Talk:Tommy (1975 film)

Filming
The film Tommy was filmed during 1974 mainly in the Portsmouth area. A number of extras for some of the scenes were provided by students of Portsmouth Polytechnic - notably the Elton John 'Pinball Wizard' scene, and the Eric Clapton/Arthur Brown scene. The 'Pinball Wizard' scene was filmed in the King's Theatre, Southsea, and for 4 minutes of film took 2 full days of filming. Instead of being paid cash for participating in these scenes, the students were given tickets to see The Who perform in concert at Portsmouth Guildhall - the concert being only for those who were in the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.249.139 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 19 November 2005

Bean Commercial Scene
Although I'm not certain, I believe that the "queen" in the bean commercial scene is Audra Lindley of "Three's Company" fame. She played Mrs. Roper, the landlady. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.246.237.197 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 9 February 2006

"Uncle Ernie"
"* All references to Uncle Ernie outside of "Fiddle About" are removed except for his introduction to "converts" at Tommy's Holiday Camp. "

Listening to the original album - there are no references to uncle Ernie outside of "Fiddle About" and the introduction to converts. If anyone can see how this paragraph makes sense, please explain and restore. --85.187.44.131 23:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, except for the line "here comes uncle Ernie / here come willing helpers [to guide you to your very own machine]". Still not enough to justify the sentence. --85.187.44.131 00:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"The Acid Queen"
I added that The Acid Queen is also a prostitute. Both the movie and the album seem to allude to this. Lyrical reasons: "Your boy will not be a boy anymore..." "...His fingers clutch, watch his body writhe..." Image Reasons: The place where the Stepfather takes Tommy is filled with pictures of nude women and bedrooms.

I may be mis-interpreting though. LeNoir679 (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, and it's a strip joint. --81.129.143.8 (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes by User:Dr. Ransom
While some the additions are valuable, it seems to me that in that section, User:Dr. Ransom is: 1. sometimes describing his own personal interpretations and tastes rather than generally widespread opinions (see WP:NOR, WP:NPOV); 2. sometimes stating them as facts (WP:NOR, WP:NPOV); 3. not providing any sources (critical reviews) that have claimed what he is claiming (WP:V).

Hence, if nothing of that is fixed soon, I'll partly remove and partly rewrite the Criticisms section. --85.187.44.131 09:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It seems more an essay of personal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.82.139.3 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 30 May 2006

Ransom's Response
I see that there have been complaints of my aditions to the Tommy (film) page, the people interpreting it as more of an opinion essay. I am here to state earnestly that my intention was only to speak for a possible population of Who fans, and was in no way attempting to write anything propogandist. If anyone has actually seen the movie for themselves, they can easily tell that there are several scenes that can quite easily appear as "shots" at the Christian faith.

If anyone will recall, there are several point in the movie where the religeous symbols of the Christian religeon where parodied by other symbols in the movie (the big "T" with a microphone head at the top looks like a cross, the posters of Tommy done in the images of artwork that original depicted the figure of Christ, ect.)  If one actually reads my comentary, I do make a point to say that perhaps this may have been the DIRECT WORK OF MR. TOWNSHEND, and what, but in the end my point is that this "Theme" so called, is a quick change to the original plot of Tommy, and fans of the actual opera have the right to be upset.

In the spirit of the famous South Park episode where both George Lucas and Stephen Spielburg are intending to change "The Raiders of the Lost Ark" by digitally enchancing it, I say that changing and adding ideas or themes to a work after it is already completed in some people's point of few is considered an artistic demi-crime, and so I merely ment to point out that not only would Christian who fans be upset over this newly added religeous commentary (which I adamantly state had nothing to do with the original work) but also, Who fans in general may have reason to complain, just for the fact that their opera has had other moral themes tacked on.

I implore the protestors of my commentary NOT to edit that section down, or if they insist on it, not to change the basic message of it. Changing that piece of the article appears to be not in the sake of being completely truthful, but more for the sake of quazi-political-corectness, and the sparring of feelings that might not even be more than a few people.

-Respectfully Ransom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.27.29.63 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 31 May 2006


 * Thank you for a detailed and civil answer. Now, the problem is that you did speak, as you said, for a possible population of Who fans, and not for a real and verifiable one; thus, you have in fact voiced your own opinion, and that is prohibited by Wiki policies. Now, I have an idea of the attitudes of Who fans towards the movie, and it's true that many complain about the music, certain actors' singing abilites and the general cheap comic book feel, but I have never noticed anybody complain about "shots at the Christian faith". You should provide sources that prove that a significant number of Christians - or Buddhists, for Tommy does have a Buddhist-like, Hindu-like and Meher Baba-like aspects as well - have indeed been offended by the movie (in the same way as many were offended by, say, Jesus Christ Superstar).


