Talk:Barbarella (film)

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.



WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Barberalla's rating
what is it rated? in the us, uk, france etc? i have no idea because i dont own the film —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.109.203 (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not positive about all the different countries, however in the US it is currently rated "PG" by the MPAA. Originally it was "Rated M - Suggested For Mature Audiences" when it first came out (and rated "X" in the UK when it first came out).-Lostboy- (talk) 05:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe this movie was actually released before the MPAA rating system was implemented.Also, I wuld think to be rated PG today, it would have to be the edited version.

Plot?
And what is this movie actually about? 88.159.77.217 (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. It must be a film about movie styles. Rebelyell2006 (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And when is it set? 40th C / 400th C? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.147.96 (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Pretty pathetic
For one of the iconic movies of that generation this article is pretty damn pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.220.25 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I had just started college & let me tell you, this movie was very racy for its time. Whole idea was to see some of Jane's skin; nobody cared about storyline. Also, in my recollection the film was very popular; just about every guy I know saw it. There was even a big spread about it in "Playboy." I find it very hard to believe it only grossed $613,000. Something fishy going on.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.79.239 (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It struck me as odd as well, so I put a cite notice next to it. Tehw1k1 (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I put the meager USA gross back, adding Australia and Italy, as given by IMDb business, which says rentals have amounted to 5½ million dollars. The figures are weird. If anybody has got something better, please cough up. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * is the IMDB figures reliable? 613K could be totally possible for the 1968 release, not including later income from the re-release. total revenue to date must be much higher. Ottawakismet (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Ottawakismet, IMDb is not considered a reliable source; we prefer to double-check what they report. In this case, it would be better to search for the film title and the term "box office" (or similar terms) to see if news articles or books report any such figures. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 11:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Erik I do recognize that problem about IMDB - hence why I questioned their reliability. I already did a search and was unable to find anything, so thats why I came onto the talk page, to make sure that this was highlighted. I think its one of the most relevant reasons why this article is noteworthy, that it did badly initially and did better later on, so newer figures would be salient. Also,what I suspect the rental numbers refer to, are probably not consumer video rentals, but rentals of the movie to distributors / television. Ottawakismet (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Is Tau Ceti a planet?
Is Tau Ceti in this film a planet, as currently stated in the article ("Barbarella (Jane Fonda) is assigned by the President of Earth (Claude Dauphin) to retrieve Doctor Durand Durand (Milo O'Shea) from the planet Tau Ceti"), or is it a star system? There are only five mentions of Tau Ceti in the film. In the introductory scenes, Dianthus, President of Earth and Rotating Premier of the Sun System, mentions it in these two sentences: Neither of these sentences explicitly identifies Tau Ceti as either a star system or a planet. Then, en route, Barbarella says: And after having been woken up from a 154-hour sleep, when the "course in temporal acceleration" is ended: Again, ambiguous. But then, at about 13 minutes into the film, after Barbarella's space ship has crashed, we have this exchange between Barbarella and her ship computer: This is the last mention of Tau Ceti in the film, and the only one that unambiguously identifies it, namely as a star system having planets. --Lambiam
 * "Recently, en route to the North Star, he [Durand-Durand] vanished into the uncharted regions of Tau Ceti."
 * "Yet we know nothing of Tau Ceti or its inhabitants."
 * "Alphy, when do we get to the Tau Ceti gravitational field?"
 * "Alphy! It's Tau Ceti!"
 * Barbarella: "Where am I?"
 * Alphy: "That's what I was going to ask you. Planet 16 in the system Tau Ceti. Air density oh-point-oh-51."
 * ✅ I've change the plot to reflect this. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Trivia section
Trivia sections are not immune to sourcing requirements. Listing every single trivial mention of something is undue, and, without a reliable secondary source to confirm the connection, is original research. I have challenged the inclusion the removed trivia entries, and a valid source is now necessary to include them. See WP:BURDEN for details. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You are confused in several ways.
 * First there is no "trivia" section in this article, there is a section which details appearnaces of the subject matter in popular culture. :*Second, you are confused about the standard for verifiability for popcult entries. As long as the popcult entry is straightforward description and not interpretation or analysis, it is verifiable by reference to the media item it refers to, which is exactly how every other reference works.  Just as in plot sections, it is not necessary to specifically detail this, since it is taken for granted.  If the popcult item strays into analysis or interpretation, then it obviously cannot be referenced by the media item, and requires a secondary source.
