Talk:Quadrophenia (film)

I think Jimmy dies

Dudes, i know it is a little ambiguous in the film, but I think Jimmy actually dies at the end. Maybe if we put it in the wiki, it will influence other peoples' interpretation of the film and then we can all agree on Jimmy's demise.

It is not that I don't like Jimmy as a character, but I just think that the movie is an art house film and art house movies always end with the main character dying or something similar.

What do you guys think? I am putting this up for a vote. The ballots end tomorrow at midnight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.138.33 (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You're completely failing to understand how Wikipedia works. Unless it's verified, we don't list it. And Wikipedia is not here to influence anyone's opinions. So using it as a tool to create different interpretations is strictly-off-limits. You can try to skew information towards your own bias on some other site. But Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia that only lists sourced facts. And voting, unless it's an attempt to reach consensus on the inclusion or exclusion of actual encyclopedic info, is completely off-limits as well. Also, please sign your posts. Friginator (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What Friginator said. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

While it is good you put this up to a vote, Wikipedia is not a place for original research or opinions on film interpretation - AKeen (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Watch the film again.......when the scooter comes off the cliff, Jimmy can clearly be seen standing on top of the cliff as the bike plunges to the ground.....the real give away is the beginning of the film when Jimmy is seen walking away from the cliff after already ditching the bike over the edge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.63.123 (talk) 10:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Die Aerzte

The article does not mention a song (and video) by the same name from the famous German band Die Aerzte. The video contains similar looking motorcycles to the one on the movie poster.

Below par.

For such a beloved film, I dont think much of the plot section. Surely someone can do better. The part where they try to buy drugs is missed out entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.236.49 (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as I stated in the edit summary last year needs Saturday/ nightclub and sleeping rough adding - there are chunks missing, but this is not uncommon in Wikipedia articles. I'll add it on to my 'list of things to do'...that'll make number 204!!!--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quadrophenia (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 http://web.archive.org/web/20140405125456/http://www.thewho.net/linernotes/WhosLeftStudio.html to http://www.thewho.net/linernotes/WhosLeftStudio.html

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

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) 12:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

What year?

What year is the film set? I've seen the year mentioned in the plot section changed back and forth several times with no explanation. Is the year mentioned directly during the film? -- 109.78.248.181 (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The year (summer) of discontent was 1964; the events reflect actual happenings, particularly the seafront riot scenes which can be seen in contemporary news reports and photos. One of the allegedly-reliable sources quoted actually states 1965, another mentions 1964. The events were so serious that I don't think the authorities would have let it spread/resurface into another calendar year?

This BBC source seems reasonable, or this Google image search with images including newspapers. I haven't much time to research presently, but I have enjoyed skimming through some of the DVD reviews. Semperito (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. -- 109.79.168.17 (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Semperito (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Sting is actually credited as Gordon Sumner in the film

96.235.144.151 (talk) 04:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)genepoz

In the version recently shown on British TV (9 September, copyright 1979), the end-credits show Ace Face as played by Sting. There are no start-credits for the actors. Semperito (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK

I think the plot summary is suffering form a bit of OVERLINK, for example I dont think depressed really needs to be linked as it a word that should be generally understood by any English speaker. I see an edit summary that added back some wikilinks so I'm discussing here first but I do think the plot section has too many links and they are an unnecessary distraction. Are there particular words like bank holiday that need to be linked for the benefit of readers using English as a second language? If a word like remonstrates cannot be used without needing to link it then I would say another word should be used instead. Does the plot summary really need to use the phrase burgle when "rob" could be used just as easily?
Which links are essential, if any? -- 109.79.76.63 (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I only came here to improve the plot section - I didn't expect to have to argue semantics over such minor points. I re-added some links after the deleting registered user failed to offer an explanation, either in the edit summary or at User talk:ClarkF1#Wiktionary links removed on Quadrophenia (film) or at the article Talk page as requested at the user's Talk page. If you've seen the section I initiated at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 56#Links to Wiktionary where I suggested maybe I needed to 'dumb down' the prose - this is the correct thing to do, to elicit the opinions non-involved individuals; the responses were poor (in number), but one editor was in favour and another against, so not enough for consensus.

