Talk:Persepolis (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

News

I thought it best to start this as it debuts on Wednesday and was already generating some heat from within Iran and might get more news as things progress and it'd be easier to update things with a live entry rather than catch up later. You can keep an eye on developments here (Emperor 00:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

I am adding an article by an Iranian émigré, Marjane Satrapi et sa Bridget Jones voilée. Although it is in French, the criticism is important as the article suggests, with considerable evidence, that Marjane Satrapi is not a real opponent to the régime in Tehran and, indeed, that the mullahs' opposition to the movie was feigned. Asteriks 08:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line is they are just blogs and don't meet the criteria for WP:RS so you can't add that information without a better source. Especially, as the claims are controversial. (Emperor 12:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC))

U.S. Release Date?

When was it announced that the United States Release Date would be 8/8/08? Someone cite a source please? Inkan1969 20:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the above date on any websites either but IMBD has 25 December 2007 as the release date: [1] Avigon 22:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

According to IMBD website it sounds more like the first screening in the US was on the 14th October 2007 (at the New York Film Festival) [2] Livingstone38 15:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Iranians are not the same as "Iranian nation"

The article-writers nationalist bias shows from the interpretation of the quote. To dedicate the film to "Iranians" is not exactly the same as to dedicate it to the "Iranian Nation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.193.188.216 (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla, that movie was terrible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.199.175 (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Erroneous information

The film's timespan is much larger than the Iranian revolution, it follows the girl until she's 21.

I've deleted a section because it violated WP:V and WP:NPOV-the title of the section alone - "Controversies and Political Errors" should give some idea why...it basically made claims that events depicted in the film were incorrect because they depicted contentious matters in a way that was asserted as incorrect, but no citation was given. Per the Burden of Evidence Policy (WP:PROVEIT) this is being deleted until it is provided with respectable citations Oscillon (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How is a "box office failure" defined? According to Marjane Satrapi, the film is currently identified as "a very successful film ... commercially (with over a million admissions in France alone)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.55.2 (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

According to the Infobox, the budget was about $7 million, while the film grossed over $22 million. While a $22 million gross is not a great return, it's still pretty good for a low-budget film. 169.199.121.2 (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

English dub?

The article implies that the US release is dubbed into English, but I just saw it tonight in Baltimore and it is in French and subtitled. Is there more than one US release? --Jfruh (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, according to Marjane's biography on this website. Backbeatlistener (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Limited Screenings in Tehran

The article referenced states that "rare screenings [were held] to small but fascinated audiences". This means that there was more than one screening and does not suggest that the audience was "a selective group" as edited by Balthazarduju. Therefore, I'm reverting it back to the correct paraphrasing from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.137.167 (talk) 07:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Many Iranian Americans were pleased with the release of this film. That ought to be noted. Also, several of the links do not function properly, so it would be appropriate to double check whoever posted them.Layyoub (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Grammar

This article is currently gibberish. Transentient (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

ref broken

Ref 13 is broken (link to US parents objection to the film). If anyone has a working link, please update it. Turkeyphan^t 01:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Absurdist statement

The article says that the film "is the first traditionally animated nominee since 2005's Howl's Moving Castle". So, the first since two years? Wow, such an incredible record. Kumagoro-42 01:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Persepolis (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/20080522125111/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j42rPk2BytF_nzJMitnhfe-sP4hw to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j42rPk2BytF_nzJMitnhfe-sP4hw
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121130165939/http://www.nwasianweekly.com/old/200827005/cartoon20082704.htm to http://www.nwasianweekly.com/old/200827005/cartoon20082704.htm

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) 14:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Persepolis (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/20070927204430/http://www.festival-cannes.com/index.php/en/archives/film/4434938 to http://www.festival-cannes.com/index.php/en/archives/film/4434938

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) 07:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The F-Word

I don't edit regularly and so I'm not sure if this is a real concern, but does the sentence "It received a PG-13 Rating upon release in the United States, as it only contained one F-Word." strike anybody else the wrong way? I would probably just say that it was rated PG-13 for mild language or something, but is it always better to be more specific? Omgitsmonica (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thought there is a whole lot wrong with that sentence, we needn't go any further than this: Wikipedia generally does not provide various organizations' parental ratings for films. (Incidentally, the MPAA generally doesn't provide detailed explanations. Maybe it was a "fuck". Maybe it was someone drinking or smoking. Maybe it was violence. Maybe the reviewers were recovering from a rough weekend and took it out on the film.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)