Jump to content

Talk:Carol (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Lead production info

Hello, whenever I remove production from the top of the article, it is reverted, I don't think it should be there, because it already has a section in the article. Vmars22 (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Vmars22, every time your edit was reverted it was explained why, and it was also explained on your talk page. Please listen; again, please read WP:LEAD and WP:FILMLEAD. Lapadite (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Cast section

If there is one, it should list "the most relevant actors and roles", which are these, per RogertEbert.com. Lapadite (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Publishing details in the article

I understand the interest and zeal that an editor can have for a particular subject, but Wikipedia articles are not the personal property of any one editor. Wikipedia depends on the contributions from thousands of volunteer editors. When any one editor reverses good faith edits because he/she doesn't particularly like what another editor contributed, it not only defies the purpose of what Wikipedia is about -- it discourages other editors from contributing to an article. No Wikipedia editor should expect contributions from other editors that meet his/her approval. As long as editors comply with WP:MOS and WP:VERIFY, User:Lapadite 77 needs to respect the contributions made to this article by other editors. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary you've been cautioned against bad faith comments, accusations, attacks, and personalizing edits several times before (that I'm aware of) by other editors. If you engage in an uncivil manner again it will be brought up on ANI. As for my edit removing publishing details that are best for the novel's article, that is exactly just that. Pyxis Solitary read WP:ONUS: "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." See WP:BRD: "Bold editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. No editor is more welcome to make a positive contribution than you are...Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante), but don't engage in back-and-forth reverts...Bold editing is not, however, a justification for imposing one's own view...a revert should not be reverted again until the changes have been discussed...After someone reverts your change, thus taking a stand for the existing version...you can proceed toward a consensus with the challenging editor through discussion on a talk page. While discussing the disputed content, neither editor should revert or change the content being discussed until a compromise or consensus is reached". Your edit reversing to a prior version, reverting 5 constructive edits in between, is inappropriate; as is as your highly-innapropraite revert as vandalism here (requesting MusikAnimal's input on such Twinkle misuse). Pinging some recent editors of the article: @Easy4me, TropicAces, Kuru, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Bovineboy2008, Invertzoo, Ultraexactzz, Filmested, Samtar, and Onel5969: seeking input on the, in my view, unnecessary inclusion of this content in this article. Lapadite (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Lapadite77: You have resorted to reverting good faith edits 2x in this article. When you have not used that method, you have manually replaced recent edits with previously existing content. You have persistently deleted details in the plot and replaced them with incorrect information [e.g. replacing specific "Ritz Tower Hotel" name more than once with "Ritz Carlton"; replacing "Oak Room" name (formerly appearing as "a restaurant") with "Plaza Hotel", when "Oak Room" is specifically stated in the film]. I have an excellent history as a Wikipedia editor and your veiled threats are not going to stop me from bringing attention to your inappropriate editing habits. If you want to file a complaint ... go ahead. Because it will become the perfect opportunity for administrators to review your possessive editing of articles.
P.S. You need to stop jumping to conclusions about being "cautioned" by another editor in the past. You don't know the history. You don't know how it was resolved. Example FYI because you weren't around: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Pyxis_Solitary#Lost_Girl_Wiki Pyxis Solitary (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
That you continually personalize edits that modify yours or you disagree with (e.g., recently on this article: [1], [2], [3]) and make accusations against the editor shows that your accusation/projection of OWN is very much your issue. You have a combative way of editing and discussing (and you've been told this many times, please listen); that's not conducive to collaboration, what WP editing is based on. Please stop this behavior and focus on the content, assuming good-faith of other editors. When an edit of yours is modified, don't knee-jerk revert and attack to get your way, bring up your objection on the talk page and please calmly and civilly discuss it. Lapadite (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
And as you can see in the summaries of examples 1, 2, 3: I go out of my way to explain the reasons why I edit another editor's contribution. My edits regarding details of the plot are based strictly on the film (which I have seen twice) and script by Phyllis Nagy (which I possess a copy of). You need to stop projecting onto me your habit of reverting edits (automatically or manually) and undoing what another editor has contributed. And when it comes to lecturing anyone about "good faith edits", you're a pot calling the kettle black. Think twice before indulging a holier-than-thou finger-wagging, because no one bullies me and I am not a pushover. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I haven't looked into the edits, but isn't using the script as a source a violation of WP:PRIMARY? Wouldn't interpreting that script be considred Original Research? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I've checked against the script to confirm names, locations, sequence of events (i.e what came first). I am not the one who originally contributed the plot. The plot grew as time passed because other editors added information, too. Are the plots of novels in Wikipedia articles also considered violations of WP:PRIMARY when editors use the novels themselves as a guide? What about quotations from books, interviews, stories, etc.? Do you really believe for a moment that a word-for-word quotation is based on an editor's crystal clear memory? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
