Talk:Out of Africa (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:114624 africa l.jpg

Image:114624 africa l.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 Wikipedia: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) 04:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing needed

About editing the "Out of Africa" entry:

On 23Sep02, the section was begun about the film Out of Africa and has been expanded/revised more than 40 times.

During Nov. 23-26, 2005, details on the book were expanded to include publisher/year, time/places of events, literary style, and availability of the book.

During Nov. 23-26, 2005, details about the film Out of Africa were expanded to include: actors Bowens/Iman, 28 film awards, extra plot-resolution details, production details (location/cast, musical score, scenery, pace, mood), and detailed comparisons between the film & book. Sources were added to "External Links" and the entry about Denys Finch Hatton was created.

On 26Nov05, began this Discussion section & removed "We Don't Have an Article" to avoid total erasure of article. [-SBS, 4.152.105.15 20:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)]

There are sections of this article that are very poorly written and in drastic need of editing and attention. One such example is the section entitled "production." The word sophisticated is used many times for no reason and I'm a bit unsure what facts the paragraph is trying to promote. Since this should be encyclopedic in nature, I think it should be rewritten or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.4.229.75 (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree on this point. I found that section entirely confusing and unnecessary. It didn't seem to relate to the film in the least; it's only point seems to be that the script is more sophisticated somehow than other films, which doesn't seem quantifiable. Evixir (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I deleted the third paragraph, the one mostly about "sophistication". It read like a school essay -- someone inventing a dubious claim then trying to justify it with tenuous examples. The other two paragraphs in that section could also be improved, but are not as irrelevant as the one I deleted. Chris Loosley (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have also reorganized this section to place the comments in chronological order. Chris Loosley (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Technical

There seems to be some confusion as to why Pollack claimed the film was shot "4:3" instead of "widescreen". Though he put it rather awkwardly (actually, he phrased it in laymen's terms), he was right (in a manner of speaking).

An aspect ratio of 1.85:1 is achieved by shooting non-anamorphic and (during filming, printing or projection) masking the top and bottom of the picture. Obviously, Pollack referred to shooting flat instead of anamorphic (which would have given the picture more scope).--Dvd-junkie (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Production

Quote: "Robert Redford became Finch Hatton once Redford thought he had a charm no British actor could convey." Could it be that it should read Pollack? --31.18.218.72 (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Out of Africa (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/20110716071543/http://connect.afi.com/site/DocServer/scores250.pdf?docID=221 to http://connect.afi.com/site/DocServer/scores250.pdf?docID=221

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)