 * Now, as for your personal interpretation of the film, from the point of view of Wiki policies it is mostly irrelevant whether it's correct or not, but here are some points. The message of the movie may or may not be interpreted as containing a satire on organized religion as such. Whether you wish to interpret Tommy's cult as a miserable imitation of something great or as a mirror image of something miserable is a personal choice. Personally, I think that it is indeed a criticism of organized religion as authoritarian and mercantile - but this is not the same as a criticism of the Christian or any other faith. The accusations that the Church has betrayed or perverted the original teachings are as old as the Church itself, and they have traditionally been made by believers such as Christian philosopher Soeren Kierkegaard. Furthermore, if that interpretation is correct, the same applies to the album, where Tommy's church is depicted as a holiday camp managed by uncle Ernie. Yes, the "cross" in the film (in fact, the letter 'Tommy' with a flipper ball on top of it) is a Judaeo-Christian allusion, but so is the word "Messiah", which is used already in the album.


 * As for your idea that any change to a complete work is a crime per se, I think it's too radical and few people would agree with its logical implications, prohibiting all adaptations and improvements. Even many conservative Who fans prefer later performances of Tommy rather than the original album.


 * Anyway, I'll modify the section to make it NPOV and verifiable. Feel free to restore anything that is lost, if you can back it up with sources: e.g. critic X [citation or link attached] has stated that the film is an attack on the Christian faith, or that Ann-Margret can't sing, etc..


 * Best regards, --85.187.44.131 12:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. Please note that the "citation needed" tags that you removed were meant to indicate to you the controversial points in your contribution, i.e. the ones that need to be supported with sources if they are to stay. --85.187.44.131 12:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed sections
Once again, these sections should be restored in some form if a critical review containing these complaints (or perhaps a fansite where they are obviously abundant) can be found. For the most part the original ideas of Tommy's unique perception (being that Tommy can experience the world in a spiritual manner that average humans cannot with all of their senses being assaulted by other sensations) are only hinted at in the film version.

Frankly, I'd say they are only hinted at in the album version, too - although, admittedly, Townshend himself has exlained that it was a very important part of his original idea.

The most subtle of complaints against the film rendition of the album are the changes made to the major theme of Tommy, which seem like blunt insults to people of the Christian faith. It is widely known that Peter Townshend's creation was really an allegory for his own personal faith, its origins being somewhat like Hindu, one of the major creeds of India, and the actual album did not make much mention of other religions (save for the song, Christmas), but in the film there is an obvious, almost spiteful view of other religions. The film seems to be making a commentary on the alleged scamming and trickery of certain churches, which have become more about money or bureaucracy than anything else. Either way, such messages were not part of the original vision of Tommy, and whether or not this was part of Townshend's creative vision, or rather of a screenplay writer or director is not known.

This has already been commented upon. It's not an obvious interpretation, and I've never heard or read of such a complaint. --85.187.44.131 19:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ransom's Second Response
I suppose, under the circumstances, I might as well let this one go. I've at least been treated with respect at the same time I was being deposed. While I grant you the fact that my more religeously based claims where rather sketchy, and less factual, and perhaps I was mislead in my idea of who exactly the commentary was aimed at, I still stand adamantly when I say that it is alienating to the fans themselves when any great work of art is altered. I do believe it is the artists right to ruin whatever it is that he has created, but at the same time one must agree that the fans of any changed artwork are sometimes quite upset with the very idea of a change at all. To reinforce my statement, I'll end with another quote from that same episode of Southpark,

"...I mean, what would it be like if the Beatles kept going back and re-writing the White Album every few years?..."