While we wait for an answer on that one... Honestly, about 75% of the plot section could probably go. We don't need every story beat. We just need the broad strokes. "Smiled knowingly" is in there, for example. Says who? We get too detailed, here. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
"Says who?" Says the film. If you've seen it you would know that in this film the 'dialog' between Carol and Therese has been more displayed than spoken. Their body language, gestures, looks. Blanchett and Mara have been praised for their nuanced performances. The final shot has been noted by many professional film critics. Terms such as "defiant" have been used to describe it. The 'language' by Blanchett in the final moments, followed by the music stopping and the screen cutting to black and staying that way for a few seconds before credits roll has been singled out in many reviews. If you haven't seen the film you don't know why it has been praised so highly, why it is the most nominated film of 2015, and why it has been included in innumerable top ten lists. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
That's pretty much my entire point. The description is one editor's interpretation of what is shown on screen. Obviously there's subtext and nuance - as well there should be with this material. So highlight that nuance, in the section on reception where you cite specific reviewers who praised that nuance. You don't get to just add it into the plot. The plot summary is just that - a summary of the plot. Subtext and nuance are right out. On the topic of the script, it's still a primary source - and not cited in the article. Is it published? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Definition of "knowing" - from Oxford Dictionaries:
1 Showing or suggesting that one has knowledge or awareness that is secret or known to only a few people:
'a knowing smile'
  • Meaning of "knowing smile" - from Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English:
...a knowing smile (=one which shows you know something that is secret).
In the final shot, Carol (Cate Blanchett) looks directly into the camera (the camera being Therese moving towards her). The camera stays on Carol, her eyes focused on Therese, looking at her with a slowly growing smile ... and then the film cuts to black. The end. After all that came before, that final scene is an important element of the plot.
Just thought you should see this final shot component of the plot. SPOILER ALERT if you plan to see the film:
CAROL - Carter Burwell Featurette - The Weinstein Compnay
scene & final shot begins @ 3:49
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUzgvLnYJeg Pyxis Solitary (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know where you got the notion that I have relied on reviews for my understanding of that scene. I saw the movie before I became involved in editing Wikipedia's article. I've seen it twice. I'm going to see it for a third time this week. Just because I mentioned that there are film reviews that have commented on that final shot does not mean that my comments about it are not my own original thoughts. Your conjecture about my qualification as a contributing editor is a roundabout insult.
As for the script: why should it be cited? It's only a point of reference, just the same as the dictionary I turn to when I need to spell a word correctly; or a thesaurus when I want to find a similar word. The "For Your Consideration" screenplay pdf was released online by The Weinstein Company in November (see: http://www.indiewire.com/article/free-scripts-download-2016-oscar-contenders-inside-out-carol-macbeth-and-more-20151209). Pyxis Solitary (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
If you use information from a source, you cite the source. So if you use the script for information that isn't in the film itself (a full name, or whatever), you cite the script. As for the rest.... well, quite frankly, I haven't seen the film to judge whether the smile is knowing or not. But that's the point - I don't get to interpret that sort of thing. Neither do you. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
First of all, I am a writer. Good writers craft words. Good writers don't settle for 'good enough'. Good writers want readers to think about what they've read. Second, ONCE AGAIN what I've said has gone right over your head because all you hear in your mind is "she uses the script, she uses the script, she uses the script". I don't use the script to add "information" to the plot. I've used the script to double-check that what I am contributing is correct (spelling is correct, location is correct, the sequence of events I am contributing is correct). That does not equal = the script is being used to compose the plot. Just as (and I repeat what I've already said) I use a dictionary to check the spelling of a word, and a thesaurus to find a similar word to use. The composition comes first -- the fact checking of contents in the composition comes second. Do you understand the difference? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Let me repeat myself - if you include details that are not in the work, but are found in the script, then you must cite the script. If you're not doing that, great! But I still think that the Plot Summary is needlessly detailed and overly interpretive - going beyond what is generally expected of a Plot Summary, as per MOS:PLOT. As wonderful as the plot summary is, from a prose stand point, I think it's too much for an encyclopedic treatment of the material. If I were writing it, it'd probably be a lot simpler, a lot shorter, and not at all as well written. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 22:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
To quote from Rubyfruit Jungle, "Jesus H. Christ on a raft!" The names, locations, sequence of events in the film are the same as in the novel are the same as in the script. I'm not the only person who has contributed to the Plot Summary. I'm not even the one who kick-started the section. Give it a rest. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Section Break

By the way, User:Lapadite77 changed the title of this section to what it is named now. He turned this into a discussion focusing on edits to the plot. He knows very well that what I brought to the attention of the community is about more than that.

