Talk:The Sound of Music (film)/Archive 1

=2006–2015=

Christopher Plummer's opinion
This article suggests that Plummer does not like the movie(s). It repeats the "sound of mucus" line twice, no less. Is it really true? I recently watched the extras for the 40th anniversary DVD and if he hates the movie, he put on a jolly good show of hiding it, contributing interviews, commentaries, etc, all seemingly complementary.... Pcb21 Pete 22:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well it only has one mention now, and balanced with the seemingly contradictory information. Pcb21 Pete 22:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Another thing I want to check out on the DVD, Christopher Plummer does an audio commentary with Julie Andrews. It may not answer the question as he could have participated for the money?Kidsheaven 00:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Plummer has joked about not being fond of children, and how annoying the child actors were, but it has become more a tidbit journalists pick up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.23.118.183 (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sound of Music and its reception in Salzburg and Austria
This seems odd: "The musical itself is virtually unknown in Austria, except in backpacker's hostels in Salzburg, where it is screened daily on DVD. The Ländler dance that Maria and the Captain shared was not performed the traditional way it is done in Austria."

What, they don't have cinemas and see big English language Hollywood blockbusters in Austria?! When I was there Look Who's Talking received much publicity and prominent advertising. Gee, and the The Sound of Music film (which is what the trivia items seems to be referring to, with its mention of DVDs playing) was such a huge hit everywhere else! Asa01 08:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

(And this is how austrians with a complex relationship to 'Sound of Music will answer:
 * Yea Asa, even if it seems unbelievable for you, (young) Austrians are not very happy about this film and it is not very famous in Austria! First of all, because it is just a copy of an Austrian story which was allready used in the Austrian/German film "Die Trapp-Familie" from 1956. So the "big" American film is just a reuse of a story, which was (years before!) allready used in a german-speaking film. The story became famous in the states due to a musical, and the musical-text-writers thereself also took all their inspiration from the book of Maria Trapp (The Story of the Trapp Family Singers) and the allready existing films. But thats not the biggest thing, as many other american films are based on an Austrian story, one of the best is Eyes Wide Shut, the last film of Stanley Kubrick, which is based on a story originally playing in the Vienna of 1900 ... But there is a second explanation, which seems even more important: The film "The Sound of Music" is full of "kitsch", old fashioned stereotypes and complete unrealistic images of Austria. This was also the same in the former Austrian/German-film from 1956, but the first one was only a short episode in the history of Austrian films, while the american film became so famous that many, many people (all over the world!) where influenced by its images of pre-WWII-Austria. It is like everybody in the world would think America is as it is described in Gone with the Wind (film). ;-) ... So we Austrians accept "The Sound of Music" as an important factor for our tourism, but whe didnt fall in love with this film. ... Nice Greetings from Vienna/Austria, Raoul 84.112.157.52 18:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you compare the two 'Die Von Trapp Familie' films which inspired the musical and the 'Sound of Music' film, you cannot blame the american for having added the kitsch to the story: the original german/austrian films is already full of stereotypes: most of the elements critizised above were already there and it was here the nazi story was introduced, with the family 'escaping' over the mountains, although the truth was they simply took the train to Italy. Maria von Trapp was involved in the script, even. The truth is, these german language films were and still are of the most seen films in austrian history -and this leaves 'Sound of Music' a bit behind: it was already told, this story, when the US film premiered, and thus, it didn't do well in Austria.

The musical has been staged in Salzburg the last years, in austrian, to huge success, with Salzburg Museum having an exhibition about the phenomenon for three years -so claiming the locals don't know the musical and the film is bullshit in 2014.


