Talk:Sunset Boulevard (film)

Merge Norma Desmond into Sunset Boulevard (1950 film) ?
I don't think the Norma Desmond page is of any interest. It is just another summary of the movie, with two or three additional quotes. 82.247.115.24 16:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree: I think one of the key features of the film 'Sunset Boulevard' is the cross-over element between the fictional Norma Desmond's character and the historical spectre of the silent movie period. Even if such an article is mostly rehashed elsewhere, and it need not be - the entry could easily be edited down-, it is still of cultural value. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonathanmcnamara (talk • contribs).

Also disagree emphatically, Norma Desmond is one of the greatest theatrical and movie roles ever created, and as such it should have its own entry discrete from the play, film and musical.--Hephaestion 211.31.33.125 10:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Editing the Main Article
When editing the main article, care should be taken that the table of contents come up immediately, just after the first or second sentence. If you add too much stuff to the first sentence, the table of contents gets pushed down lower and lower, till it is no longer in plain view. Those who are new to the article should not have to scroll down to see the table of contents.
 * Why do people make major comments like this and then not sign them? It is Wikipedia policy that the section before the contents should be a reasonable summary of the whole article.  In this case, that has been done quite well.
 * Londoneye 22:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Edits of Feb 1, 2005
I've just added a lot of info to this article. I saw this on Peer Review, and I think the subject has the potential to one day be a very good article. I just wanted to point out that I know what I've done here is very rough, and needs to go thoroughly edited. I also realise that critical comment on the film is required, and that some areas need to be covered in more depth.

Also I removed the photo of the DVD cover. I was thinking it was inappropriate even though I'm the person who put it there, because it uses a photo that was never part of the film. Therefore replaced it with a vintage movie poster, plus added several screenshots. It looks a bit overdone with images now, but I think when the article is finished it will be more balanced. Rossrs 14:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Change of article name
I changed this from Sunset Boulevard (1950 movie) because having the date as part of the name was not necessary. If there were other significant films with the same title, made in different years... then yes, but in this case it's not required. Rossrs 15:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite of article
Completely rewrote article after realizing my previous effort (see above) left a lot to be desired. Have expanded on some areas that were not previously covered, and have made the overall thing less patchy (I think). Also completely referenced the whole thing.

Images : Searched every place I could think of and wasted hours of my life, searching for public domain or free images, to no avail. Substituted the German/French language poster (of Belgian origin) for an American poster, because it's an American film after all. Plus the other poster was a bit too colorful for a film noir. At least the new one is mainly red, rather than every color of the rainbow.

Added promotional photo. Much more appropriate as a "fair use" image. Also by adding this was able to delete two screenshots that served no purpose but to depict cast members. Also deleted a third screenshot of William Holden and Gloria Swanson, because it did not add to the article, plus it went against the concept of using "fair use" images sparingly.

