Talk:The Chips Are Down (screenplay)

Note
How can the book be "in 1952" and yet still be "made into a movie in 1947"? This seems counterintuitive, and some clarification would be appreciated. Nowalaters 23:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Well, IMDb states that the film was produced in 1947 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0039512/). Yet, Amazon gives the following publishing information:

Publisher: Prentice Hall; 1 edition (April 1, 1952)

(http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0135306752/104-1040928-8514360?v=glance&n=283155)

Someone has to be wrong. My thought is that the publishing date is of the english translation, and not of the original text, but I've yet to find anything to confirm this.

--Sycron 20:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, this is what a french version of the text states (ISBN: 2070394824): "Ce scénario, conçu en 1943, a été publié pour la première fois en 1947. Un film en a été tiré la même année, adapté et réalisé par Jean Delannoy, avec Micheline Presle et Marcel Pagliero." So, he wrote it in 1943 but it was first published in 1947 with the film being made in the same year.

--Sycron 01:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a little text at the beginning of the article (which should really be reworded; there's something I don't like about it, but I'm tired) because Les Jeux Sont Faits and The Game Is Up are not word-for-word translations, and thus I find the original
 * "Les Jeux Sont Faits (The Game Is Up)''"

to be misleading. Maybe I'm being picky. --^pirate 01:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No, that's quite valid. I've changed the text to: "Les Jeux Sont Faits, literally "The Games Are Done", though more commonly known translated as The Game Is Up" --Sycron 20:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Just realized that I didn't read what I had written, and that it sounds ridiculous. Edited again. --Sycron 02:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought 'les jeux sont faits' finds its origin in the translation of Alea Iacta Est (the die is cast), which makes sense in the context of the story. I guess the eexpression used in casinos shares the same origin. Jdekok24 (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Stub No More?
I believe that that this piece is approaching article-status in that it provides a clear description of the subject with a relavent degree of scope, as well as having been parsed by several editors. Therefore, I'd move to suggest that it be given article status. I will proceed to do so in a few weeks time, if unopposed, in order to provide for a reasonable timeframe in which others might respond. --Sycron 18:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Disambig?
Why should this page be split up? This would only create stubs (ie. if splitting up the novel from the respective theatre and film adaptations) and the subject matter is all related, thus I find it hard to warrant splitting it up. --^pirate 18:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I oppose this action on practical grounds. There simply isn't enough information regarding the film adaptation to warrant a separate article.--Sycron 19:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 07:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)