 * The item said that the film was virtually unknown in Austria. It was that claim I was objecting to. Asa01 18:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but due to the reasons mentioned above the film IS nearly unknown to most of the people of Austria, except the "older" generation and those people who are linked to tourism or "music-films" history. The film was never really promoted in Austria, as it contains so many stereotypes about Austria and all the songs in the US-film are sung in English, which is quite unrealistic for an Austrian family (a factual error of the american film, due to US-marketing-considerations in the 60s). Also the story is about a very dark period of austrian history, as in the 30s we first had a Austrofascism dictatorship by the catholic-conservatives (who abbolished the parliament in 1933 and even cilled social-democratic senators during the civil war in 1934), and then came Hitler and Nazi-Germany and overtook this "weak" and allready anti-democratic Austria in 1938. So after WWII, "historical" Austrian films concentrated more on "unproblematic" times of Austrian history, by example the time of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy - so the famous "Sisi"-Films (about "our" Empress Elisabeth) are permanently played in our TV while "The Sound of Music" is played "once in a blue moon". ... Raoul, 84.112.157.52 20:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * in Salzburg - according to what is shown on the DVD it is now a big tourist attraction for the areas used in the film. So Salzburg knows the film, as for the film being correct to the true story.  Maria Trapp sold the rights to the Germans and they and others changed a lot of the facts of the actual family.  Kidsheaven 00:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Austrian Complex: I also live in Salzburg, and can confirm the salzburgers have a complex relationship to the Hollywood Film: the background is first and foremost that the von Trapp family left Salzburg for the US, and their success happened more after their departure: Salzburg did not know much about them! Secondly, the Book came out, and following it were the German produced films 'The von Trapp Family' and the sequal  '...in America', both very successful both in Austria and Germany. Upon seeing these films, it is not hard to understand why the Hollywood Film failed: these films are specked with great traditional music, the first has the same beautiful setting and down to the smallest details the very same scenes (the Hollywood film 'borrowed' a lot). 'Sound of Music' became an alien. That the whole rest of the World is visiting Salzburg to splash in the horse fountain, jump in the Mirabell Garden Steps and visit the green field in the opening scene, is for the locals weird. It has become a thing people say: We don't know the film, we haven't seen it. The musical is, however, staged for the first time in history in Salzburg right now, supported by an exhibition in the main Salzburg Museum covering the 'true' life of the von Trapp Family and how the film became a phenomenon. The new generation is curious :)

Filmed in Vermont?
I've been to Salzburg and a tourguide asked to not be asked anything about the Sound of Music because it wasn't filmed there (read the above section) They said it was filmed in Vermont. This is corroborated with the fact that I've holidayed in a time share in Vermont (near Stowe) where they claimed the von Trappes finally settled. I'm trying to figure all this out in my head but I'm having trouble since it's against what the almighty Wikipedia has said about where the film was filmed. Help me!! 83.67.108.38 22:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Not true. The special features accompanying the DVD has a director's commentary by Robert Wise and interviews with several of the cast members.  One DVD even has Charmian Carr's documentary about Salzburg.  It is true, however, that the Trapps settled near Stowe after coming to the U.S. MccullarsJ 21:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The film was partially filmed in and around Salzburg. Some of the film was filmed in a sound stage in California, but the cast spent months in Europe filming. For years people have been able to go on Sound of Music Tours that take you to places that they filmed in and around Salzburg. I went on one and they took us to the place were they filmed the wedding scene and were Maria and Georg Von Trapp actually got married. They did not film it is Stowe, Vermont — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.127.106 (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Gwen Stefani?
Is the fact that Gwen Sefani sampled one of the Sound of Music Songs really something people need to know who are interested in the Sound of Music? I mean, who put that in there, her publicist? One might as well link to her in the article of the Sistine Chapel with the comment that she visited there once.

Stephanis "song" (for lack of a better word) really isn't relevant to the topic. She didnt contribute anything to the Sound of Music or its legacy. Her butchering of the delightful R&H tune is something like spray painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa.

LuckyDan 12:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Strange Trivia
Was there really two movies made in Germany called "Die Trapp family" and "Die Trapp Family in America?" That seems unlikely, and vandalism if it's untrue... I won't remove it, but is there a source on that?

Yoda921 12:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Yoda
 * It certainly is true; they were made before TSoM. See IMDb for the first and for the sequel. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 18:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow.... thanks for the links, Fbv65ede. :)

Yoda921 02:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Yoda

Having just watched 40th Anniversary DVD, found it has extensive info to check out. An A&E Biography program along with background info and comparisons of the true story and the musical and film versions. The "real" Maria sold the rights to her book for production into musicals and movies for $9,000 according to one part of the film. It interests me to check out this info and update, some trivia addition could be made of this? The Trapp family needed money, but Maria was not good at negotiations. According to the movie later she received from Rogers and Hammerstein production 7/8ths of 1% royalty. At the end of Biography mention was made of surviving family members of the Trapps in a court case battle over $2 to $3 million US. I don't know if that is what comes of the R&H royalties?Kidsheaven 00:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

THE GAZEBO SCENE was shot "at high noon," confessed cameraman Steve in 1983. It was "magic" (chemicals) during development of the film that gives the appearance of night. Common water hoses provided the "rain."

Source: "Mr. Steve," Second Cameraman; "The Sound of Music"

WITHIN THIS OR OTHER DISCUSSIONS, readers have commented on the weather during Maria's "The Hills Are Alive" in the movie's opening scenes: "Was it sunny... or was it cloudy?" they ask. "Seems to change based on camera angles." My acquaintance, Mr. Steve, answered the question....