Regarding "Which links are essential, if any?", whereas Wikipedia encourages links to integrate the parts of the encyclopedia, it is a subjective decision - if links are missing, some will will add, others will delete. Swings and roundabouts. In a small article, only one link is needed, so it's not necessary to have two links in two consecutive sections, but neither is it a major faux pas. Bellhop/Bell boy, I feel, is correctly linked as it implies where the lowly minion derived his disposable income - cash tips (to wear the clothes, ride the scooter and pay the fine from). I, personally, do not generally find the active text distracting, except where several links are consecutive and mouse-hovers are needed to find the breaks. Wikipedia is an ongoing-thing so content can and will be changed.

If you are going to continue editing WP then you might like to consider registering a username instead of switching IPs. Semperito (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I tried to keep my changes to a minimum, I hope you're okay with them, I don't plan on removing any more of the links. I suppose my comments above could be read as argumentative but that wasn't my intention.

This is an encyclopedia (supposedly) and readers may not even have English as a first language (simple English is good, not dumb), or be familiar with Mods and Rockers or any of what happened quite a long time ago (history!) so I'm not arguing against having the links, and I think they are generally a good thing but my concern was that there were maybe a few too many.

I had an account before but there were more and more things about Wikipedia I didn't like and I stopped editing for a long time. I still edit occasionally but don't plan on creating an account again. Wikipedia continues to claim to be an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit so I continue to choose that option. WP:WNCAA -- 109.79.76.63 (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree, there are a lot of things I don't like about WP and there is too much categorisation, placing things into pre-detemined slots - but that's to compartmentalise and integrate the different parts of the encyclopedia. And that includes inline linking to Wiktionary.

Your change from burglarise (as I originally wrote it, changed by another to burgle but not deleted) to the generic term "rob" dissociates the event depicted from it's Wikt:implicit information - that is, burglars normally are associated with breaking and entering (shown emboldened in the article lead), which is exactly what they did, in an un-planned foray. Similarly, your change from remonstrates to "argues" is inappropriate, implying a debate, which it is not; berates would be better.

Your edits are clearly not those of inexperience, particularly at Talk:Star Trek: Discovery where you draw the distinction between guidelines and essays in descending order. Normally, IP address edits are regarded with more scrutiny and circumspection, as can indicate someone wanting to disguise their editing background and history. Semperito (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the important detail is that they are taking lots of drugs, and the specifics of the type of robbery (or burglary) aren't important.

Incidentally burglarise is a word choice I would tend to associate with an American (also "carjack" is another one) and in general wouldn't expect a British speaker to actually use, and in the context of this very British film that is probably why someone changed it to burgle. I prefer to use words and phrases that are common to British English and American insofar as is possible, although I understand that with a film like this certain Britishisms might be necessary and wikilinks to help explain might be necessary too. -- 109.76.159.233 (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quadrophenia (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/20081108050153/http://www.quadcon.co.uk/ to http://www.quadcon.co.uk/

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) 23:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Ace Face

Following an inaccurate change by an IP address, in the end-credits of the 1979 film, the character is confirmed as Ace Face, played by Sting. Moreover, in the dance-hall scene, Jimmy is chatting to Steph on the balcony watching Ace Face dancing below, and says "...he must be the Ace Face, eh?".

So there is no doubt that the character was, indeed, Ace Face as written into the prose, and not simply 'Ace'.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Production

I deleted this (regarding the band America): "whose first major gig at "Implosion" at The Roundhouse, Chalk Farm, was the opening act to The Who on 20 December 1970".

The claim was tagged (correctly) as "citation needed". I found this on The Who's own website, stating that they were backed by Elton John on that date.

https://www.thewho.com/previous-gig/dec-20-1970-london-gb/

MrDemeanour (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Actors who appeared together in two completely different 1979 films

For in demand actors at the time, is it worth noting that for casting there were a noticeable number of actors who appeared in Quadrophenia and Scum, which is also a 1979 film. Which is interesting because Scum had its premiere in September whereas Quadrophenia was a month earlier in August. This is not indicative of what was made first but it's interesting historically in terms of film-making that numerous actors appeared in both films. Most notably Phil Daniels and Ray Winstone who swapped leading roles. It begs the question was this a conscious decision to cast them so many of the same characters or just who was available? TBF only Winstone has really gone on to have a "Hollywood" career so to speak.146.199.57.209 (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)