Will place on Peer review  Rossrs 14:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I like the new information very much but find the flow more patchy, not less. The recently designed poster is too red :) This is such an important film, though that I don't mind seeing the article take a step back in order to take two or three forward (so to speak). I'll work on the flow when I have time. Are there any better posters? I agree the previous one was too colourful but this one somehow gives a misleading impression as well. Also, the raised cite numbers break up the line spacing in a very distracting way. Wyss 13:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I searched for posters and found 4 on Allposters.com.
 * They are : 1. the one that was there before. 2. a weird "Salvador Dali-Norma Desmond on crack" thing that I thought was just way too weird.  3. A black and white one showing a scene from the film, not bad, but created for a British rerelease around 2002 (I think).  It's good and fits the article nicely, but it lacks relevance.  Then there's the DVD cover which I don't particularly like because although it shows Gloria Swanson it is not a scene from the film.  She just happens to be in costume and on the set, so I think it's from an old publicity photo. This is it Image:SunsetBoulevardDVD.jpg.  I ended up going back to the red one, simply because it's the original one.   The color's a little jarring and a bit sordid, but I think it's more suitable than any of the alternative. Yes it creates a misleading impression, but it's the impression the studio decided to run with when the movie was first released, so it's valid historically.
 * The cite numbers - yep, I noticed that too, but I've used the same format elsewhere and it hasn't created the same disjointed effect. I don't know why it looks the way it does.  I suppose the whole referencing part of the article can be done in a different format.  I'll have a look at that when I get a chance.  **noticed today's main page FA tooth enamel uses the same format and has the same spacing problem. Maybe there's no way of avoiding it, but will look at alternatives **
 * With regards to the patchiness, anything that you think will improve it, is welcome. I don't see it, so I'm glad you pointed it out.  Obviously not everyone processes information exactly the way I do, (which is a good thing).  Rossrs 14:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I've read through your edits. They all look very good, a significant improvement. Rossrs 14:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I've finished them. Turns out it was only a word flow and syntax thing. I've tried the 2003 UK poster. It looks too modern but captures the spirit of the film better than anything else I've seen. Understand the thinking behind using the "red blood" poster but I have so little respect for studio marketing departments that preserving the historical accuracy of their efforts is seldom of interest to me (there are many exceptions to prove the rule, though). I've no idea what to do about the line breaks. I tend to believe in simple formating to avoid such problems but since this is my biggest criticism of the article now, it's not much to dwell on (although I think somewhere there must be a coding solution to it :) Overall, the article is much improved, now likely among the best twenty or thirty movie treatments on WP. Wyss 20:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I've tried substituting the UK poster from 2003. The typography is clean but "wrong" for the period. I prefer it over anything else I've seen so far because the b&w photomontage (for me) does an ok job of capturing the look of the film. Wyss 21:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the editing changes you've made to the text are excellent. I'm only puzzled by the reference to Pickford and Normand being close friends. I think Pickford is closely linked to the silent era, plus to the film itself and to Swanson, that to provide another link to Normand serves no purpose.  I don't understand what significance is intended.  That's no big deal, just a minor point that I don't really get.  I really don't like the poster, I'm afraid.  It just doesn't work, and part of the reason is that it was obviously not designed to be shrunk down like that.  The text looks all wrong because you can't read any of it, other than the film title.  It looks busy, and detracts from what is otherwise a pretty powerful and appropriate couple of images.  I particularly like the eyes at the top, but I can't get past the messy blur of the small text which detracts from everything else.  I much prefer the "red" poster, and while I agree it doesn't have the precisely right "look", it does have the right "feel", I feel. Rossrs 03:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The new poster needs a fair-use rationale like those of the other images. --Carnildo 06:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. I can justify fair use on the original poster I used because it has some historical significance to the film but this new image has no historical significance so I'd find it hard to find a rationale.  I intend reverting to the previous image. Rossrs 07:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Retitling this article
There is going to be a 2006 film starring Glenn Close and Ewan McGregor, an adaptation of the 1990s Andrew Lloyd Webber musical, Sunset Boulevard. I haven't made an article for that, because I'm unsure of what the etiquette is with making articles for things that haven't happened yet. But perhaps in light of this, this article should become Sunset Boulevard (1950 film) at some point.
 * I think that's a good idea when the time comes. Rossrs 13:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Requesting Article Name Change
Okay, I'd like to officially request a name change for this article.

I've created a page for the 2006 film under Sunset Boulevard (2006 film), so believe it is only proper that this page be changed to Sunset Boulevard (1950 film). Anyone for thoughts? Daydream believer2 17:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * totally agree with you. Rossrs 02:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Moving. Daydream believer2 14:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Box Office
I'm discussing a Wikipedia project that is attempting to determine modern-day box office incomes. If Sunset Boulevard had been released in 2005, does anyone know what its box office would be? -64.231.70.46 20:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The name of the film
I removed this section because it isn't sourced and uses weasel words like Some authorities, if someone finds a reference put it back in:
 * "Nearly all references give the name of the film as Sunset Boulevard. However, the opening sequence does not give a title.  Instead, it has a shot of the road Sunset Boulevard and zooms in on a street sign that says Sunset Blvd.  Thus some authorities argue that it is the latter that is the true name of the film."

