Talk:Sense and Sensibility (film)

Cast section

Why does this page about a major film not have a cast section? I'm sure someone can point to a Wikipedia standard somewhere that says it should. The prose buried in production section is no substitute; it should have a top-level cast section (after Plot) just like every other major film. I went through the trouble of creating a cast section, and it was reverted within hours ; perhaps my note with the edit was unnecessarily antagonistic. My proposed cast section (just a start) can be found in the 21:49, 8 July 2017 version of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.166.167.129 (talk)

I have added the cast section again today 15:28, 16 December 2019, and it has been removed by after 10 minutes. I will revert to my previous edit. As pointed up above, all other films on here have a cast list and I can't see how this can be a matter of any kind discussion, it is the kind of basic information people use the articles for, and it renders this article almost useless in that aspect. The argument for removing the last cast list was "inconsistent with article style" which by all appearance is the same as all other film articles. I feel like this is one persons pet project to keep the cast section out. Can we please just keep it in so it is consistent with the general film article? Frogfisher (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

"Took liberties"

S&S not being my preferred Austen novel, I'm having to plug through it to find for myself the differences with Thompson's screenplay. It would be helpful to the users if those who evaluate the script as taking liberties in order to please modern audiences were to identify what these were. For example, two differences I've noticed some one-third of the way through the novel are that Thompson "killed off" Sir John's wife, eliminating their children as well, and that the same fate met other minor characters, such as Lucy's sister. However, these don't seem changes calculated so much for modern audiences as they seem to be typical book-to-film decisions to streamline the story. So as yet, I've seen nothing that goes to modern tastes, per se; in fact, I thought it interesting that the book shows Edward spending a week at the cottage (which I'd not have expected to be acceptable for the day), mentions Charlotte's pregnancy, and shows Mrs. J alleging that Miss W___ is Brandon's "natural" (read: illegitimate) daughter. These all seem to be changes making the story seem more old-fashioned rather than less. I only really have noticed the film's use of phrasing such as "then the relationship will be over" (my emphasis) as the only notable concessions to modern ideas so far. Maybe the fact that the screenplay suggests that Marianne comes to love the Colonel before the marriage rather than only after? Lawikitejana 02:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Film Adaptation

There is ONLY one film adaptation of Sense and Sensibility. The others are television series. Please GET RID of "1995" in the article name, please. --PJ Pete

Fair use rationale for Image:Sense and sensibility.jpg

Image:Sense and sensibility.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) 07:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Awaiting RS (i.e. no IMDb)

Moved from article:

On an episode of the popular quiz show QI, Emma Thompson revealed that she lost the screenplay on her faulty computer. When a repairman could not retrieve the file, she took the computer in a taxi to friend Stephen Fry, who spent seven hours retrieving the missing file. He is thanked in the end credits.

-Ruby2010 comment! 16:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You could use Cite episode for it. I remember watching the episode (Film) in question. - JuneGloom Talk 16:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Btw, great work with the article. :) - JuneGloom Talk 16:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the episode link! I'll be sure to use it, seeing as how there doesn't seem to be an secondary sources mentioning Thompson and the screenplay. :) Ruby2010 comment! 19:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"Settings in London included Somerset House on The Strand"

"...the cobbled streets of Barbican in Plymouth"

"Great Orcheton Farm"

-Ruby2010 comment! 03:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Review

The review isn't transposing over here and I don't want to stretch this out. Pass. Well written, no copyright problems, seems to be broad in coverage and well focused. I say nominate to FA.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Some suggestions for improvement

Because this is a GA article, I am not going to just jump in a make changes, but I have a couple of suggestions for this article. It's distracting to read all the actor's names in blue in the Plot section; is there a way to limit them, or not link them here? In other articles I've worked on, we've used last names only to get the info in with minimum interruption to the attempt to follow the plot. There is a sentence in the Casting section that state this was Winslet's "first major film role." That is really not true. She was one of two stars of Heavenly Creatures, and while that was an independent film, her role was inarguably "major," and the film was hardly obscure. Therefore, this sentence should either come out entirely, or it should be changed to "mainstream" role or something. You've already made the point that S&S brought her her first serious attention, so it's redundant anyway. Additionally, I'd like there to be more about Emma Thompson's writing process, her and Lindsay Doran's incredible attention to detail and such points as "every single scene is about money," which can be found in their DVD commentary, and if anyone has a copy of her film diary, there's lots of good stuff in that (I gave mine away, unfortunately). I'm happy to make some of these changes/contributions, but only if they are welcomed by the article's main crew. Having worked on GA articles myself, I know it's disruptive when someone else just shows up and starts tinkering. Also, I can't find any other film version of the book that pre-dates 1995, only TV productions. Why does it say there had been several film and television adaptations prior to this one? I don't see the details of the GA review, either. Has that been archived? Good work on this article; it's nice to see it getting attention. Also, is this article using American or British English? It looks like American to me (while instead of whilst, for example); shouldn't it be British, as it's a UK production?--TEHodson 09:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. I by no means claim ownership of this one, so feel free to improve it all you want! I welcome collaboration. I can address many of your comments here though. Winslet's "first major film role" comes from [1]. Depends on how you define major I suppose. Feel free to delete it though (I'm kind of indifferent to it anyway).

