Talk:It's a Wonderful Life/Archive 4

Performance of new "It's a Wonderful Life" musical?
I just noted in the discussion of the article on Kathy Lee Gifford that her musical version of "It's a Wonderful Life" is now being performed in a regional theater, and realized I should probably mention it here also. http://theencoretheatre.org/Encore/The_Encore_Theatre_Dexter_MI.html

71.13.57.223 (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Highly doubtful that this performance is anything special, many regional theatres do many plays. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC).

Production errors

 * In the George-less world, Clarence says Harry dies at 9, but his grave marker reads 1911-1919 which makes Harry seven or eight. Clarence probably misspoke because George was 12 and there was a four year age difference. Rklawton (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In the George-less world, the year 1919 appears above the snow on Harry's grave stone as George approaches the grave, but a minute later George digs it out from the snow so he can read the date. Rklawton (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you please explain...
The edit summary for this edit does not seem to match the edit. In particular it seems to have excised a valid reference, with no explanation. Geo Swan (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Controversy over Potter's unavenged actions
There's some VHS or DVD version with a featurette starring Tom Bosley, which I saw six or seven years ago. It mentions that at the time, people were outraged that Potter gets away with keeping the $8000, with no consequences or punishment. This aspect was controversial in a time when villains usually got their just deserts in the end. Can someone dig this up so we can reference it? Lawikitejana (talk) 03:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Christmas Eve
Recently, a very cogent argument (considered OR nonetheless) was presented that has challenged the conventional acceptance of the date being Christmas 1946, which is supported by a reference source, the usually reliable Hal Erickson in "Plot Synopsis." allmovie.com, 28 December 2009. I have just gone through three scripts and have not found a direct reference to dates but a lot of clues such as VE day (May 8, 1945) and the mention of President Truman bestowing the Congressional Medal of Honor to Harry Bailey (the president's term begins April 12, 1945). Comments? (For now, I am putting the contentious issue into an "invisible".) Bzuk (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC).

HotCat
Surely, these quasi-automated revisions may cause many incorrect deletions and should be curbed. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a Wonderful Life‎ (1946 James Stewart film) This evening, I reverted an edit by Lobo512 (talk):(removed Category:Films set in the 1940s using HotCat) – My edit summary reads: Wrong! World War II finishes (1945) during the story of this film.

Hi! Gahh, this is such a minor thing we're "edit warring" over. But I feel the need to persist since I know I am right. ;) If you click on the category page, right at the top there is a line that says: "This category is for films with a significant portion set in the 1940s, but which were produced at a later date." All the "films set in" categories say this. It's quite clear that a film can't be "set in" a decade that it was made in...that's just when it was made. Otherwise thousands of films from this decade would have to go in a category "set in the 2010s". Which wouldn't be very useful! So the category on IaWL definitely needs to be removed, it's misleading and suggests it wasn't made in the 1940s. -- Lobo (talk) 06:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Big apology to:  Lobo (talk) You are correct; I am wrong.
 * What about "fantasy" film ... surely not ... anyway I removed that category last night. What do you think?  __ Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Category confusion
Hi Lobo! I am not in any conflict with you over this ... I understood immediately after reading your first edit summary that your revision was right. My subsequent editing did not include a revert of yours. Please check. Kind regards, --Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 00:36 It's a Wonderful Life‎ (diff | hist) . . (-36)‎ . .  Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk | contribs) (removed Category:American fantasy films using HotCat)

I would not have considered IaWL a "fantasy" film, would you?

