Talk:The Hours (film)

The Hours (film) was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 3, 2020	Good article nominee	Not listed

Film: British / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lector

The definition of "lector" is "1. A person who reads aloud certain of the scriptural passages used in a church service. 2. A public lecturer or reader in certain universities." A rare word, but not one to avoid. I assume (not having read or seen said book or movie) that "lector" was used appropriately, and will reinstate it. Jwrosenzweig 20:04 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm currently reading "The Hours". I'm only a little more than half-way through the book, but it's not obvious to me (at least yet) how "lector" is appropriate for this character. Perhaps the movie differs. Perhaps it will become clearer in the second half of the book. Bill 20:25 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Copyvio

Suspected copyvio from IMDb.

The story of how the novel Mrs. Dalloway affects three generations of women (Virginia Woolf writes the story, Laura Brown reads it, and Clarissa Vaughn lives it), all of whom, in one way or another, have had to deal with suicide in their lives.

Will put up copyvio warning. Thorns Among Our Leaves 03:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the article to a pre copyvio state. My appologies as over a years worth of edits have now been lost as a result of a merge of a copyvio article into this one in October of 2004. --best, kevin [kzollman] [talk] 05:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diminished looks for an Oscar

I removed the Halle Berry reference in this sentence, "Kidman won both the Golden Globe and the Oscar for Best Actress. Kidman's portrayal in the film, in which she wore a prosthetic nose, highlighted the Hollywood rumor that beautiful actresses can only receive the best dramatic roles once they diminish their physical attributes in a role. Other examples are Halle Berry's and Charlize Theron's wins in 2002 and 2004 respectfuly."

Kidman? http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38552000/jpg/_38552173_hours300.jpg Yes.
Charlize? http://cumplicidades.no.sapo.pt/imagens/charlize/monster.jpg No doubt.
Halle? http://images.hollywood.com/images/large/l_1103928.jpg Not even close.

I totally disagree, and I'm reverting the Halle Berry sentence back to the way it was. Halle Berry didn't wear make-up, and while she was quite glamorous on the night of her Oscar win, it was quite evident she wasn't gourgeous in Monster's Ball.--Amynewyork4248 09:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this section entirely. This is original research irrelevant to the film. The article is about The Hours; neither Ms. Theron and Ms. Berry appeared in the film, so discussion about their makeup is irrelevant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gossip page nor a compendium of irrelevant chit-chat.207.69.137.203 06:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:The hours-julianne moore.jpg

Image:The hours-julianne moore.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 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 06:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:The hours-ed harris.jpg

Image:The hours-ed harris.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 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 06:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film vs book

The book is marked by a fairly unusual "stream of conciousness" style. Shouldn't we comment on how the film deals with that ? -- Beardo 15:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timespan

This article needs to clarify how the action is set "within the span of one day" while apparently being set in different eras. I haven't seen the film so I can't amend the article, but as a reader of the article, it has left me baffled and needs to be rectified. Yeanold Viskersenn (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response

Why is the critical response text almost entirely full of negative reviews, yet the Metacritic score is a very positive 81%. It seems unbalanced that the reviews listed are all negative, needs to be rectified. Seems like an author with a negative agenda wrote it. - Connor 5612, 13 September 2010

The first two reviews look positive to me. The next one is negative, the next one mixed. The St. Petersburg Times review is also fairly positive although the reviewer did not particularly enjoy the film. The last few are mixed. I don't see it as "almost entirely full of negative reviews", but if you think there is critical response missing from the article and you would like to add more review summaries to the section, then please do.--Beloved Freak 12:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Hours (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091204232423/http://www.nytimes.com:80/2002/12/27/movies/27HOUR.html to http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/27/movies/27HOUR.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Hours (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/20110227204440/http://www.media-courses.com/blog/australian-actress-nicole-kidman/ to http://www.media-courses.com/blog/australian-actress-nicole-kidman/

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 20:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Hours (film). The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rusted AutoParts 00:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going tom take this one, however I feel I'm likely going to autofail. Rusted AutoParts 00:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm going to auto-fail. Biggest problem is a lack of production history. Too few sources, all of them are for Critical Response. The Plot section far exceeds the 700 word limit (it currently sits at 975 words). Really for me the biggest thing holding this article back are these things. Put some more meat on it's bone and it should eventually qualify. Rusted AutoParts 01:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusted AutoParts: Since this article's inception, the plot has been over 700 words and that's due to the fact that the film has three significant stories and is more psychological so it's important to be detailed. Where should I add sources? And what should I add for production history? Factfanatic1 (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basically what can be found and used. Was this a passion project for the writer? Was there previous versions of the film in development before this version? Casting can be helpful. Things of those nature. Take a look at some of the good articles for film as reference. 2000-04 to be specific perhaps. Rusted AutoParts 01:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for the plot there may be some intricate aspects to the story but WP:FILMPLOT is apart of the manual of style for film, a guideline so it’ll have to be adhered to as best as possible. Maybe some rephrasing of certain sentences to chop the word count down, or if at all possible excise non pertinent details. Rusted AutoParts 01:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusted AutoParts: WP:FILMPLOT states: "The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction or Memento's non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range." This film's (The Hours) structure is unconventional, non-linear, and relies a lot on the visuals and dialogue which is why it's quite detailed. It would take away from the plot summary to not include what's been written. If you've seen the film, you'll know what I'm talking about. Factfanatic1 (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that’s fair enough. The big issue of the lack of production history is the biggest setback however. Rusted AutoParts 03:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like here’s something that could be of interest to add: Nicole Kidman found herself surprised she was cast as Woolf, believing her co-star Streep would have been cast instead. Stuff of that vein. Rusted AutoParts 03:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s some good stuff about how producers Scott Rudin and Harvey Weinstein clashed over the film in regards to Kidman’s prosthetic nose and the musical score. Also a bit about the film being pulled from a Venice Film Festival screening. Rusted AutoParts 03:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decreasing the plot summary (to 700 words or less)

WP:FILMPLOT states: "The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction or Memento's non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range." I feel this film's (The Hours) structure is unconventional, non-linear, and relies a lot on the visuals and dialogue which is why it's quite detailed. It would take away from the plot summary to not include what's been written. If you've seen the film, you'll know what I'm talking about. Does anyone agree or disagree? And if you disagree, how would you go about decreasing the plot summary size for this film? Factfanatic1 (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much chipping out important details. Just excise and trim. Reword sentences that can be said in a shorter way, you know? Inception is a pretty intricate film, but it's plot summary falls under the 700 limit. Rusted AutoParts 20:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusted AutoParts: Could you assist me with trimming and rewording the plot summary please? Factfanatic1 (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines mention Pulp Fiction and Memento as examples because they used to have much longer plot summaries but editors took that as a challenge and even those articles now have relatively short plot summaries compared to what they used to be. As RustedAutoparts said, there is a lot that can be done to slim down a plot summary while still retaining the most important details. It wouldn't surprise me if determined editors were able to trim another 100-200 words off the current 975 words (or 972, if you don't count the year subheadings, and that include first paragraph explaining the structure too) but personally I wouldn't be too worried about getting it down to exactly 700 words or less. -- 109.78.217.4 (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said you wanted specifics, here's one simple example: both the first and last paragraphs mention the suicide, that's an obvious redundancy that can be condensed. I would tighten that up by shortening the opening paragraph so that it talks about narrative structure only without mentioning any plot details, and only mention the suicide in the final paragraph. -- 109.78.217.4 (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]