Talk:Howards End (film)

It's kind of confusing who is being referenced when. For example, are Margaret and Helen both Schlegels? It merely seems that way. In addition, the Basts are not really mentioned past the first paragraph.PhoenixSeraph 23:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There is some confusion in the article as to whether it concerns the book or the movie. The introduction says that Howards End is a novel, but the next paragraph, without mentioning any shift in emphasis, talks about the actors playing the characters in the movie. 67.186.28.212 15:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Why don't we have an article on the novel? This is pretty lame, I thnk. john k 19:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks like that's been fixed now. Gpjt 02:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Howards end poster.jpg
Image:Howards end poster.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) 22:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

running time
Was the original runtime of the film 140 minutes or 142 minutes? Various American sources from 1992 give 140 minutes (e.g. ). The New York Times lists a running time of 145 minutes - that must be an error. British sources from 1992 give the precise time 142 minutes 15 seconds. DVD releases, even as early as 2005, were 142 minutes. I wonder if the 1992 US theatrical release was of a slightly shorter cut than the British release, or was the 140 figure erroneous from the beginning. In any event, I changed the runtime in the infobox from 140 to 142. Mathew5000 (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)