To this unsigned contributor (silly not to sign it; you're in the edit history): OK, I've added an authority. Happy? Londoneye 12:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you MechBrowman 15:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Plot / Queen Kelly
To the contributors for this article, well done, a worthy Featured Article. In light of that I'll briefly discuss a couple of changes here rather than paraphrase in an Edit Summary. Firstly, under Plot, not trying to be overly pedantic or make the story more of a mystery than it is but the narrator never refers to the corpse in the pool at the beginning as Joe Gillis, as was indicated with the prev. wording. His name (or to be more exact at this stage, the narrator's name) is first mentioned by the repossession agents in the initial flashback scene. Secondly, there's discrepancies re. Queen Kelly's release date. I always thought 1928 was correct, as stated in this article, but I now see it more often cited as 1929 (same as in its Wikipedia entry). If a contributor to this page has a source that towers over all others stating 1928, please change it back here but keep consistent with the Queen Kelly article. Cheers, Ian Rose 15:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Pop Culture References?
This is, indeed, a fine article. It's already quite long, but I'm surprised that there is not a section about popular culture references and parodies of the film and its characters. (For instance, Carol Burnett's several hysterical send-ups of Norma, with Harvey Korman as Max). Might be worth adding (I didn't want to start a new section without consensus as I would hesitate to mess with such a well-crafted article). Discuss? StanislavJ 01:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there is definitely a place for it, perhaps after the "Other films about Hollywood section" (I also think the last 3 short sections need to be absorbed into the article, but I'm not sure how to go about it). When I was writing the main part of the article, I didn't come across anything about popular culture references, but I have to admit, I didn't think of it anyhow.  The Burnett send-ups are particularly noteworthy, and I would welcome discussion of them.  Wasn't Gloria Swanson an occasional guest on Carol Burnett's show?  I have some recollection that she was somewhat involved in the sendups, but I can't remember where I read that.  My only concern is that sooner later we'll get the inevitable "the name "Norma Desmond" was uttered without context by a supporting character in episode #12345 of Family Guy" ;-)  As long as it's sourced, and remains relevant, I think it would be good. Rossrs 13:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, many articles have a 'Pop culture references' (or 'Appearances in popular culture') section. I'd say it could go after the 'Musical version' section. Re. absorbing the last 3 sections, IMO the 'Musical version' section should remain but 'The Movie Musical' should be merged with it (wouldn't even bother with a subsection heading). 'The name of the film' I think isn't bad where it is, as a sort of footnote. I think it deserves its own section or subsection but putting it further up could disrupt the flow of the article. Cheers, Ian Rose 14:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Gil gosseyn (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I considered inserting the following direct into the In Pop Culture/Television sect on the Main Page, but didnt want to over-step bounds... however, not seeing ANY mention of it.. here ya go.. leave it here or wherever... "The Sixteen-Millimeter Shrine", starring Ida Lupino, is episode four of the American television series The Twilight Zone.... Whereas, 'aging film star Barbara Jean Trenton (Ida Lupino) secludes herself in her private screening room, where she reminisces about her past by watching her old films from the 1930s.' Concludes w/ ah, typical? this-is-what-happens-in-a-situ-like-this eerie Twilight ending. 2600:1700:A760:C10:BCBE:18A4:2E89:D000 (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

About the poster copyright
I need a few informations about it so that I can use it on the French wikipedia (where everything is really much more complicated).

- Was this the original poster (1950), or at least was it a poster published before 1963 ? - If so, has it been renewed (I suppose no) ? - Then, isn't it in the public domain ? According to this link, it would be...

Please, please, this is important information. I need to know that before I can use the picture on the French article. The French wikipedia is really careful about all that copyrights stuff...

Title
It would seem to me that this article should more aptly be titled Sunset Blvd., with or without the "(1950 film)" qualifier. Imdb (dubious as a source, I think, except for the names of films and to some extent the cast), lists it as Sunset Blvd. and, as the article notes, that is the only title given in the film. The qualifier, I believe, is unnecessary, since the film in development of the musical will almost certainly be titled Sunset Boulevard (though, even that remains to be seen, as my original CD uses just the sign/logo as the title: "Sunset Blvd.", but my sheet music has both the full title and the logo....). However, my DVD (of the original 1950 film) gives the title as Sunset Boulevard. Any thoughts? 69.253.193.234 22:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it would have to be Sunset Blvd. (film) at least, since Sunset Blvd. redirects (correctly IMO) to Sunset Boulevard the road. However, because it's often referred to with its full title, I think the current naming of Sunset Boulevard (1950 film) may as well stay, at least till we know for certain how the new film's title is offically rendered. Cheers, Ian Rose 23:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The title of a movie isn't what it says on the DVD box. It's what it says on the screen, in the title sequence. This movie's title is "Sunset Blvd." 216.231.46.147 00:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . 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. 

PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Sunset Boulevard (1950 film) → Sunset Boulevard (film) — With all due respect, the remake hasn't even been released yet and even when it is, it is unlikely that it can claim primary usage as this film is considered a classic. We should keep consistency like this as with other film articles such as The Italian Job, Get Carter, M (film), The Ladykillers —Reginmund 19:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support - as nominator Reginmund 19:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support; obvious primary use. Masaruemoto 19:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Cheers, Ian Rose 01:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . 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.

Fair use rationale for Image:SunsetBoulevardGloriaSwansonprofile.jpg
Image:SunsetBoulevardGloriaSwansonprofile.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 20:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SunsetBoulevardMainCastMembers.jpg
Image:SunsetBoulevardMainCastMembers.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 20:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SunsetBoulevardWilliamHolden.jpg
Image:SunsetBoulevardWilliamHolden.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 20:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SunsetBoulevardfilmposter.jpg
Image:SunsetBoulevardfilmposter.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 20:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Brackett and Wilder break up
We read: They parted responsibly if not completely amicably. What does "responsibly" mean here? -- Hoary (talk) 03:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Femme fatale, unsuspecting
The intro section used to include this line: "Norma Desmond, a faded movie star and femme fatale who entraps the unsuspecting Gillis into her fantasy world in which she dreams of making a triumphant return to the screen." First, by the definition given in the linked-to Wikipedia article on "femme fatale," I don't think Desmond is one--"an alluring and seductive woman whose charms ensnare her lovers in bonds of irresistible desire"? I don't think that accurately conveys the relationship between Desmond and Gillis, at least not as described in the plot summary. Second, I don't know what "unsuspecting" means here; what doesn't he suspect? Third, "entraps ... into" isn't good grammar, at least not by my usage. Also, all of those phrasings together suggest that Gillis is a poor innocent victim of the conniving and evil Desmond, whereas my impression is that Gillis is using Desmond as much as she's using him. So I've tweaked that sentence. --Elysdir (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article
A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

FA concerns
This article could use some referencing improvements. There are places that would be helped by having additions of cites, to satisfy verifiability for the reader. If not objected to by significant contributors to the article, I would be willing to identify some of these deficient locations in the article with fact tags. However, it might be best to address in the form of WP:FAR, and give the article a more thorough overall review. -- Cirt (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is poorly organized and there appears to be a trivia section. Many places need citations but are not marked. AlbertBowes (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article could use improvement. There seems to be a decent amount of content, but it appears to have breezed through its FAC process without any real scrutiny. I'll list references as I did for Richard III (1955 film) to see how much has been used and how much has not. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 11:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This section seems to be a "trivia" section.Television AlbertBowes (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Featured article review for Sunset Boulevard (film)
nominated Sunset Boulevard (film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

"Other films about Hollywood" section
I'm really not a fan of this section. Unless it can be properly cited that SB was influential in all those other films being mentioned, I don't see why they are being mentioned at all. And even so, if this can be done, it would be more fitting under a "Legacy" section. I personally think it should be moved here until it is better referenced and has more direct relevance to the article. Thoughts? --Lobo512 (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with everything you've said there. When this was originally assessed as FA, I think it was felt that mention of artistic works was effectively "self-citing", simply by virtue of their existence. We are not so easy-going now and, as you say, there should be emphasis on their direct relevance to the subject, which certainly requires sourcing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's well-intentioned but problematic. (What's particularly bizarre is the contrast between this section and the lack of any mention of Wilder's later film Fedora.) For now, I'd leave it in, and see whether people can indeed bring sources for claims of relationships between each of these films (or one or more waves that produced these films) and SB. After all, it's going to take some time to improve the rest of the article, and if this section doesn't improve by then, it may then be removed. &para; If it does survive, I'd hate to see it retitled "Legacy": this would imply that the original is dead (whereas it has far more vitality than many much newer films), and in en:WP practice "Legacy" aggrandizes what might better be titled "Rip-offs and feeble imitations". -- Hoary (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh-heh -- indeed, nicely put... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Missing page numbers
I expect to have access to a copy of Sam Staggs' Close-up on Sunset Boulevard in a few weeks. I do not expect to have access to any of the other books that are cited without page numbers. Does anyone else have any of these? -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Rip-offs and feeble imitations
(Or possibly something better.)

