Talk:Matilda (1996 film)/Archive 1

Dany DeVito showing completed film to Mara Wilsons dying mom
Currently this point is considered as not being verified correctly since the linked article doesn't actually mention it. In her book "Where am I now?", Mara Wilson confirms the tidbit: "Before I went to bed that night, Danny and I talked about my mother. Matilda was easily the movie I’d made that she was most excited about, but she had died while we were doing postproduction. I’d always felt sad that she wasn’t able to see the completed film. I was floored when he told me he’d brought my mother the film while she was in the hospital. It hadn’t been fully edited, but she had been able to see what we had."

I don't know how to properly integrate this fact into Wikipedia though.

Plot/Page Issues
Just was browsing and realized that the contents box has been switched with the plot and needs to be moved, and the plot istelf needs cleaned up because there's some gibberish and the first half of the movie's plot seems to be missing. --144.160.5.25 (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Films
There are actually two films with the title, Matilda. --PJ Pete

Plot
I added a basic plot to this page- but it needs to be expanded. Codelyoko193 Talk 01:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I Am Weasel
If this film was spoofed in I Am Weasel, there should be a screenshot of the Matilda spoof in I Am Weasel. --PJ Pete —The preceding  signed but undated.

Graph
In the graph it says mr wormwood likes matilda, but he states he thinks shes a mistake in the film.82.39.116.172 18:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Matilda film.jpg
Image:Matilda film.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 insure 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) 14:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancies
Maybe it's just me, but the discrepancies section of this article is rather lengthy, and many of the discrepancies aren't worth noting. It seems to almsot pick apart the movie. I don't think many people will want to read that on this article. Anyone else think so? -Abelhawk (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it's over half the article and includes a whole lot of useless information. I don't think it's really right to include such a long list of discrepancies, no films are exactly the same as the novel so there's not much point. 86.16.251.159 (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The whole section should perhaps be deleted but I've at least significantly cut many trivial differences.Samvnkauffman (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Box Office Bomb
The reference at this time to this being a Box Office Bomb is way out of line, It made 90% of it's reported budget in domestic,and made money in international. Home video is after that. Hardly a bomb, at worst a wet firecracker. Kid Bugs (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, far too much is made of the fact that it was a 'box office bomb', ignoring the fact it was a huge hit on home video and a firm favourite in the TV schedules ever since. --Noxy83 (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Family Relations Messed Up
Harry Wormwood was her father, NOT her stepfather. It even says so in the film. Also, Harry's wife (can't recall the name) was her mother, NOT her stepmother. Their son was her brother, NOT her stepbrother. I changed the page so that it was corrected. (Also, I also fixed a typo on the page. It was a glitch where a space was not there and it was causing a word to combine with Matilda's last name under her name description and was getting the word "the" stuck to "Wormwood" and hence inside of the hyperlink.  It is fixed now.)  98.212.98.58 (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅-Fixed.-- Chamith  (talk)  04:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Pam Ferris
Now, we all love Pam Ferris. The Darling Buds of May remains one of my favourite programmes. However, she does not appear in the poster block for this film. The poster, yes. The poster block, no. And it is the poster block that we go off. So she should not be added. Yes, it hurts me too.... Quentin X (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Her name can clearly be seen on the poster; she should be included in the infobox. ---  The Old Jacobite  The '45  19:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Guidance is for it to be the billing block, not the poster itself. See Bulworth for another example (this is one I didn't do).... Quentin X (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Remember we use the poster billing block mainly for convenience (i.e. it can be easily verified), not because it is definitive (although it often is). This is an unusual case: we have a name that appears above the title but not in the billing block. Going by the poster alone I would say the billing block still takes precedence over names above the title, but how are they credited in the actual film? If Ferris' name comes before the main title in the actual film credits then it seems reasonable to include her, if not leave her out. Betty Logan (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The film is available to stream at Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/Matilda_Movie#), I've just watched the beginning, and no one is credited at the beginning of the film. At the end, the cast is credited: DeVito, Perlman, Davidtz, Ferris, Wilson, just as they are on the poster above the title. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  20:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this will be of any help to anybody, but a while back I brought up an issue here about how to present the cast of Pan, since the film's star was listed at the top of the poster, but not in the billing block. I don't think a clear answer came out of it, but maybe it'll stir up some thoughts here. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, Cyphoidbomb. I agree with you, and, as I said earlier today at the project talk page, film posters are part of the studio's marketing campaign, so they are a guide for us as to who is in the cast, but should not be the final word.  Erik brought up the very good example of Moonrise Kingdom, which credits everyone but the two leads, because they are not on the poster at all.  This points up a gross oversight. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  22:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Back after the holidays and saw that this has been discussed. I can completely get on board with this argument and see no reason to change it again, except for if this is the case, does Pam Ferris come before or after Mara Wilson? Quentin X (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In the proper film credits she comes before Mara Wilson so the proper order should arguably be observed, at leass in the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It's just occurred to me that someone should have called this "SAVE FERRIS" :-) Quentin X (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It's funny, she's a sweet nice lady in real life, but in this she's a nutcase who should be fired or sent to death row even. I like it, it shows she capable of acting different characters pretty good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.118.106.30 (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Synthesis
Synthesis is combining material from more than one source or pieces of the same source to say something none of the sources directly state.

We do not have a source describing the film as a "box office bomb". Yes, we have sources giving the estimated production budget and the box office gross. The assumption that this means the film A) lost money and/or B) was intended to primarily make money at the theatrical box office and/or that the figures shown when compared head-to-head mean it "bombed". State the facts, not your interpretation of the facts. If your interpretation is obvious and incontrovertible, presenting the facts will convey that. If your interpretation is needed to make this clear to readers, you will need to find a reliable source. You are not a reliable source.

We do not have a reliable source stating the critical reviews were or are positive/primarily positive/mostly positive/sorta-kinda positive/overwhelmingly positive or anything else. Yes, we have score from two different aggregators and several individual reviews. Your interpretation of those sources is your synthesis.

Yes, we have one aggregator which uses an algorithm to assign the stock phrase "generally favorable reviews", based on their score of 74. As the phrase is assigned mechanically, with no editorial oversight, it is not a reliable source. We can quote it, with in-line attribution, as we do in the Critical reception section. We cannot use it as a summary statement or interpret that phrase to fill in what you feel is a gap in the article.

If you would like the article to say whether the reviews were great/horrible or something else, you will need to find a reliable source which directly says that. If you would like the article to characterize the box office gross as a "bomb", part of the film's income or something else, you will need to find a source directly stating. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)