Filming began very early in the spring of 1964. Producers could see how a layer of snow, several feet thick, would create a problem were they to begin filming so early in the spring. Producers had to have GREEN grass, and lots of it, as soon as the snow was gone.

Their solution? They spread tons of fertilizer over the snow that covered the area where Maria would sing. And the application was successful, somewhat...

When the snow cleared, the fertilizer had done its job: There was plenty lush grass but, due to the glut of fertilizer, all of that grass was blue -- unmistakably, dark blue.

Solution? Film the number as scheduled. When developing the film, bleach was added to the chemicals. The bleach faded the blue, yielding green. But the bleach faded everything else on the film as well. Dark clouds became much lighter, or brighter, if you will.

Source, again, is "Mr. Steve," an acquaintance in Salzburg. Mr. Steve was Second Cameraman during filming. He, too, makes an appearance in the movie: Note the carriage Kutscher as Maria and the children sing "Do-Re-Mi." The Kutscher is Mr. Steve.

Source: "Mr. Steve," Second Cameraman; "The Sound of Music" K. Olinger; 8 Aug 11

Article is Inconsistent
The article starts with a synopsis of 2 Acts. However further on, the trivia tels how the Germans cus and restored Act 3. Can someone make the Acts consistent throughout the article.

Also, the story of the Korean theatre owner cutting out the musical numbers, is probably false. This story has surfaced many times, but usually in different countries. 20.133.0.14 11:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Necessity of Link
I removed this link:


 * Trapp Family Lodge in Vermont, U.S.

because it seemed to be only a commercial placement. The site only glosses over the von Trap family and uses that as a way to interest tourists. It has no significant relation to the article. Cikoykip 05:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Removed this link as well:
 * Details of the touring singalong version of the movie
 * Cikoykip 05:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Cut Scene?
I remember a long time ago I saw a scene on the The Sound of Music (SOM) that I have not seen or mentioned since. The scene involves a Nazi asking the Mother Superior if the Von Traps were at the monastery. The Nazi said he had heard that the Mother Superior was rumored to have never told a lie in the life. The Mother Superior told the Nazi she had not seen the Von Traps and the Nazi satisfied, left. Later The Mother Superior told Maria that she had just told her first lie to which Maria said "I'm sure God will forgive you."

Either I keep missing this scene or it is another movie I remember, but I don't think so.Septagram 04:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's in there. I have the 40th Anny. DVD. They might've cut it out for time reasons in TV showings. SkittlzAnKomboz 15:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think this scene exists (and I have the 40th anniv DVD as well). Remember, the Nazis did not leave "satisfied".  They left attempting to pursue the von Trapps after Rolf sounded the alarm.  I wonder if you are thinking of the scene where two of the sisters admit to the Mother Abbess that they have sabotaged the Nazi's vehicles to allow the von Trapps to escape. MccullarsJ 18:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sound of Music DVD Cover.jpg
Image:Sound of Music DVD Cover.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 07:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Grammar Issue
Under the Heading "Singing Voices Dubbed" I find this string of words: "Since Nixon had dubbed My Fair Lady after Andrews had played Eliza in the stage version and was not selected for the film." I have a suspicion about the sentence that this string of words aspires to be, but I'm not sure enough to correct it myself. Can somebody with knowledge of this subject fix this? Kjdamrau 04:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)kjdamrau


 * I gave it a shot. I hope it's a bit clearer. --Carlosmnash (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I made another attempt at that sentence. It's not referenced properly either. --Thomprod (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Authorship of "I Have Confidence"
On the 40th Anniversary DVD there are interviews with Saul Chaplin where it is strongly suggested that he -- not Rogers -- wrote the bulk of the song "I Have Confidence". A book by Marni Nixon makes the same claim. It seems to have been at the very least a collaborative effort between Chaplin and Rogers, although contractually Rogers had to receive writing credit. Would someone like to take a stab at addressing this in the main article? MccullarsJ 18:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sound of music.jpg
Image:Sound of music.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) 08:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Television airings / final airing?
"Final Airing" or last time the movie was aired on television?  Master Redyva  ♠ 

