Talk:The Rules of the Game/Archive 1

Copied from IMDB (2003)
Copyright material was copied from IMDB by User:66.98.93.112, if you are User:66.98.93.112 and you wrote the review on IMDB then by all means replace it but please put a note somewhere explaining this fact. Cheers -- Ams80 16:13 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

2006 restoration
There was a major restoration of the film recently. As far as I can tell, the restored version was released on DVD in 2004 and 35mm in 2006. It seems weird that the DVD would be released two years earlier, but I saw it yesterday in 35mm and the copyright notice at the end said 2006. Hopefully someone who knows more about it than I do can update the article. In particular, the article should discuss differences between the 1959 version of the film and the 1939 release. Also are there any differences between the 2004/2006 version and the 1959 version? Here are some references to the restoration:.--Mathew5000 18:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's another source from a blog entry:. This one says that the prior Criterion DVD release was merely cleaned up for video. But that can't be referring to the 2004 Criterion release can it? Maybe it means the laserdisc edition. --Mathew5000 19:02, 4 March 2007 (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 08:14, 27 August 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. 

no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below and the related discussion at Talk:Grand Illusion (film) (in the future, it might be better to use the multimove tag for situations like this). There is no indication in the discussion here that the French title is the most common title in English. Dekimasu よ! 06:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC) The Rules of the Game → La Règle du jeu — Per this policy... If the film has been released under different titles within the English speaking world - if for example, some English-speaking countries prefer to use the native title, or if different translations are used in different countries - use the most common title throughout. the film was released in the UK with the original French title. —Reginmund 23:47, 17 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 23:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I support the move. Searching Google confirms that the BBC, at least, refers to the film by its French name. --Mathew5000 07:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose The English title is still more common in English speaking countries, per my comment below. Also, it's worth mentioning that WP:NC(F) is derived from WP:UE which favours English titles. Doctor Sunshine   talk  16:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

"...The film has been released under different titles within the English speaking world..." And the evidence for this is? —  AjaxSmack   07:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The DVD release Reginmund 21:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I couldn't find anything from a cursory glance at IMDb.  —   AjaxSmack     01:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And advanced google search for English language results reveals: Plus, if you're going by amazon.uk, they have more listings a listing under "Rules of the Game", r1 or no.  Doctor Sunshine   talk  16:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Renoir "Rules of the Game" -wikipedia — 87,200
 * Renoir "La Règle du jeu" -wikipedia — 34,200


 * Those amazon.co.uk links are irrelevant; the first is for the Region 1 DVD (i.e. the American release) which is already acknowledged to use the English-language title. The second is for some other movie altogether that happens to have the same title. The point is that the UK DVD release (and presumably the original theatrical release way back when) uses the film's original French-language title. --Mathew5000 19:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoops. But it's still also known by the English title in the UK, making it common to both. And, directly to the point, the English title is more common. There no reason to move the page. Doctor Sunshine   talk  20:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you cite this analysis? I couldn't find the film released under the English title. Maybe you can. And how is the Amazon irrelevant? It just goes to whow that it is known under its French title in parts of the Anglosphere. Reginmund 23:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To recap, the policy was revised a little while back to bring it back in line with WP:UE, per the discussion at WP:FILM. You'll note in the segment you've quoted it says the "most common" title should be used and not the "native" or "original language" title. Doctor Sunshine   talk  15:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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:La regle du jeu.jpg
Image:La regle du jeu.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) 22:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Rules of the Game 09 kitchen.jpg
The image Image:Rules of the Game 09 kitchen.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --21:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing after the premiere
This article is the basis for the comment on the amount of time edited out of the movie after its premiere. In the Criterion DVD commentary there is a 15 minute talk by Renoir himself, describing how hurt he was by the initial rejection of the film. He says that he edited the movie for that reason. The version comparison, again on the Criterion DVD, talks about how the importance of the character Octave was reduced, including the removal of his momentary love-affair with Christine during the ending of the film. This deletion of Octave from the ending is sometimes thought of as an "alternate" ending. This alternate ending is more abrupt: a rip in the fantasy of the upper-class world, quickly sewn up with only a word from the elite: "What? What. (Did you see anything. I didn't.)"

There are references to 23 minutes (twenty three) being cut rather than 33 minutes being cut. This implies that the original version was 103 minutes rather than 113 minutes, and that the restored version of 106 minutes was longer than the premiere version while leaving out the "Lisette" scene. This may all be true somehow. ( Martin | talk • contribs )

Jean Gaborit and Jacques Durand reconstructed this film with the approval and advice of Jean Renoir, who dedicated the resurrection to the memory of Andre Bazin. (Movie Intro) (67.241.170.144 (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

"They Shoot Pictures" reference
This reference (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_all1000films.htm) has been restored twice now (here) despite the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film that http://www.theyshootpictures.com/ is not a reliable source. In that discussion six editors were against including it while only one was for keeping it. Of the five impartial editors who contributed to the discussion the decision was unanimous not to include it. There is a clear consensus that this website is not deemed a reliable source and should not be included, so I will be removing it again. Betty Logan (talk) 06:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

AFTER the "clear consensus" of the so-called "impartial editors" at "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Notable or not" the editor PJtP patiently and clearly explains why the website is a reliable source and only one other editor responds to the arguments and does so not in an "impartial" way but with  an obstinately obtuse determination to preserve her own biased pov and a clear avoidance of coherent responses to his arguments. In "Wikipedia:Reliable sources" it is clearly stated: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information". The cited website fits this description to a T: it even goes to the unusual length of citing the "2,041 individual ballots, and the 1,135 miscellaneous lists used"; it's difficult to imagine what a more reliable and neutral source could possibly be. If editors were really concerned with the interests of people reading the article they would want as much such info as the website contains made available to them rather than suppressing it: it is clearly referenced, so let reader's make up their own minds rather than censoring their access to infoWran (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There is an ongoing discussion in regards to this source at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. It affects more than just this article, so if anyone else has a viewpoint it would be better expressed at the main discussion.  Betty Logan (talk) 13:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)