 * Third, there is no consensus anywhere on Wikipedia for the wholsesale deletion of popcult sections, or for labeling them as "trivia" as then deleting them. Several attempts have been made to make this policy, and they have been defeated.  You cannot do the same thing with a "back door" method.
 * Fourth, WP:BRD requires that when your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the very next step to take is to Discuss the edit, while the article stays in the status quo ante. If you restore your edit instead of discussing, you have taken the first step into edit warring, which can lead to your being blocked.  Starting a discussion does not then entitle you to restore, the article must stay as it was while the discussion goes on.
 * So, the ball is in your court. Which of the popcult items are not straight-forward description which are verifiable through reference to the media item they describe? Which of them stray into interpretation or analysis?  Which of them are so insignificant -- i.e. mere mentions -- that they're not a valuable addition to the list.  I'm willing to discuss any item you bring up under these criteria, but you should not restore your deletion, which would continue the edit war without even the excuse of preserving the status quo ante as prescribed in WP:BRD. BMK (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD is an essay. WP:BURDEN is a policy.  Come up with sources or the content must be removed. Where is a guideline or policy that says that "in popular culture" (trivia sections) do not need citations?  In fact, they do.  Without secondary sources, including them is undue, as I have already stated before.  I will seek further input from WikiProject Film on this matter, since you seem intent on edit warring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, independent reliable sourcing must be used for "in popular culture" elements just like other elements. See WP:In popular culture (an essay) for more, but they need sourcing independent of reference to the media item they describe to show their notability (a guideline). -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Does WP:TRIVIA not apply here? It says explicitly, "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information." If this article was a Good Article or a Featured Article, it would not have this kind of list section. It could be restructured so we can focus passages on key aspects, like a paragraph about Barbarella's costume being famous and where it has been mimicked. Same for the opening scene and maybe the Matmos slime as well. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Avoid" does not mean "do not", and MOS is, as everyone seems to forget, a guideline and not policy. BMK (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's OK, you seem to have forgotten what WP:CONSENSUS is. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:INDISCRIMINATE says, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." When I researched the Kylie Minogue music video, I found out that the opening sequence in the film was considered a big deal. We could have a paragraph about that and mention the music video as part of that coverage. Similarly, the costume has been noted as iconic, and it would make sense to talk about that and mention copycats of that costume. It's a better way to put information together. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is more like what I'd like to see. But I'd settle for a bare list that has citations.  I myself located citations for some of the entries, but BMK has inexplicably stripped the citations away.  I guess it was probably an oversight. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Each item of "trivia" requires a secondary source, otherwise it is WP:Synthesis, which says: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. When you state that "The music video of Kylie Minogue's 1994 song "Put Yourself in My Place" is similar to the opening scene of Barbarella, where she slowly removes her space suit while floating in zero gravity" you are making a claim that is not directly attributed to either primary source: someone who has never seen Barbarella cannot reasonably make that claim based on just watching a Kylie video i.e. the editor is editorializing based on having seen both works. I don't have a problem with inclusion of such a claim but it needs to be attributable to a single source; that is a policy requirement, not a MOS guideline. Betty Logan (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Title of the Trivia/Popular culture section
An editor is repeatedly renaming the "In popular culture" section to "Trivia" (see, and ) on the pretext of WP:TRIVIA.


 * I would like to make a couple of points in regards to this. WP:TRIVIA is a guideline, and specifically states: In this guideline, the term "trivia section" refers to a section's content, not its name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information. Therefore the guideline categorically does not make any suggestions regarding the name of the section.
 * Secondly, MOS:FILM permits "popular culture" sections while MOS:FILM discouarges miscellaneous trivia sections, encouraging the integration of miscellaneous content into other sections of the article. If this were a featured article, it would most likely still include an "in popular cuture" section but not a general "trivia" section. Popular culture references may be trivia, but not all trivia are popular culture references. The film guidelines permit sections about a particular type of trivia, but renaming the section fundamentally alters the type of trivia we want to document, and is counter-productive to the development of the article.