Critical Reception
The article says that this movie had lukewarm to cold reviews when first released, how could this be if it won the best picture award at the Oscars? I realize that the Oscars aren't everything but there must have been some good reviews on its release. S7ilver (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Robert Wise also won the Academy Award for best director for the picture & the cast album was nominated for a Grammy Award for Album of the Year. It would appear these are good signs the picture had a little more than a "lukewarm" reception.  Master Redyva  ♠  12:29, April 12, 2008 (UTC)
 * Especially given that the "evidence" behind this claim seems to be just a couple negative reviews (I could find that much negative reception for Casablanca). Add that the fact that reviews today are overwhelmingly positive has been omitted, and I don't see how the bit on reviews couldn't be called either incomplete or biased.74.111.127.30 (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Naval Commander?
Captain Von Trapp is a naval commander but Austria has no coastline. Has anyone else noticed this discrepancy and can anyone explain it please?  SmokeyTheCat   •TALK•  20:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Climb every mountain...sail every sea! :) Check this out.. Postoak (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks.  SmokeyTheCat    •TALK•  14:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Captain von Trapp was a naval commander. Until 1918 Austria was a large country - Österreich-Ungarn. We had a coastline then - because some Parts of Italy for example belonged to Austria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.146.37.236 (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Location_Austria-Hungary.png&filetimestamp=20071107125818 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.104.125.132 (talk) 08:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that what was then Austria's coastline was mostly or entirely in what later became Yugoslavia. 1918 saw the end of World War (I) and the shrinking of Austria to the landlocked country you are now familiar with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Origins & sources
The article about the stage musical currently states "After viewing Die Trapp-Familie (The Trapp Family), a 1956 German film about the von Trapp family, and its 1958 sequel, Die Trapp-Familie in Amerika (The Trapp Family in America), stage director Vincent J. Donehue thought that the project would be perfect for his friend Mary Martin".

This article about the US film should reflect the origins and sources of the US film, which I believe are, in chronological order: 1. The historical events of the von Trapp story; 2. Maria von Trapp's book; 3. The German films; 4. The US stage musical.

I would also be intersted in how much the stage musical & US film are based on Maria's book, and how much on the German films. When I saw the German films on youtube I was struck by how similar they are to the US film in mood, setting, color, characterisation, story sequence, and so on. --123.243.100.160 (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

First section of Production
The talk about the arc lights used to film the gazebo scene seems to have some information that seems like original research and weasel words. The part about the silhouette working magnificently seems to not be sourced, so I think that we should find a citation for it or have it made a little more neutral sounding. Captain Gamma (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Plot Summary
Reading the plot summary, I feel that it's far too long and detailed. I flagged this. Is it okay for me (a n00b) to take a stab at redoing it?

66.225.39.109 (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)TypewriterGirl

I tried
I tried it, but I hope it's not worse now. I rewrote the whole thing, cutting it to about one-third the length, but it still needs work. Revert me if I messed it up. TypewriterGirl (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That definitely helped. I removed the tag as the length is much more manageable now. PrincessofLlyr  royal court 02:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

While I'm reluctant to make my Wikipedia debut by editing someone else's hard work, I noted a couple of 'mis-remembered' plot details. Specifically, while the Baroness may have been fishing for the Captain they announced no plans to marry until early in Act II and the party was not in celebration of any engagement. Also, Kurt asked Maria to show him the dance - he did not attempt it solo as implied. I made the necessary corrections and re-wrote a little to accomodate the changes, but I may have been carried away as I appear to have almost re-written the entire paragraph.212.183.140.51 (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with rewriting someone else's work, particularly if it needs correcting. Good work! PrincessofLlyr  royal court 18:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that encouragement (now I'm not just an IP). I feel that the plot summary is still perhaps over-long, particularly augmented as it is by so much additional information in the 'Cast' section. That section seems actually to contain no casting information at all and is used mainly for further plot exposition. I might be able to add some actual casting information (once I've checked references) - maybe others have something to contribute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TriumFant (talk • contribs) 22:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

List of the children
The names of the children are given, one after the other, each followed the actor's name. I have added Charmian Carr as Liesl because even though she is credited in the previous paragraph it is irritating to find the credit missing when a list is given. P0mbal (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Structure of Article
I've been studying this article for a few days looking to address what I see as faults and aiming to bring it more into line with WP:MOSFILM.

The Cast section is too long and most material belongs, if anywhere, in the plot section. I propose to remove that entire section, relying instead on the introduction of the cast via the plot summary and the conveyance of additional casting information (real world information, not storylines) in a subsection under Production. This will closely follow the style of the Halloween article, which is given as a good style example at WP:CASTLIST. I intend to expand a little on the existing plot summary to retain some of what currently sits in the cast list. Since it's already over-length, I'll have to prune it quite brutally.

The Historical Accuracy section is largely inappropriate. It contains examples of mere trivia (the doorbell) or real world/fictional world contradictions (the 'impossibility' of walking to Switzerland). In any case, the film is based on a stage play and only changes it makes to bring that to the screen (the moving of musical numbers, the altering of plotlines) is noteworthy. Changes made by the play can be noted in the play's article and/or Maria von Trapp's bio article. In fact much of this stuff is so noted, so it's presence here is duplication.