We read that Janet Leigh appeared in an episode of Columbo as a NormaDesmondish figure. Unsourced, of course. I've asked about this at the talk pages for the Columbo and the Leigh article.

We read that there was a Burmese derivative, starring somebody or other. Unsourced, of course. I've asked about this on her article's talk page and on the talk page of (moribund?) WikiProject Burma.

I was going to do this for one or two other bits of pop culture trivia (aka "legacy"), but it was past my bedtime and bed was more appealing.

If there are no useful responses, I'll happily see this stuff excised. -- Hoary (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Clift's withdrawal
§ Cast selection says
 * It has been suggested the fact Clift was himself having an affair with a much older woman (the singer Libby Holman) was his real reason for withdrawing from the film

with a reference to
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2001/04/10/sunset_boulevard_1950_review.shtml "Exploring Sunset Boulevard". BBC, March 13, 2003.

But the cited source is a short article (300 words), as much plot summary as review, which doesn't even mention Clift.

The article on Clift does mention his withdrawal and gives as the reason
 * Clift was set to appear in Sunset Boulevard (1950), written specifically for him, but he dropped out at the last minute, as he felt that his character was too close to him in real life (like his character, he was good looking, and dating a much older, richer woman).

The reference is to a 448-page biography of Clift that is cited ten times in the article, never with a page number.
 * Bosworth, Patricia (1978). Montgomery Clift: A Biography. Hal Leonard Corporation, 2007. N.B.: Also published in mass-market pbk. ed. (New York: Bantam Books, 1979, cop. 1978); originally published by Harcourt, 1978. ISBN 0-87910-135-0 (H. Leonard), 0-553-12455-2 (Bantam).

So even though this assertion labeled as "fact" ("the fact that") may actually be a fact ("something that has really occurred or is actually the case") — Clift may actually have been having an affair with Holman — and even supposing that that was the reason for his dropping out, it's not verified in the references. Maybe it would be, if the Bosworth citations included page numbers. --Thnidu (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Norma Desmond/Gloria Swanson
I find a disconnect between this article and Ms. Swanson's article that stretches credulity.

According to Ms. Swanson's biography, her life and career roughly parallel that of the character she plays in this film, Norma Desmond. Both were stars of the silent era who worked closely with C.B. DeMille. Both found their stardom faded once "talkies" became popular. Both became reclusive and lived an "eccentric" lifestyle. From Ms. Swanson's biography, It would appear that the role was loosely based off the life of the actress.

Yet this article would have us believe that other actresses were considered before Ms. Swanson--women whose lives do not parallel the character nearly as closely. This strikes me as odd and somewhat implausible, without further explanation. My three hypothesis to explain this are (1) that Ms. Swanson's article is inaccurately blending her fictional role with her actual life, (2) that the casting history in this article is based on inaccurate rumors or memories, or (3) that there is an untold back-story which would explain the use of Ms. Swanson's story in the film, while also explaining the producers' effort not to hire her to play the role.

Or, I may be seeing chimera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.50.6 (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Or a fourth: that the part was offered to others, who turned it down, then to Swanson, who accepted it, and then rewritten with Swanson particularly in mind. Or a certain degree of coincidence. Or a tendency of writers to exaggerate the similarities and ignore the differences. Or something else I can't think of right now. Or some combination of these.


 * If you have a reliable source for Brackett's account, then do please present it. -- Hoary (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no source because I'm not proposing any facts. I know absolutely nothing about these people. I watched the movie for the first time last night, and came to Wiki today to learn more. I see an oddity that seems too much to be coincidental, and wondering if there's something missing or incorrect about the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.50.6 (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Good! Yes, it is indeed rather strange. I've encountered comparable oddities across, or even within, other articles myself. Next stage: Find out! Duckduckgo for the information (remembering of course that most websites are better ignored), go to the library, or search for some book via Abebooks or similar. And then, if the information in the Wikipedia article does indeed seem to be inadequate, or even misinformation, fix it. -- Hoary (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Nope. I'll leave it to cinemaphiles and cultural historians to figure it out. I'm a casual viewer who just had a question, and wikipedia was an inadequate resource. This is not important enough to me to research.