I will revert the changes once again and I would appreciate it if the editor persisting with these alterations discusses them here first and gains a consensus for them before changing them again. Betty Logan (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The content listed dubiously as "In Popular Culture" exactly and clearly fits the well established Wikipedia definition of "trivia" - WP:TRIVIA. Calling it something that it is not changes nothing, and doing so is disingenuous. The material needs to be worked into the body of the article, or deleted from the main article. "Consensus" on a Talk Page to keep trivia does not "trump" well established Wikipedia policy with regards to trivia. The presence of such trivia detracts from the legitimacy of Wikipedia. Taco Viva (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This not a battle that's worth fighting. Does it really matter whether it's called "trivia" or "in popular culture"?  The current consensus is that the section requires citations.  Content that does not have a citation will be removed.  Once we implement this consensus, the section will likely be retitled and rewritten.  I suggest that you give your support to the attempt to fix the article and leave these petty battles alone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the distinction to make here is that this is a subset of trivia. It's not trivia in the sense of being all over the place. There's a certain goal to it, but it is still not a good way to organize the information. For what it's worth, I've added a citation for the Duran Duran sentence. There are also citations for the two music videos (Minogue and Fuzzbox) out there. Not sure about the others. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 02:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I had already given a citation to that, but it was lost in the earlier dispute. If we have consensus here, then I think it would be wise to retitle the section to "Legacy" and try to write an encyclopedic paragraph. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC) note: I have removed some unhelpful comments that I made in this post. On further thought, I think they were too inflammatory, and I apologize to BMK for my rudeness. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I would go with the title "In Popular Culture" rather than "Trivia", or ,better yet, use the title "List of Cultural References to Barbarella". Here's what I'm talking about, just take a look at the list for "A Clockwork Orange": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cultural_references_to_A_Clockwork_Orange              I hope a solution like this will please everyone.  WatchinDaFilms (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that I was *BANNED* from editing at all *ANYWHERE* because Betty got her panties in a bind over Trivia, and LOOK! It's been removed! ~ Taco — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.65.79 (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Remake
I'd like to rewrite section on the remake. It overwhelms the rest of the article and contains too much unnecessary detail, such as speculation and rumors that are now irrelevant. I'm quite certain that I could compress it down to a few sentences without losing much detail. This would be a big edit, however, and I think it might be contentious, so I'd like to start a discussion before I touch that section. If people like it how it is, that's fine; I'll leave it alone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not opposed to the level of detail, but the section could be written better. (It could also be moved below "Legacy" so it comes after the main topic.) We can link to the current revision here so if it is shortened, editors in the future can see content that could be restored if the rest of the article has grown. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I think it's quite safe to say there's no consensus for such a rewrite. OK, I'll go back to trying to find more information on the film's legacy.  I think I got the low-hanging fruit already, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Barbarella (film). 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:
 * Added tag to http://www.dynamite-magazine.de/big-john-bates-and-the-voodoo-dollz
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100813043621/http://fashion.elle.com:80/blog/2007/09/september-30-20.html to http://fashion.elle.com/blog/2007/09/september-30-20.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140303223853/http://whatculture.com/film/universal-not-fonda-of-rose-as-barbarella.php to http://whatculture.com/film/universal-not-fonda-of-rose-as-barbarella.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Composer in the infobox
The infobox is supposed to list the film's composer. We have a source for this. It was working previously, but it seems to be returning an error now. I'll see if I can find a working copy at archive.org. But the problem is that people have added someone who is not the composer – people who wrote and performed the songs used in the film. Musicians go in the production section. The infobox, per infobox film is for the composer. These are different jobs, and the musicians shouldn't replace the composer in the infobox. This is why there's a note there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The whole Jarre thing is a bit confusing. There's no score released of the film that credits him, and the Library of Congress notes that "Maurice Jarre doesn't receive composer credit on USA prints; it goes to Charles Fox and Bob Crewe. Furthermore, an initial score by Michel Magne that had been commissioned by and recorded for Roger Vadim was discarded altogether." Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Instead of the infobox, should not this information be covered in a section about the film's music. We currently have no information about it? Dimadick (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's the best solution. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Not that I'm trying to make this more difficult, but despite Jarre's apparent contribution to the film, I can not find anything to see when or what he did, if anything. He's not credited in the credit roll, various forms of media released as the soundtrack to the film have him credited no where, or even mentioned. (se: here, here, and here.) For a composer as important as Jarre, you would think there would be some release related to his music, but outside people going by credits, I can't find any documentation or any mention of his involvement. I've even found traes of Michel Magne's thrown away score, but not Jarre.