Respectfully Ransom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Ransom (talk • contribs) 06:43, 14 June 2006


 * this does happen, though! paul rereleased his version of "let it be" a few years back. for a more historical example, look at the scores of changes and different editions of "leaves of grass" walt whitman churned out. some artists are notorious perfectionists and will continue to rework things many times over. but i think the central point you're overlooking here is that the old version is always still available to us. if you don't like the movie's attempt at tommy, that is fine -- the album is still there for you to enjoy. if it's the sheer concept that is bothering you, of someone wanting to change what you consider a masterpiece, then all i can do is bite my tongue and shrug. --dan 01:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Pinball Wizard?
I was just watching the movie, and I remembered that the wikipedia article for the movie has Elton John as pinball wizard. My problem with this is that the movie makes it seem like Tommy is the pinball wizard, and Elton John's character is the pinball champion. I felt it important to check with the people on this page before actually doing any editing.--Kurasuke 01:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. Unfortunately, on the Official Soundtrack album, Elton John is credited inexplicably as "The Pinball Wizard." I have seen other casting information where he is described as "Pinball Champion" or, even less distinctly, as a "local lad." The latter two designations are at least consistent with the lyrics. Tommy is the Pinball Wizard, and Elton John's character says as much when he sings about him. Mdleonar 09:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

In "Pinball Wizard", Elton John's character says (about Tommy), "He's a pinball wizard". In the song "Miracle Cure", the lyrics "Pinball Wizard in a miracle cure" seems to support this as well (I don't think the the local lad got any sort of miracle cure). 11 August 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.49.103 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 11 August 2006


 * I changed "played" to "sing" etc., when referencing Elton John's part. This should solve the inconstancy. --Cody.Pope 02:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, O own the movie, and Elton John is credited as the Pinball Wizard in both the end credits and on the movie box. I have reasoned that perhaps The Champ was the reigning Pinball Wizard before he lost his crown, and the title, to Tommy--Melisandebrat 13:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Questionable Comparisons to Pink Floyd's The Wall
I made a small revision because the text of the article implied that the Pink Floyd's album was dubbed unaltered over Alan Parker and Gerald Scarfe's film adaptation of the Wall. Over dubbing occured in places, but the the film soundtrack contains substantial departures from the original album. Apart from some sequence changes, several tracks were re-recorded by Bob Geldof who starred in the firm, written specifically for the film (e.g. When the Tigers Broke Free), or removed (e.g. Hey You). Mdleonar 09:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Frank Hobbs Article
Asking here since there isn't any discussion on this page, and this seems to be the only page that links to it. anyway, is there any reason why there's an article for Frank Hobbs when none of the other characters have their own? It seems random that someone would make one for Frank as opposed to, say, Tommy. Anyway, why is that article even there? --user.lain 19:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Elton Tommy.jpg
Image:Elton Tommy.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 04:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tommy 1975.jpg
Image:Tommy 1975.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 04:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

John Lennon?
On the part where roger is singing im free, the last car they show has someone that looks lke john lennon in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.60.203 (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * yes, that is indeed john lennon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.76.109.12 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 30 November 2008
 * I WANT TO BELIEVE. Hah. Looks like they sorted it out here and decided it wasn't him. I'm still not sure, but it is anyway: http://www.beatlelinks.net/forums/showthread.php?t=24254&page=2
 * It is almost certainly not Lennon because the film was shot in the UK in 1974. Lennon's US visa expired on February 29, 1972 and deportation proceedings began, which Lennon challenged, and eventually won, obtaining a green card in June 1976. Lennon is not known to have left the USA during the early 1970s, as he was worried that he would not get a visa for re-entry. So, it is unlikely to be Lennon in the car in Tommy.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sign Language scene
roger daltrey was taught sign language for the scene near the end of tommy's holiday camp. does anyone know what he is actually signing?

the person who taught roger daltrey sign language for this scene was Canon Raymond Young of hampshire. he was 96 and he passed away in or around july 1st 2008. the reference link is http://www.thisishampshire.net/search/2372545.Late_vicar_taught_The_Who_s_Roger_Daltry_to_use_sign_language/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.76.109.12 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 30 November 2008

do not know how to put references in the edits i did for sign language scene the page from hollywood speaks by john s schuchman can be viewed at google books at http://books.google.com/books?id=fThBPcCI3h8C&pg=PA127&dq=sign+language+tommy+film — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.76.109.12 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 3 December 2008