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 07:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Popular culture addition
The Veggietales episode It's_a_Meaningful_Life was directly inspired by and contains many nods to the movie. Will add if there are no objections. JayHubie (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

tech specs
Please add tech details about the original film format. And all Blu-ray/HD versions. It seems like the US TV broadcasts are just the DVD version, not a true HD version? (See www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/wonderfullife.htm for analysis of some HD versions.) -96.237.4.73 (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional spin-off
We should add the following to the spin-offs section: It's a Meaningful Life. Musicwithoutpaper (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

NCIS Christmas Episode
The Movie occurs in every Christmast Episode, when "the teams" gathers to watch it at MTAC.--88.152.148.238 (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Jim Crow
I'd always thought that "Jimmy the Raven" was a crow, named ironically, "Jim" as in, "Jim Crow." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Updated amounts for current year
Does anyone else think this practice is absolutely ridiculous? - They witness a run on the bank and use their $2,000 honeymoon savings (equivalent to $40,000 in 2019) - Potter offers George $20,000 a year (equivalent to $280,000 in 2019) - Billy goes to deposit $8,000 (equivalent to $110,000 in 2019) - ...his life insurance policy with $500 in equity (equivalent to $10,000 in 2019) - Based on the policy's $15,000 nominal value (equivalent to $210,000 in 2019)... This actually has the effect of stopping the flow of the writing cold—because it sounds so pointlessly stupid and needless. Please stop this practice, or use it sparingly and when it's actually helpful and meaningful to the topic. 2606:A000:6AC4:5500:D562:34D:D792:2DA0 (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd be okay with removing the "in 2019" parentheticals. If nothing else, we have templates to do such work more accurately. Actually, as you neglected to mention that those numbers are sourced, I oppose removing them. They provide a useful frame of reference for a reader who may not be familiar with just how significant those figures are once they're inflation-adjusted. DonIago (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * They could always be dropped into footnotes, which would allow a better explanation of the figure. See note B here as an example. - SchroCat (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly an option! DonIago (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe leave them all but the insurance policy. These give a frame of reference for the monetary amounts, are interesting statistics, and enhances understanding of the plot line. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I must apologize in that I edited this article and afterward came here to the talk page and discovered this discussion. To answer the initial question, yes, the inclusion of the current day values of financial references in the plot is ridiculous. Ironically, when I summarized my edits that is exactly what I wrote, that I was removing the "ridiculous" references. The template is useful in many Wikipedia articles, but it could not be more absurd in the plot of this film. There is no reason the reader needs to know current day values of those references. It is irrelevant to the understanding of the plot. Just because we have a handy template does not mean it should be used indiscriminately. Let's exercise some common sense. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Incredibly overwritten
This article is an absolute mess. It is the most overwritten article I have observed in more than a decade of editing for Wikipedia. Redundancies abound. Because this film is so popular and so much information about it is available, it seems people have taken any morsel of information they have read in other sources and added it to this article. The article reads like information vomit. This was never the goal of Wikipedia. I encourage editors to reference (WP:NOT). I draw particular attention to Wikipedia policy that states:
 * "...Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia and therefore does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere."
 * "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject."

Now the good news. I will continue to edit this article as time permits in hopes that I can help bring it into compliance with Wikipedia standards. I encourage veteran editors to join me in this endeavor, as the sheer size of this article makes room for plenty of skilled red pencils. This will not be a painless process. No doubt there are those who are watching this article who have certain attachments to it. I have found that to be the case in every article I have edited, and given the numbers of hands that have been in this pie, I am sure this article has more than its share. To those Wikipedia friends I ask that you set your personal opinions aside and release any feelings of ownership you have for this article. If you care about the subject, jump on board, critically review this article with fresh eyes and join me in making this an article that not only meets Wikipedia standards, but sets it own standard of excellence for other articles to follow. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Living actors?
If the Gone With The Wind article notes the living actors from the film, would it be only natural to do the same for this movie given its age? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.248.105 (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Pointless trivia. EEng 05:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

