Talk:Children of a Lesser God (film)

Untitled
While the movie "Children of A lesser God" certainly deserves strong mention in this article, the base meaning of this phrase has not been addressed.

There is a reason why this phrase was used as the movie's title; the phrase refers to any group of people who are (or feel they are) less valued by society, of less worth.

Surely this truth deserves to be included in this article?

209.74.19.137 06:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Sidereal Ofvania


 * Go for it. Geoff NoNick 19:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My personal impression is the opposite: this is an article specifically about the movie. If you're talking about adding a discussion of the significance of the movie's title, then I'd say to go for it.  On the other hand, I don't agree that the phrase "children of a lesser god" deserves its own article (either a separate article or a repurposing of this article from the movie to the phrase).  I've personally never been aware of it outside the context of this play and movie; my impression is that it was coined to be the title of this work.  It has no other life of its own.


 * I would agree. Though well-phrased, I think the reasoning behind the title is quite obvious and any reader with a brain can tell what the title implies. It would be unnecessary to elaborate on it. Wikipedia is already too full of superfluous information that unncessarily clutters up its articles. MassassiUK 09:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Separate Article for the Play
I added the Split header because the play was much more significant in the history of stage compared to the film's role in the history of cinema, other than Marlee Matlin's Oscar win. I think there should be analysis of the play's themes and history, while the film page probably ought to focus only on its differences and facts specifically about the film.

Willing to contribute, if this is so... 65.10.213.73 03:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * i, too, support the proposed split. the 1980 broadway play (starring Phyllis Frelich) won three tony awards and deserves it's own article. i'll try to get started on it soon if no one else does. i would, however, strongly suggest that the article titles be "Children of a Lesser God" and "Children of a Lesser God (film)" since the play pre-dates the movie by about five years. J. Van Meter 13:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would suggest "Children of a Lesser God (play)" and "Children of a Lesser God (film)" with a disambig on "Children of a Lesser God"; the film will probably be better-known to most. Geoff NoNick 18:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * At the moment I don't see enough information on the play to justify splitting out. If I prefer to see a separate section on the play added, then see how much that section expands to before making the decision. -- Mark S  (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can understand that, although right now pointing Children of a Lesser God go directly to the movie is misrepresenting this drama, even though the movie is better known. Children of a Lesser God is a groundbreaking play that happened to be adapted into a movie. If anything, the play should be the article, with a section for the movie, although this is not usual for Wikipedia on a mainstream picture. I will try to do some work on an article for the play. 70.146.34.118 16:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

-New article about the play can be found at Children of a Lesser God (play). Does anyone else support changing this film article's title to "Children of a Lesser God (film)" as discussed above? J. Van Meter 13:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think perhaps a notice at the top suggesting children of a Lesser God (play) would be enough. Geoff NoNick 16:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization
Isn't the title "Children of a Lesser god"? (G not capitalized) Hazelorb (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree it ought to be changed. 76.222.121.22 (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Children of a lesser god.jpg
Image:Children of a lesser god.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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. 

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Consensus has established that the current title appears to be the primary topic. Alpha Quadrant   talk    15:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Children of a Lesser God → Children of a Lesser God (film) – Relisted for further input. Jafeluv (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

When considering the play and the film, the primary topic is indeterminable. The play is the source material, earned 3 Tonys, and enjoys life in regional productions. The film was also very successful, earning an Oscar. The current Children of a Lesser God page should be made into a disambiguation page (see The Curious Case of Benjamin Button or Up in the Air for similar examples). -- warpedmirror ( talk ) 02:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose It's easy to determine. Look at the Google results:. The top five results relate to the film. The play is No. 6. The article on the film gets 11,000 views a month. The one on the play gets 1,300. Kauffner (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * When you search the same phrase on Bing, the second result refers to the play. And even in the Google search you posted, if you eliminate the image and video results, the fourth and fifth both refer to the play. In fact, of the top 10 website results, five refer to the film, four to the play, and one is completely unrelated to either. Obviously, I can't argue that the play page gets remotely as many hits as the film page (though Marlee Matlin's being a finalist on The Celebrity Apprentice has certainly helped the latter's traffic lately), but from what I have observed, a film's source material (if it has the same name) usually takes the page unless it is rather obscure. The play of Children probably is more significant in the theatre world than the movie is in the film world (since it won the Tony, Drama Desk, and Olivier for best play, while the film only took home acting awards for Matlin), but obviously systemic bias leans more toward film than theatre since the former is more easily accessible. That's why I thought a disambig page might be best (it could also link to Children of a Lesser God (album), Children of a Lesser Clod, and briefly describe the meaning/origin of the phrase as first used by Tennyson). -- warpedmirror ( talk ) 20:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The relatively low page view counts for the play indicate that the film is the topic "much more likely to be the one being sought" by someone entering "children of the lesser god" in the search box and clicking Go.  That it, the film is the primary topic.   I suspect this is because most people are much more likely to encounter and look up the film - broadcast on some TV channel - than the play.  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Film seems primary, and anyway: what would be the point of changing it? With only two topics, no-one is helped by having a dab page rather than hatnotes.--Kotniski (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 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
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Children of a Lesser God. 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://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1306336005353
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604032800/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/help/statistics/oldyoungacting.html to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/help/statistics/oldyoungacting.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Children of a Lesser God (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit Needs Undone
This edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Children_of_a_Lesser_God_(film)&oldid=990730319

Is super partisan and opinionated and needs to be rolled back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.123.34.242 (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It fixed plot typos, so reverting it outright is not a good option. Materialscientist (talk) 09:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Dispute plot section
I am disputing the plot section; if William Hurt's character is predatory towards to female lead, that needs to be explored in its own section, not just stating that he "chases her to the point of actual stalking"

I added the disputed tag but feel free to change it to the POV tag if that is more appropriate, Wikipedia pros.