I propose to remove it and write instead a new Production sub-section (Writing) with more emphasis on how the screenplay evolved from the stage play, ignoring the evolution of the play itself. In posting here, I guess I'm looking for approval (or reasons to leave alone) since I'm not an experienced editor. I do have one question for those that are - I have a source which disagrees with the current account of how Julie Andrews was cast. I see that the article has a source, but it is not available to me. My own source has it that Robert Wise (interviewed in 2005) was the man at the Disney rough-footage screening and suggests that Wyler only began to claim credit after Andrews became such a smash (Wyler, it is said, had actually wanted Audrey Hepburn or Austrian-born Romy Schneider).

Since my proposed Casting section now conflicts with the current account, I have a problem. I'm inclined to think that both accounts should be mentioned (since both are sourced) but to give equal weight to both I'll need to substantially cut back on the detail in the Wyler account. Or maybe you think I should leave things as they are? Advice please! TriumFant (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Tomato Tomoto
Why isn't this movies rotten tomato score or even Metacritic score in here? That would seem like an important piece of information that may be useful in this article. -James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.164.245 (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Cast
We had 'Liesl' in some places and 'Liesel' in others. As far as I'm concerned, 'Liesl' is the correct one since that's how the character is identified in the end credits. Similarly 'Rolfe', not 'Rolf', and 'Gretl', not 'Gretyl'. Hopefully all occurrences are now consistent. While doing this I also removed some stuff about Kurt being 'encouragable'. In the script, he's actually 'incorrigible'. If another editor wants to put it back with appropriate correction, well, OK, but I tend to feel this sort of over-elaboration isn't good. Also, I deleted the bit about Brigitta being 'sometimes shown to have her head in a book'. To the best of my recollection, she is thus shown just the once.TriumFant (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Racism?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiTum8eQ51E — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.122.54.231 (talk • contribs) 20:55, May 15, 2011‎

Will the REAL Maria von Trapp Please Stand Up?
The REAL Maria von Trapp does make a brief appearance in the movie. Can you spot her?

Source: "Mr. Steve," Second Cameraman; "The Sound of Music"

K. Olinger; 8 Aug 11

Typo
There is a typographical error in Historical Accuracy #4: Maria and Georg were married in 1927 and not 1398 as depicted. I'm sure this is intended to be 1938, but it's quite confusing until you've figured it out. Since this is one of the best researched and most interesting aspects of the article, I think it's worth fixing. LauraShafer (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Welcome to Wikpedia! In the future, feel free to be bold and change it yourself. Cheers, PrincessofLlyr  royal court 23:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing, friend! One needs to get their sea legs before messing with Wikipedia!!LauraShafer (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions. :) PrincessofLlyr  royal court 18:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

help!
i was looking at the sound of music when it said it would damage my computer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.89.186 (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

historical accuracy section -- does this stuff about the children apply also to the stage show?
I find "11.Friedrich (the second oldest child in the film version) was based ...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, so far as I know, many, at least, of the criticisms/comments here leveled at the "film" - "lifestyle depicted in the film", etc. - are taking the film to task (whether or not that's the proper verb or sense, never mind) for things that originated not with the film but with the 1959 musical; I am - scratching my head why this section is here, rather than there. That the film is better-known than the original musical? Then provide a link and still have the section where it still belongs- and if any inaccuracies/exaggerations-for-effect originated with the adaptation to film rather than the 1959 version or even the memoirs, place those here, not there. Simple and easily enough done, I should suppose... Schissel | Sound the Note! 13:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest
If you like something, sometimes you will fight to keep it looking pure and nice. This happens with articles of politicians a lot.

We need to keep this in mind. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

popular with people, not with industry
An important point for the reader is to know that the film was a huge success from a money standpoint and very popular, but people in the industry thought it was lightweight or worse. Kelly kicked out Lehman and yelled at him that the script was a piece of shit. Others declined for the same reason. Even Burt Lancaster remarked that they must really need the money to make this film.

This is not to say the film is garbage but to document the history of it. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Gene Kelly's comment does not add to the context. First of all the Wall Street Journal does not quote Kelly, it is quoting Ernest Lehmann who is quoting Kelly. Second of all it is an apocryphal soundbite: even if it is true it does not really tell us anything about why Kelly actually turned down the film. Finally, you are giving undue WP:WEIGHT to Kelly's comment. Other people such as Stanley Donen and Vincent Donehue also turned it down but you do not quote their responses (as found here). Why is Kelly's comment so much more important than the other responses? It is sufficient just to say they declined the film; how they articulated it does not really matter. Also, Burt Lancaster's views are irrelevant unless he was approached to participate in the film. Betty Logan (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for agreeing with me!!! And thanks for the additional sources, which I will add. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * How they articulated it does not really matter.