It's a Wonderful Life: A Parable on Glass-Steagall
Less a Christmastime story, more a celebration of FDR's new deal, Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life!" teems with a GI Generation symmetry, laden timely parallels to the inception of America's novel dual banking system characteristic of the rise of George Bailey (e.g., rise of America's pre-securitization Thrifts; America's once proud S&Ls), and the foretelling of inevitable doom for America (e.g., Potterville), were Glass–Steagall legislation never conceived - asj. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.86.237 (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources, not on volunteers coming up with their own ideas. There is a hard policy against performing your own analysis: WP:No original research. Binksternet (talk) 04:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Really? You really don't believe that I.A.W.L. is a parable on Glass-Steagall? You amaze me! Next you'll be telling me The Wizard of Oz isn't actually about the gold standard! EEng 05:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Bruce Almighty
Wouldn't the scene where Bruce Jim Carrey lasso'd the moon and pulls it closer for his wife Jennifer Aniston rate as an homage to It's a Wonderful Life ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:41D0:4C30:3C4E:BF60:6F6F:A30D (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Mary Bailey in lead
For many years Mary Bailey was mentioned and linked (has her own page) in the lead, let's bring her back. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , you'd reverted my edit so wondering why you wouldn't want her mentioned in the lead. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, @Randy Kryn! I'm not sure what you're seeing on your end, but I didn't revert any edits on this page. I did recently make a few copy edits, but none of them concerned Mary. :) JustAMuggle (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies, wrong editor. It was who did the revert, so I'll ping them. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , could you please elaborate on why you removed mention of Mary Bailey from the lead? Donna Reed is prominently mentioned on the poster. Thank you! DonIago (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Doniago The movie is about George Bailey, and the lead should reflect that and not start on the slippery slope of adding other characters. @Randy Kryn recently added Clarence to the lead, which I think is fair since his role is more significant than any of the other characters, including Mary. Plummer (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification Plummer; I appreciate it! As to whether Donna Reed should or should not be included, I don't think I have a strong opinion on the matter at this time. DonIago (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks as well . Would be nice to tuck Mary in somewhere there, she is prominent in the film since the early childhood scenes, and there are sources that say she is the hero of the film (remembered this from a discussion a few years ago by someone who forcefully argues that Mr. Potter is the films's hero, but it makes sense from a female perspective - just look what happened with the recent Sight and Sound poll where the previously lowly polled film about a woman's routine lifestyle suddenly jumped to become the number one film of all-time). Kind of odd that George would consider suicide no matter how much economic trouble he was in, knowing how much it would hurt Mary and their children. That's one of the major unexplained plot holes in this film. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Off-topic, but I don't really feel that's an unexplained plot hole so much as a sad reality of how depression can affect a person. DonIago (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I always thought Clarence could have just as easily shown George what consequences his suicide would have had for his family, friends and business associates. It probably would have been even darker. Plummer (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point, an interesting take. His brother, that businessman friend, and townspeople would have taken care of Mary and the children, and the housing project would have survived. Would have been more animosity towards Potter if George had suicided, and maybe the brother would have actually moved back to town to run the Housing and Loan. Since this isn't a social chat page, I'll stop but could go on (the bridge would have acquired a bad rep?). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Reverted edits
Hello, did you have reasons to delete my edits to the plot? Thanks. I propose to put almost all of them back, which ones do you object to. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The summary was already over 700 words before your edits, which led to a net increase in the word count. As far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to make any reasonable edits you wish at this point that do not lead the summary to exceed 700 words, per WP:FILMPLOT. DonIago (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So you just reverted without checking the edits, just by the numbers? I worked a long time at composing the wording, as you likely do on your good edits. Will you mind if I revert again and then trim (I see you've trimmed some, which could just have easily been done with the edits I provided and then do a back and forth if needed). Since you're here, what do you think of the section above, about Mary being added back to the lead. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Should have pinged . Randy Kryn (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The version of the summary when you finished editing was 763 words. It was already over 700 words before your edits, which ultimately made it even longer. I accept that you didn't realize the summary was already in violation of WP:FILMPLOT, but I hope you can understand that it's not unreasonable for an editor to simply restore a shorter version of the summary (as long as it's reasonable) rather than analyzing the individual edits to determine which ones may have yielded (negligible) improvement, especially if it's a choice between ten seconds of work and a more significant time investment. You're an active enough editor and edited recently enough that it was reasonable to assume you'd see the edits, as in fact you did.
 * As I said in my initial comment, as long as the summary remains at a maximum of 700 words after your edits and you haven't made any changes that I specifically take issue with, I don't particularly care what changes you make. DonIago (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * and At first I deleted Potter's line about George being worth more dead than alive, but on reflection I restored it because it puts the idea in George's head. Plummer (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that to a general reader it matters that much, but it's also a pretty short bit of text, and the summary is currently comfortably under 700 words, so I have no issues with it. DonIago (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Unclear or misleading
"Capra immediately saw its potential, and wanted it for his first Hollywood film after making documentaries and training films during the war." This reads as if Capra only made Hollywood movies after the war, which the later text shows is wrong. It needs re-wording, e.g., including the words 'return to.' Kdammers (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Adding a sentence about Sam Wainwright in plot?
Hello, yesterday I added the following sentence to the plot sentence: "However, George lives in relative poverty in a drafty house and driving an outdated automobile, even as his friend Sam Wainwright amasses considerable wealth."