Not that my own opinion marks up to much either, but Jarre's scores do not really sound like Barbarella's style. Meanwhile, other tracks of The Bob Crewe Generation not related to Barbarella seem to match the score. I'll look to see if anyone had dug anything out, but for the brief period, I can not find any definitive statement outside that it seems like Jarre did not have anything to do with the score. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The American Film Institute credits him (link to Google Books, link to AFI film database), and I doubt they'd uncritically add credits. The AFI database entry is a bit confusing to interpret, though.  Personally, I think the best idea so far has been to explain it in text, perhaps with the LoC source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd agree except that I can not find anything really explaining Jarre's contributions, historically I mean, as in, I see him in databases, but as far as the making of the music goes, there is no point where I see that Jarre stepped in. Can not find any tracks credited to him, anything discussing the music doesn't say when or where he came in to do work on the score, nor does he show up in any soundtrack release things (as shown above). I know the AFI credits him, but as books I've read on film credits (specifically those by Stuart Galbraith IV and Roberto Curti), the AFI is often incorrect on non-American productions. For example, AFI also credits this as just a French production, which is not the case. Databases can be useful, but I prefer to find individual research, which currently here seems contradictory. Thoughts ? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we need to go by what the sources say, not what Wikipedia editors think may be true. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean, I'm not going to die on this hill. I wasn't the one who added it, and I wasn't the one who added the note (or, I don't think I was).  But I think it's important that we don't ignore what reliable sources say.  If the sources conflict, we need to report this.  We can't just cherry-pick one source and ignore the others. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I mean, I'm not going with "my idea = best", I'm just saying that everything seems to be contradictory and I am not sure which cite should be considered more reliable. For now, I think we should remove composer in the infobox, and just put what we can in the prose. Sound okay? Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think the infobox can't really explain well enough that the sources conflict with each other. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'll try and re-phrase it later. Been slowly pecking away at this article... Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So looking around, I found that this Billboard article citing Crew and Fox compsing the score as well. here Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It has been a few months since I've added information about the film score to the prose, if there is no further discussion, I'll remove the discuss tag in the infobox shortly. Anyone else have anything to discuss/add? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we probably covered just about everything possible. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok. If there is nothing really else to go over, I'll remove the tag. If anyone else wants to bring anything up or has anything new to discuss, I'll be happy to get in the middle of it. :D Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Poster
I'm not sure what to with the current poster. As infobox standards states to use the earliest theatrical release for the film as the poster, its not clear what it was. We have an exact date for an American premiere, but I have only been able to decipher the French release down to the month (which is the same month as the American premiere). It's not too big of a deal, and I am okay with using an American poster. Any other thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Joan Greenwood, voice of the Great Tyrant
I'm astonished there is zero mention in this article that the Great Tyrant is voiced by the great British stage and screen actress Joan Greenwood. Presumably Pallenberg's German delivery just wasn't up to the job, I'm sure there is some interesting information about how and why this happened. She must've been livid at being revoiced. Gymnophoria (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've had to do a lot of research to get this film up to GA muster, and there has not really been a strong (english-language anyways) overview of the career of the director of this film. It's production history is murky (check out the screenwriter section, no one really seems to know why all of a sudden a dozen screenwriters showed up and apparently worked on the film) and according to Fonda, the film was predominantly followed with the director being drunk and partying. I'm not even sure if the film was shown in French (I've never heard a French language dub of this film even existing), so the dubbing information is a bit gone. Tons of actors in European films back in the day were dubbed, so livid? Maybe. I couldn't really find much information about it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you saw fit to remove this from the page. The source I used is the one referenced elsewhere on Wikipedia on this subject. If it's good enough for other pages I don't know why it's not good enough here Gymnophoria (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Couldn't tell you, but like many pages on wikipedia they are using sources that aren't reliable. I removed it as it appeared to be a blog which fails WP:RS. I replaced it with a published book source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Poster
, the source url you provided on the poster's Wiki page did say that McGinnis designed it, as do his official website and Vanity Fair. Adding a citation would defeat the purpose of the 'Source' parameter on the poster's Wiki page, so there's no need for that. Tks,  Slightlymad  (talk &sdot; contribs) 10:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The Wiki article states a Barbarella poster was designed by him, but not this specific one. I'll use the Vanity Fair source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Barbarella 01.jpg
 * Barbarella 02.jpg

QOTG title and Star Wars connection to re-release?
