the period argued that no one would "actually type the name into search with a period at the end". The same argument, however, may be made for all punctuation within all titles, including the comma in the middle of this title. Many films uppercase their entire titles or put the initial letter of every word in the title in either upper case or lower case, thus negating stylistic arguments regarding those specific matters (in this case, uppercase "A" in "And"). Punctuation, however, should reflect the on-screen title and any uncertainties are handled via redirects. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 14:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of The Wall Street Journal which does, indeed, have a period at the end of its name, is appreciated. Interestingly, since the creation of its entry (as a 35-word stub, with one of those words a duplicate — "is a a daily") on January 23, 2003, it has never had an RM discussion regarding the missing period. Simply as a matter of historical record, such a discussion should exist on its talk page in the same manner as this one will remain, alongside the sparsely-attended initial one, conducted eight years ago. Moreover, films have more-varied titling forms than newspapers — few papers, if any, have used question marks, exclamation points, commas, ellipses or quotation marks in their name and, yet, all of those have appeared in film titles. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 13:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Announcement of this discussion appears at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 13:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: The official name of the film, as seen in the billing block on its poster (rather than just the logo or onscreen credits which are not always entirely accurate), includes the period. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:MOSTM and WP:RS/WP:SECONDARY ("Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." [my emphases]). No reliable secondary sources are cited in this nomination and periods/fullstops are disruptive to readers to a greater degree than other typographical accoutrements. —  AjaxSmack  01:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Reliable sources don't consistently include the period.[1]--Cúchullain t/c 15:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This is just splitting hairs, there is no obvious benefit to including the period, and no clear consensus among sourcess.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had hoped that the obvious benefit would lie in enabling the film's main title header to contain each individual element that appears in its on-screen title. The title is a statement that ends with a period. Thus, the period is one of the elements of the title. No one has protested against the comma in the middle of this title and there have been no objections to film titles such as Nice Girl? or Sink the Bismarck! which demonstrates that end punctuation is accepted in film titles. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Other punctuation can be "read through", i.e. ignored, more easily than a period/full stop. —  AjaxSmack  02:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Reject the premise that "Punctuation should reflect the on-screen title" when large numbers of reliable sources use a more normal styling. Dicklyon (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Good Night, and Good Luck. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Good_Night,_and_Good_Luck&oldid=1207320557"