'Music' subheading in "Impact" section.
I added a 'Music' subsection to the "Impact" heading to provide a listing for the 1976 song "Sunset Boulevard" by the English rock group City Boy on their debut album. Gil gosseyn (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC) (I originally added this to the "Pop Culture" heading discussion, then saw it was fixed for archiving, so I created a new section and moved it.) Gil gosseyn (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sunset Boulevard (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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120112110016/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1122101262237 to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1122101262237
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051122040259/http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/robertharris/harris111502.html to http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/robertharris/harris111502.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111121133809/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/103190-DIVA-TALK-Chatting-with-Four-Time-Tony-Winner-Angela-Lansbury to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/103190-DIVA-TALK-Chatting-with-Four-Time-Tony-Winner-Angela-Lansbury

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) 08:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Change cameo appearances credits?
Certain cameo appearances, including Buster Keaton, have been credited as 'Bridge Player' in the article. However, in the credits of the film, they're credited as 'Themselves', so perhaps this should be changed in the article to reflect the credits in the film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanfletcher22 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The cast list in the article is slightly odd: the role should either consistently follow "as" or consistently be in parentheses. And what's the role? As Keaton plays himself playing bridge, it's fair to say either that he plays himself or that he's a bridge player. Is there some other problem? -- Hoary (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Cinematography and Design references
The section on Cinematography and Design could do with some more references. I have already added a couple of sentences on why the film was shot on black and white when colour was an option, with a reference, and added a reference for Edith Head's costume design for the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanfletcher22 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * When you write something in a talk page, please hit the tilde key ("~") four times in a row in order to sign and date your comment.


 * The main reasons why Sunset Boulevard was shot in B/W were, I think, that colour film stock would have been a lot more troublesome and there was no compelling reason to use it. The source you cite does say that there was no compelling reason to use it and indeed that some things work better in B/W, but curiously omits any mention of the troublesomeness of colour (the low emulsion speed, the near-impossibility of combining natural and artificial light). And it goes off at a tangent at the end. So I'm not so impressed by this source (which looks to me like an undergraduate essay). Do you not have access to books that present interviews with Wilder? (He was fairly garrulous, if I remember right.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I have slightly amended my edit and added in a new reference. Nathanfletcher22 (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Popular Culture section
The popular culture section has no references. Its difficult to find any credible sources for pop culture. I'll use IMDB as a starting point for references and any interviews I can find where the creators of a show/medium have explicitly stating they were inspired by Sunset Boulevard. Any better ideas on finding credible references?

Mariajonesqm (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph about Batman: Legends of the Dark Night talks about Batman more then it does Sunset Boulevard. I'll shorten and reword some sentences to keep it relevant. Mariajonesqm (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've shortened the paragraph.Mariajonesqm (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The trouble is, IMDB is a junk source. (Writers for IMDB can depend on Wikipedia, PR shills, their own hazy memories, etc.) An article on a movie should have a link to its entry at IMDB, but shouldn't use IMDB as a reference. I tend just to splatter unreferenced "popular culture" claims with "" flags (adjusting the month to align with reality, of course), and let others who are a lot more interested in this stuff than I am supply the citations. If the warning flags are there for over a year, remove the claim. If you're actually interested enough in a "popular culture" claim to want to investigate, it then you might do something like the following. I'll take (to me, a supremely uninteresting claim) as an example. Choose an uninterrupted string of text from elsewhere in the article. My first choice was . Check that this has been unaltered for some time. This particular string has been unaltered since 2015, so I can use it. (If it had been altered, I'd have made a new choice.) Now go to Google and make the most of its quotes and "minus" function, looking for Sunset Boulevard, the PopCult product that ripped it off, sorry, paid homage to it, something about the "homage", but minus the irrelevant string. So for example . Note the "minus" (actually, hyphen) right in front of the unwanted irrelevant string. This will of course look for what you want, but helpfully exclude most of the utterly unhelpful (and dreary) commercial scrapes of this Wikipedia article itself. -- Hoary (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the incite Hoary- I wasn't too sure if IMBD was reliable in the first place. I'll delete the citation. Mariajonesqm (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sunset Boulevard Ready For My Close-up.png