My edit was undone with the terse edit summary "plot bloat". I believe that the sentence should be included, as it is the only mention of Sam Wainwright in the plot section. The mention of the house and car could be omitted, but George's poverty and Sam's wealth needs to be mentioned. Can I get a consensus to restore my edit? p b  p  14:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * If that's the only mention of Sam in the entire summary, then I don't really see how it's relevant? DonIago (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A mention of Wainwright probably isn't needed in that sentence, although he should be mentioned in the scene where George realizes he loves Mary while Mary is on the phone with Wainwright and George comes up with the idea of moving his plant to the town to provide jobs as well as in the final paragraph where Sam provides further assistance. Highlighting George's lack of money while supporting a family could probably be further emphasized with adding language about the drafty home and old car. The temptation to take Potter's offer is a plot point which creates the reason for George to commit suicide - because he's "worth more dead than alive" per Potter, which is already mentioned in the plot. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I know it's a beloved film, rich in detail, but this summary is at 697 words and pushes the limit of what is WP "good practice." Sam Wainwright isn't that critical to the summary. Isn't it implicit that a $20,000 a year salary would be lavish for 1946 and very tempting? Add Sam and who's next? Violet Biggs? Bert?  Plummer (talk) Plummer (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, if we add Bert, we simply must add Ernie as well... DonIago (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't forget Cookie Monster. EEng 12:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you thinking of It's a Wonderful Life on Sesame Street? DonIago (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Good grief! If we add Violet, then surely Peppermint Patty must follow suit. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And please let's not focus on how many words, that low 700 limit is so 2001. A few extra to bring Sam Wainwright into the plot would not break Wikipedia. George's suggesting to Wainwright that his factory should be moved to Bedford Falls, as well as Wainwright's addition to the final scene, seem like key plot points (if George was never born he would not be on the phone talking and strategizing with Wainwright while hitting on Mary). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's ironic that you're suggesting we ignore the 700 word limit when quite recently there was a discussion at WT:FILM about lowering the recommended maximum word count. In any event, I'm not convinced that any mention of Wainwright is necessary for a reader to understand the overall plot of the film. DonIago (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Lowering? Ridiculous, some iconic films need fuller plots not less. The scene where George takes the phone from Mary and asks Wainwright to build his factory in Bedford Falls seems key to the overall film plot of "What if George was never born?" The factory was built in Bedford Falls because of this brief conversation, and it provided the jobs for townspeople to prosper and income for those who live in the housing community which was needed for the workers. Key to the plot. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a slippery slope fallacy . Sam serves as an important character foil in ways those two don't.  And I echo what was said above about the needless obsession with 700 words or less, especially since you've zeroed in on Sam being "plot bloat" while failing to consider that there could be plot bloat elsewhere.  p  b  p  16:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've brought it down to 622 words, but I also don't think Sam needs a mention. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Alas, that section needs four more words: specifically, a parenthetical comment giving the value of that $8000 in present day dollars. I'm an early Boomer, and I know that in the mid '60s my father was raising a family and paying a mortgage on $8000 per year, but the current younger generation, who would be looking at the article for school, would have no idea why $8000 was enough to threaten the S&L's existence.  JDZeff (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)