I do not own Thompson's screenplay and diaries for the film, so cannot really go into more depth about the writing process. In the future I may purchase them, and try to expand this into a FA, but don't have the time currently. I also would watch the DVD commentary to further expand it. Since it seems like you've watched the commentary, it would be great if you were to expand it. It looks like the GA review never transcluded properly (you can find the link above in the milestones template though).

According to this, the novel had been adapted three times for film and television (not including this film). I removed the "for film and television" though, as I can't seem to locate a film adaptation prior to 1995 either.

Lastly, I am American, and am thus more comfortable with that form of spelling. I completely agree that British spelling would be more suitable though, so feel free to convert the spelling if you like. Thanks again for the suggestions. Who knows, maybe between the two of us we can eventually bring this one to FA! Ruby comment! 18:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Generally the rule about language version has to do with the country of origin, and in this case, the film originated in England so "should" use its rules about spelling. I'm surprised no Brit has come along and changed it already! I will listen to the commentary again and see what might be interesting to use, and come back and deal with that. I am going to remove that statement about Winslet's first major role--it is common for a mainstream publication to make that sort of claim, but it really isn't true, or should just be considered their own opinion. Overlooking the fact that she was one of the two stars of Heavenly Creatures is kind of weird, in my opinion. She was the talk of the town when that film came out--it was a pretty stunning debut. Also, the dates are already in British form, so I'm going to change the language, too.--TEHodson 00:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Being that it was written in non-British english, would we want to have the article use that? --ProfPolySci45 (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Being that what was written in non-British English?--TEHodson 08:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Location filming

There's a little detail about the filming of Sense and Sensibility at Mompesson House in Salisbury here: [2]. Might it be of interest/use? 86.154.218.87 (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 22:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Hyperventilation or Hypothermia?

The "Locations" section says, "Lee shot around fifty takes, with the actors becoming soaked under rain machines; this led to Winslet eventually collapsing from hyperventilation," citing the Cliff Mills book "Ang Lee" and the DVD commentary by Emma Thompson and Lindsay Doran. In the DVD commentary, Thompson and Doran actually say Winslet collapsed from hypothermia. Thompson says, "Kate had a really tough time this day, because she got hypothermic in the end, so she fainted, and Greg and I took her back to a Winnebago and she...got to take her shoes and sock off and out [her feet] into Greg's armpits to warm them up, and I just held her against me, because...when people do get hypothermia, you can't just put them in a hot bath. You've got to warm them up naturally and slowly." Cliff Mills says, "Winslet actually passed out from hyperventilation after being blasted by rain machines for some 50 takes." I'm inclined to think Thompson and Doran's account is correct because they were there, they give more details, and there's no reason why being drenched with rain should cause a person to hyperventilate.Sadiemonster (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe you are right. I've changed the term to "hypothermia". Thank you for not only noticing this, but going the extra mile to compare the two sources! Ruby 2010/2013 17:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! But just to complicate matters, I listened to the Ang Lee & co-producer James Schamus DVD commentary, and Schamus explained, "Well, it was not exactly a warm day. We had the rain machines blasting on her, and in order to get that incredibly breathy and romantic scene, she was almost hyperventilating for each take, and finally she just literally hyperventilated all the air out of her system." I'm more confused than I was before. Sadiemonster (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sense and Sensibility (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.tcm.com/this-month/article/62625%7C0/Sense-and-Sensibility.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201155958/http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/oscarlegacy/1990-1999/68nominees.html to http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/oscarlegacy/1990-1999/68nominees.html

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) 02:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Plot

This is interesting. A factual error being corrected is not an improvement? That is a new one that would be interesting to read if the editor can substantiate otherwise any non-effort to substantiate would seem to support prima facie unless reasonably logically otherwise? WP seems like an effort that tends to eliminate confusion and error instead of supporting it. To not correct an error would seem counter to what WP is attempting to establish. Otherwise, the editor would have us believe that WP supports errors. The fact remains that jilted cannot occur when the previously existing contract has been eliminated. To make this all the more clearer, a party cannot be left if what has previously happened is release from a contract. Yes, Edward's former fiancée has married another but being released from that contract made her no longer his fiancée therefore she could not leave him and thus achieve the state of jilting. To support anything other than correcting this factual error runs in the face of the intended purpose of WP--the truth. Re-imposition of what is false is never correct according to the aim(s) of WP.2605:E000:9149:A600:C8C7:B429:4BE5:33A6 (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

There was no error of fact. Your belaboured argument is merely a difference in wording, not of fact. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Edward was never jilted? How can there not be an error of fact? Are you in command of some new meaning of jilted?2605:E000:9149:A600:C8C7:B429:4BE5:33A6 (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Sex

I notice a complete absence of 'sex' in the article. How very English! For long I regarded the Victorians as being rather prudish when it came to talking about 'sex', contrasting with their great enthusiasm for engaging in 'sex' whenever possible. I do hope this is an isolated occurrence or it could be the end of civilisation as we know it!--Damorbel (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Queen Victoria had not been born when the novel was written and had died before the film was made. Thincat (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)