 * Not true. President JFK said "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." According to your logic, Wikipedia should report it as "JFK asked people to do things for the country". See! Another example, President Reagan saying "Mr. Gorbechev, tear down this wall" but writing in Wikipedia "Reagan advocated the removal of the Berlin Wall." Wowee Zowee public (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Betty Logan's comments above, that the inclusion of the Kelly and Lancaster opinions does not add anything to the context, and more important, it gives undue WP:WEIGHT to trivial details that distract rather than enhance. The article is about the film, not about what Burt Lancaster said to Ernest Lehman at a party. If you read the article, you'll see that the film generated mixed opinions from industry professionals, film critics, and the public. You'll also see that it already mentions that Kelly turned down the project, and that the first director, William Wyler, hated the Broadway musical. Finally, you'll see that some film critics attacked the film upon its release. But you also see a clear love for the film by industry professions, the director and his team, other film critics and trade papers, and the public. I recommend that you review WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RRNO. Bede735 (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * False accusation. I compromised and left out Burt Lancaster's comments. On the other hand, with world events, the Wikpedia articles often has President Obama's reactions even though he had nothing to do with it. So no relations is an acceptable way. However, I am not putting that in now so please, please do not falsely accuse me.


 * I recommend that you review meatpuppetry. We have to seek the best way to write the article as Wikipedia is not a vote. I am open to seeking the best way to convey the difficulties in finding a director, which doesn't happen in all films. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Several directors turned it down and yet you only think the comments by one are noteworthy. So far you have failed to explain why Kelly's comment should be promoted above the others, and you have also failed to explain why it is necessary to quote them at all. This article is about the film, not Gene Kelly's career decisions, so it is sufficient to state who turned it down and leave it at that. If you wish to reinstate the content then please obtain a WP:Consensus to do so. Betty Logan (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * First, what happens in articles about politicians has nothing to do with this situation. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Next, the item in question has WP:UNDUE problems. I agree with the statements by BL and B735 that the info is does not belong in the article. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But why? Is it because it makes the film look bad to supporters of the film? No, it is of great interests to readers to an otherwise plain article. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

mixed opinions
What is notable about this film is that the commercial success contrasts sharply with some very negative industry opinions of the film. We should not sanitize and hide this, though we can write it tactfully.

This fact does not mean that the film is garbage. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As has been pointed out your opinion about this is a) WP:OR and b) WP:SYNTH which comes fifty years after the films release. You may want to read WP:IDONTLIKEIT as that seems to be the point that you keep coming back to. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Saw this on the edit war noticeboard.

Recommend tactful and and sensationalism. With that in mind, if there are documented quotes that a director refused, even if they are a little rough, this can be very appropriate for the article. Also since someone has been blocked, the other editors shouldn't act with glee or take advantage because that would be an edit war.

Stephanie Bowman (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree in part, disagree in part. I disagree with sensationalism but I do support documented quotes so that they tell the story not us. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No one has acted with glee and it is improper of you to make such an accusation. See the above discussion about this. The reasons for not including the info are all policy based. Just because a quote exists does not automatically mean that it has to be included in the article. You are certainly free to file an RFC in this situation but the info should not be restored until this discussion is finished. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected
I have fully protected the page for 24 hours. This is to stop the edit warring while issues are worked out here and at the edit warring complaint. I would remind all users that WP:Consensus and WP:Civility are important Wikipedia policies. --MelanieN (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am lifting the protection as it seems the warring party has been blocked. --MelanieN (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not true. Only one was blocked. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

vast improvement needed
This article should be greatly improved such that it is the equivalent of a featured article. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Effort has started! Wowee Zowee public (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not be WP:POINTy. The only thing you did (aside from moving one member of the cast) was to add a "disputed" tag and several "cn" tags to the plot section. If you haven't read it before please look at WP:FILMPLOT especially the sentence Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source. These edits would, in no way shape of form, move the article to FA status. I can only ask that you please read and try and understand MOS:FILM before proceeding further. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 15:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the FYI! Is there a comprehensive list of rules in one place? Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Not in one place. You can start with the ones in the welcome message on your talk page and then look at the numerous ones that have been provided on the many talk page threads that you have taken part in as well as the edit summaries on the articles that you have edited. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Good info found thanks to another editor! RE: Cast
Another editor (Donlago) alerted me to the rules. I thought that the cast should be mostly a list. That editor pointy out WP:FILMCAST, which reads....