Hey Andrzejbanas, do you think the Barbarella: Queen of the Galaxy title should be included in the intro? A glace over many of the Blu-rays and DVDs of the film show that the reissue title was used instead of just Barbarella (https://www.blu-ray.com/Barbarella/98665/#Releases) - I'm wondering whether it should be presented in the manner of how the full title is presented in either Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark. Speaking of which, does Curti mention whether the 1977 reissue was down to capitalize on the success of Star Wars? It seems like the most logical explanation for the re-release, but I can't find any sources confirming it (for instance, in his Bava book Lucas mentions the re-releases of various Italian sci-fi movies around that time, but doesn't specifically mention Barbarella). PatTheMoron (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey hey. Curti's book doesn't say that but I mean, I wouldn't doubt that it is (which explains the removal of all the more explicitly sexual scenes) Curti doesn't have a lot of information on this release just stating "Despite its timidness, Barbarella was rated R at the time of its U.S. release (the 1977 re-release got a PG rating, though)." I wouldn't include the alernative title in the lead as it's a bit confusing. the version with that title is dramatically cut, but it also uses that title on some home video versions which are not uncut. Not sure how it should be handled, but...this might not be a popular reason but I'm not too huge on listing countless alternative titles in the lead. I don't think anyone is going to look at the article and not be sure if it's Barbarella, or Barbarella: Queen of the Galaxy, you know? Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking of perhaps presenting the alt. title as a note like in the Raiders article so that it doesn't clutter the opening text. I'll have another look to see if any of the other sources specifically tie the re-release to Star Wars. PatTheMoron (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like if we had more specific information on this re-release we could expand on it, but as we don't, it's not that essential. Especilally as the Queen of the Galaxy subtitle is different in various forms and having it or not doesn't really confuse or help readers. If you'd like to re-add it, i'd suggest using the sub-heading like Raiders does. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

"always willing to please a man who's king to her"
Is that a typo for "kind"? AnonMoos (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I added that and I don't have access to that Globe & Mail document at the moment, but my memory is that it says King, not kind. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the word "king" doesn't make too much sense in this context. If there's a typo in the original source, you could use "kin[d]"... AnonMoos (talk) 05:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree it makes more sense, i'm not against changing it to that. It still sort of gives the same effect. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Mathmos vs. Matmos
I changed the spelling to "Mathmos". For one, the script at www.scripts.com/script/barbarella_3582 uses only "Mathmos". (I didn't use it as source because I have doubts about copyright compliance.) Also, while it is conceivable that someone mispronounces "Mathmos" as "Matmos", the converse does not happen. Paradoctor (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Cast section
Why doesn't this article have a regular Wikipedia cast section, right after the plot, like 99% of Wikipedia film articles? Kumagoro-42 (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * When I was developing the article to its current state, I felt it was already getting a bit long. As the article has a substantial casting section, I figured it could be included in there. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As a follow-up to the last edits, I don't see any issue for the cast. The cast list (which has more information and sources than the current iteration that has been reverted) gets the point across and is discussed around the information of casting in the film. I don't mind having a Cast section. But we shouldn't have both. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at another page, referenced from within the Barbarella page, Danger: Diabolik, which seems, to me at least, to adhere to the pattern established across a multitude of film pages:
 * Precis, with a brief details panel at the right: Poster, Director, Producers, Story By, Based On, Cast - just the top few, Cinematographers, Editors, running time, Distributors, Budget, Box-Office
 * Plot
 * Cast (sometimes a simple Actor : Character list, sometimes much more information on how each actor was engaged and how they addressed the role)
 * Production - including Development, Post-Production, Release, etc all of which can be very expanded with sub-paragraphs
 * Release - similarly can be very expanded.
 * My point is that, to my mind, the existing Barbarella page could be restructured in the style of those multiple other film pages.
 * Remove the current Cast panel and use it as a section following Plot. Include, within it, some of the detail from the Pre-Production and Casting section.
 * Happy to discuss further. h-b-g (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think we can just move it into a cast section. I think when I did it this way I was emulating something like Fight Club which had it in this format. (It no longer does). I'll transfer the cast information over shortly. Just don't want to lose information on the voice-over actor, as that's somewhat key information. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)