Independent?
This film is categorized as Category:Independent films. Is this correct? Is Columbia an indie studio? Am i missing something? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am removing this category. Correct me if i'm wrong. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Soundtrack
I removed Leslie West and Eddie Rabbit Brunswick because I could not find any reference. I added Ron Wood, Phil Chen, Nicky Hopkins and Kenny Jones as they are listed in the credits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.9.147 (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Quadraphonic Soundtrack
I believe it should be mentioned somewhere that the music in the film (and the soundtrack released on LP, CD etc.) was encoded in QS (the Quadraphonic sound format) --Ian.hawdon (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's quintophonic. RobertGustafson (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Pinball Machine = trivia?
Is there any way to put the pinball machine by Data East into this article, maybe as a trivia? Here's a link: Internet Pinball Database --178.26.160.144 (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a machine from 1994, nearly twenty years after the film was released. The machine played by Roger Daltrey in the film is a Gottlieb Kings and Queens from 1965, also in this YouTube video.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Jack Nicholson's singing?
Does he do his own singing? --RThompson82 (talk) 04:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * He's so credited on the soundtrack album--whereas when a character is sung by someone other than the actor (i.e., Young Tommy), it's credited differently for film and album. So it probably is him--probably one of only a few times he's ever sung. RobertGustafson (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Playlist inserted into narrative
I have added the song titles, each at the start point in the narrative covered by it. I have also included a link to the Tommy (soundtrack) article.RobertGustafson (talk) 13:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Plot narrative now done with a separate heading for each song
I've revised the narrative so that each song gets its own sub-heading--allowing for a more comprehensive narrative for each and linkage from other articles to individual song narratives.RobertGustafson (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move -- Mdann  52   talk to me!  13:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Tommy (film) → Tommy (1975 film) – per WP:NCF, specificallyWP:Naming conventions (films) : "Do not use partial disambiguation such as Titanic (film) when more than one film needs to be disambiguated", also Tommy (1931 film). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NCF. BOVINEBOY 2008 14:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per the relevant titling policy.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 19:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME by far. And accuracy: The other film is not only not titled Tommy (it's titled Томми or at best Tommi), it is virtually unknown, even in Russia. Softlavender (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NCF. COMMONNAME would only apply if The film was located at Tommy, not Tommy (film).  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reception?
Doesn't this page deserve a Reception section? --Nazroon (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Some quotes from reviews of the film by established film critics would be a good idea, and the article currently lacks this. What should be avoided is reviews from obscure online sources.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is what Roger Ebert said about the film. I'll have a look for some more reviews.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Did you make any further progress with this? I also feel that a Reception section would be a very useful addition to this article. Unfortunately I am not even remotely qualified to write it. 109.157.10.232 (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * My recollection, such as it is after 40 years, is that this movie was fairly controversial when it came out. In fact, I came to this page to remind myself what all the hubub was about. The lack of a Reception section is a major hole in this article. Rwflammang (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

"Overture From Tommy"
The statement that this is not a Who track but a Pete Townshend solo track seems to be original research, surely? It may be that he wrote it, and is the only member of the band to play on it, but surely the fact that the band have chosen to release it under the group banner is the important thing, and makes it a legitimate Who track? For example, Paul McCartney is the only Beatle to sing or play on “Yesterday”, but that doesn’t make it a solo track. Jock123 (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, also the "Changes from album" section has a mountain of unreferenced statements. Some of them may be right, but this section needs a cleanup.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Tommy (1975 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.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Steve-brings-life-to-Who.6533250.jp

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 12:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

1975 film Tommy directed by Ken Russell finds Tina Turner featuring which is a safe bet to say was due to Dorothy Dandridge being in mind.
Ken Russell was a director of many documentaries on classical composers for television and film. His consciousness of what goes on in the industry where classical composers were concerned would be very great. He was given the task of directing a film on a rock opera and there would have been a consciousness that he was joining an only small number of filmmakers who had attempted the same. One in black casting on his mind would have been Carmen Jones 1953, originally from the classical opera. In Tommy (1975 film), the film to be produced, Russell cast Tina Turner in the specialist role of the Acid Queen, a nice ball-buster if ever there was one. But Carmen Jones didn't do too badly and director Russell surely, as everyone did, remember her " . .if I love you dat's the end of you!" The legacy of Dorothy Dandridge begins in the mind of Director Russell in pre-production, in 1974, a mere nine years after her passing, when he tries a contemporaneity of black colored female in a specialist demanding role. This talk entry follows upon an addition to the main text of the article which was removed.--Laurencebeck (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Conflicting info: Casting for the Pinball Wizard
On this page, the casting section states, "Pete Townshend wanted Tiny Tim to play Pinball Wizard."

However, on the album's page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_(The_Who_album) the film section states, "Townshend wanted ... to cast Stevie Wonder as the Pinball Wizard."

Dave Miller Gaming (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)