Styled as
Why do we bother with "styled as SUNSET BLVD"? Movie titles aren't defined by their logotype or by the artwork in their title sequences; otherwise, we'd consistently say "West Side Story, styled as WEST SIDE STORY", "Gone with the Wind" (styled as "GONE WITH THE WIND") and so on. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 01:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * There was a discussion about this many years ago, and that line has been stable in the lead since at least 2016. If I remember correctly, it was the compromise solution between those who spelled it Sunset Boulevard and those arguing that the manifest content of the movie spelled it Sunset Blvd. It's been a few years, so I don't remember why it was capped, but that was the consensus decision, which has prevented arguments over the title for all this time. If you feel strongly about eliminating it, I would imagine the best thing to do would be to open up a new discussion about it, or possibly an Rfc if few people chime in.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This page has never been archived, so all the relevant discussions are right here. None of them make a convincing argument, and none of them provide any sources for including SUNSET BLVD as a styling. So there's no WP:CONSENSUS on the matter, just silent consent. That's why I opened this discussion. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 05:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're correct in that I only see a 2007 discussion on this page; it's possible my memory is off or the discussion took place on a more general WP:FILM page. Either way, some form of this title has been in the lead for at least 10 years, so as it says at WP:CONSENSUS, "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." So, per policy, there actually is consensus. Of course, a consensus can change. Hopefully other editors will weigh in. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And while, of course, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this lead construction is not uncommon, as at Mad (magazine) and Adidas, to name only two articles.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * MOS:LEADALT may be pertinent to apply here. It says, "When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." There is a similar discussion going on with Beetlejuice and how it shows "Beetle Juice" onscreen; see thread here. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the LEADALT link; the question then becomes "is the bolded and abbreviated title used in the credit sequence a significant alternate name for the movie, or is it just a piece of art?" --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 00:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, it appears as Sunset Blvd. at IMDb here, so that title, simply by dint of it being on one of the most widespread movie sites, seems significant. It's also at the cinephile site [[Turner Classic Movies here. I mean, I wouldn't use "Sunset Blvd." as the title but I understand purists who might. --[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My initial take is that it isn't significant enough. Unlike for Beetlejuice, which mentions the spaced title being in an early script draft, I'm not sure if this instance has a place in the article body. In this film, the title is on a street sign, and I don't think we have to explain "blvd" and "boulevard" in the scope of this topic. It seems like for films, "significant alternative titles" should be different enough that their inclusion clears up confusion. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, so, a bit more looking around, and I can't find the original script or anything that would be really dispositive. I think perhaps "also known as" would be correct. "Styled as" is what caught my attention, because I've recently removed a couple of certainly silly uses from other articles recently. It's not a street sign, by the way; rather, it's stenciled onto the curb. (I wonder if they created the curb for the movie, or just found one to shoot? Who did the titles for the movie?) --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 02:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It's funny — the onscreen title with the name on the curb used to be in this article as a screengrab! I think an editor removed it claiming copyright issues, though one frame from an entire movie, used to address a point in the article, certainly seems as if it would fall under fair use.


 * And you're right: "also known as" certainly works. I do think we need to mention it, as a way of noting it for people who see Sunset Blvd on IMDb and Turner Classic Movies. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

DeMille
I changed the sentence that had said, "DeMille receives her affectionately and treats her with great respect, tactfully evading her questions about her script, about which he knows nothing." In fact, when DeMille's assistant tells him that Norma is coming to see him, DeMille says, "It must be about that awful script of hers. What can I tell her? What can I say?" --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

A “Black Comedy
How does this film qualify as a ‘black comedy’? Yes, it satires parts of Hollywood’s movie machine, but aside from a line here or there, there is nothing that makes this black comedy. ClevelandExPat (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources have called it a black comedy. That said, a film can be classified in several different genres. Per WP:FILMLEAD, we should have in the opening sentence the genre or sub-genre that is predominant in reliable sources. Let the sources speak for themselves. We as editors only summarize what they say. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 03:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)