If roles are described outside of the plot summary, keep such descriptions concise. Interpretations in the form of labels (e.g. protagonist, villain, main character) should be avoided. A well-written plot summary should convey such roles.

On to a featured article, we will get! Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

clarification
There should be clarification that the film is probably set in the late 1930's, not the 1930's. It is possible it was in summer of 1938 but more likely 1939, coinciding with Hitler's Plan Z for the Kreigsmarine (German Navy). The problem is everything must be sourced. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Box-office sources
First just some basic terminology. From here on in "rentals" refer to the theatrical gross rental (the distributors share of the box office) which was the primary metric used by Variety up to the 1970s. It has nothing to do with home video revenues. "Gross" refers to the exhibition gross i.e. the sum taken at the box office, and is generally the amount you see on sites such as Box Office Mojo. A basic rule of thumb is that the rental is half the gross. These are all "unadjusted" records except where explicitly stated.

Worldwide records

 * Biggest film of all-time: NY Times, November 1966
 * By the end of 1969, the film had earned record rentals of $112,481,000: Pittsburgh Post Gazette, November 1969
 * Earned $114.6 million in rentals from its initial release:
 * As of the end of 1971 Gone with the Wind was back in front with $116 million in rentals: Atlantic Monthly, 1973 (GWTW was re-released in 1967 and 1971)
 * Including reissues in 1973 and 1990 (Block 2010, p.474) it has grossed $286,214,076: Boxoffice.com
 * Adjusted for inflation has earned $2.366 billion at 2014 prices, and generated 283.3 million admissions: Guinness World Records 2015. Fifth highest behind Gone with the Wind, Avatar, Star Wars and Titanic: Guinness World Records 2012

US/Canadian records

 * Had earned $20 million in rentals from just 140 roadshow engagements by the start of 1966 (Gone with the Wind was still the record-holder with rentals of $41.2 million): Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, January 1966
 * On the verge of surpassing Gone with the Wind: NY Times, November 1966
 * Film closes with rentals of $68,313,000: Pittsburgh Post Gazette, November 1969
 * Earned a gross of $138 million from its initial release:
 * First film to gross $100 million: AFI
 * Gone with the Wind earned $30 million in rentals from its 1967 reissue Sarasota Journal, May 1971 and took back the record (The Godfather entry, TCM database).
 * Re-released in 1973 (Block 2010, p.474) and increased its rentals to $78.4 million: Deseret News, September 1976
 * By the end of the 1970s it was ranked in 7th place on the box office chart having earned $79 million in rentals: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, January 1980
 * Along with a further reissue in 1990 (Block 2010, p.474) it has grossed $163,214,076: Boxoffice.com
 * Has generated an estimated 142 million admissions, behind Gone with the Wind and Star Wars: Box Office Mojo

UK records

 * Highest-earning film with rentals of £4 million from a gross of £6 million by the end of 1966: NY Times, November 1966
 * Earned £7 million in rentals from 23 million admissions: Roger Manvell, director of British Film Academy, 1968
 * Trebled the earnings of the previous record holder, South Pacific: Hall & Neale 2010, p.184
 * Has generated 30 million admissions in total, second only to Gone with the Wind: BFI, 2004

Other countries

 * Top film in 29 countries: NY Times, November 1966
 * "Sensational" in Holland, played for two years in one theater in Tokyo and "embraced" in Hong Kong. Performed "fairly" in France, "poorly" in Italy and was a "big flop" in Germany: Pittsburgh Post Gazette, November 1969

Julie Andrews not well-known?
'Wise looked for a name actress — Andrews and Plummer were not yet well known...'
 * Andrews had starred for years on Broadway in 'The Boyfriend' and 'My Fair Lady'. Valetude (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I clarified the sentence. At the time of casting, Andrews' first films had not yet been released, and Plummer had only appeared in supporting film roles. According to the source, while both were well-known stage actors at the time, neither had "name" value in the film world. Bede735 (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

'Ländler' dance sequence not traditional austrian
The way Maria and von Trapp dances the traditional 'ländler' dance, is not at all the way this dance was or is danced in Salzburg, Austria or Bavaria. Your source is wrong. Please come to Salzburg, I live here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.118.19.199 (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Excessive citations
The Background, Production, Release and later sections contain excessive and overlapping references. For example:


 * 7. Hirsch 1993, pp. 7–8
 * 8. Hirsch 1993, p. 8
 * 22. Hirsch 1993, p. 38
 * 23. Hirsch 1993, pp. 38–42
 * 24. Hirsch 1993, p. 42
 * 27. Hirsch 1993, p. 51
 * 28. Hirsch 1993, pp. 51–53
 * 29. Hirsch 1993, pp. 53–54
 * 30. Hirsch 1993, pp. 54–55
 * 31. Hirsch 1993, p. 61
 * 32. Hirsch 1993, pp. 61–63
 * 34. Hirsch 1993, p. 92
 * 35. Hirsch 1993, pp. 92–93
 * 36. Hirsch 1993, p. 93
 * 45. Hirsch 1993, pp. 109–110
 * 46. Hirsch 1993, p. 111
 * 48. Hirsch 1993, pp. 111–113
 * 49. Hirsch 1993, pp. 105–113

Multiple citations of the same source in consecutive sentences can be eliminated and those overlapping can be combined per Wikipedia: Citation Overkill: ''If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill.''

This is also explained in the Chicago Manual of Style Online and the University of British Columbia History Department's Common Questions about Citations: ''Do I have to include a footnote after every sentence? No, if you include several facts or ideas within a single paragraph, they may be more conveniently cited at the end of the paragraph in a single footnote or endnote. This will obviate the need to include a footnote at the end of every sentence, which becomes tedious for both the author and the reader.'' Goldnpuppy (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're basing your opinion on an essay, not Wikipedia policy. In your edits, you combined several distinct facts within an entire paragraph under a single citation. This creates unnecessary ambiguity as to what the citation is supporting. Also, please check wp:hyphen for the correct usage of hyphens. Regards, Bede735

Plot length
Per WP:FILMPLOT, the Plot is overlong at 838 words. Does anyone care to trim it to 700 words or less? Softlavender (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I can take a look at it at the weekend; it is a 3-hour film however, so while it should be possible to tighten it up a little I may not be able to bring it in under 700 words. I will see what I can do though. Betty Logan (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on The Sound of Music (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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/31/features/music.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Overture and Preludium
Can someone help me adjust the soundtrack listing? I am wondering if we should credit Irwin Kostal as the arranger of the main title medley after the title song. Also, I am wondering if we could combine the Dixit Dominus with the Morning Hymn and Alleluia as one number. The liturgical pieces are all original Rodgers compositions and not traditional tunes that were incorporated into the film. In the original Broadway score, the Preludium comprises these three parts as one number. However, the RCA soundtrack album separates the Dixit Dominus from the Morning Hymn, as it is crossfaded from the overture. --Yip1982 (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We should not be restructuring the listings ourselves without an external reference. For example, your alteration does not appear to be consistent with the Allmovie soundtrack listing; that said, the pre-existing version in the article is also inconsistent. The soundtrack listing should be pulled into line with how it is most commonly listed elsewhere. Betty Logan (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Soundtrack
Is the track listing for the soundtrack in this article essential as there can be found a much more comprehensive listing on the article pertaining to the soundtrack itself? Hayal12 (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Hayal12
 * Personally I would support removing the track listings, given that a separate article exists. Betty Logan (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with removal. There is no need for having the same info in two places. The paragraph preceding the listing should probably be shortened as well. If anyone wants to have a go at editing it that would be great. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Edits by Neel.arunabh
has now reverted the article to much earlier states without so much as providing an edit summary These three reverts saw him revert on September 3 to an August 10 version, and on the September 12 he restored his preferred version, and again after I reverted him. Neel.arunabh provided no edit summary on either occasion and prior to September never edited the article (at least under this username) so it is difficult to understand the motivation of his edits. It seems disruptive at best, and looks like subtle vandalism. Here are just some of the edits he wiped out: I would like to remind Neel that WP:Communication is required and would appreciate it if he provided his reasons here. Betty Logan (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Restoring a couple of photos that I had removed that were redundant and overloading sections they occupied:
 * Restoring some awards and critical reception data removed by per existing consensus:
 * Removing corrections to the table formatting:
 * Restoring the soundtrack listing removed by as discussed directly above:
 * I have to say that those edits are not an improvement and, considering the fact that consensus had been reached on some of the changes, they should be reverted. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: Character names and wikilinking
An anonymous user has been linking the names of the childrens' actors' characters to actual members of the Von Trapp family. This note is to establish that this is incorrect and not allowed, since the characters of the children were fictionalized for the movie, with fictional names, fictional ages, and even altered genders. (The film is loosely based on Maria Von Trapp's memoir, but it is not an accurate or factual depiction of the facts by any means.) Softlavender (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with not linking the characters directly to the real-life Von Trapp children, since this is clearly not a biographical film. However, since the characters have real-life analogs I am not opposed to the links outright where they appropriate such as I have done here. Betty Logan (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)