On 2 January 2016 @22:33, I edited the introductory paragraph of the Production > Development section. [4]

@23:56, I added a citation. [5]

On 3 January @10:55, I returned to the section and performed a relatively minor edit to the introductory paragraph, changing the wording "based on" to "an adaptation of". I added info that explains how the title "The Price of Salt" became "Carol", supporting this historical information with a citation. I made the first paragraph a stand-alone paragraph. I also moved a citation that was incorrectly located within this paragraph to the next one, where it belonged. [6]

@19:00, User:Lapadite77 reverted my edits, providing the following summary: "Ce; -- info for novel's article". What he did was not a mere "copy edit". [7]

@20:56, I reverted what User:Lapadite77 did back to the stand-alone paragraph format containing the information and citation about the "Carol" title . [8]

What I didn't realize until afterwards is that by using the automatic revert procedure, recent edits that had not involved the Production > Development section were also reverted.

@21:24, I manually restored those unintended changes. [9]

After doing some thinking, on 4 January @ 00:23, I went back to the section and made a minor change in the wording of the first sentence. [10] Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


He has behaved similarly with The Price of Salt article.

On 3 January @18:40, because "gay fiction" was already included in the sentence, User:Lapadite77 deleted my addition of "lesbian literature" in the last sentence of the first paragraph, explaining his edit as "Ce; -- redundancy" -- . [11] However, "Lesbian literature" and "gay fiction" are two very different subjects.

@18:43, he deleted "lesbian pulp" from the first sentence and explained his edit as "not definition of such "pulp fiction" per articles". [12] However, if you look at two citations within the article you will see "pulp" and "lesbian pulp" in their titles.

@20:35, I undid his deletions. [13]

@22:31, I manually corrected unintended changes that happened with the revert. [14]

@23:57, I went back and made a few changes that involved changing "lesbian pulp" to "lesbian", and "lesbian" to "homosexual". Then added information about "lesbian pulp" to the section detailing the novel's publication history, with citations included. [15]


It was User:Lapadite77's reverts and deletions of my edits to The Price of Salt article that finally drove me to call attention to his treating the Carol (film) article as if he has the final word in how it's edited and what content can and cannot be included in it. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Quite honestly, you've shown just as much ownership of this article. You threw dictionary definitions at me, above, which is telling. And your interpretation of the material shows that you value your opinion above any input you might get from other editors. It might benefit the article for both of you to step back for a while and edit other things. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
The editing history of the Carol (film) article shows that in 10 months, between 5 January 2016 (today) and 14 February 2015:
  • User:Lapadite77 has edited the article 271 times.
  • User:Pyxis Solitary (that's me) has edited the article 25 times.
I've shown ownership? Think again. Now ... it's time for you to go find another situation to spend your two cents in. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, since your reaction to criticism is to wave your edit count at me, and then to suggest that my input was unwelcome - well, that's textbook Ownership. Lapadite77's edits are bad, because you disagree with them. My concerns are invalid, because you have edited the article more than I have. Nope, that doesn't work. Wikipedia works on consensus, not by declaration that this is the way it's gonna be. So, if you and Lapadite77 cannot come to some sort of consensus as to what the article should look like, then you can fully expect other editors to weigh in. And if it continues to tip toward slow edit wars, disruption, and shenanigans, then it's going to become a problem that will have to be addressed. Please, cool it. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 22:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Your opinion is just that. When you state an opinion that lumps two people together as being equal in conduct, you need to accept that it will be opposed. You don't have a gavel to shut down reactions and replies. You also do not get to decide how someone responds. You compared me to an editor with a history of compulsive and domineering editing. How do I make the distinction between his conduct and mine? By putting his history vs. mine on the table. You call that "waving [my] edit count at [you]". I call it evidence.
You reduce my bringing attention to the behavior of User:Lapadite as "Lapadite77's edits are bad, because you disagree with them." However, it has been User:Lapadite that has focused on undoing edits by me and other editors — and then dismisses what he does as a "copy edit". Copy editing involves checking grammar, spelling, punctuation, consistency, and facts. The habitual and persistent deletion or changing of contributions by other editors is not copy editing — it's control of content. And, yes, your input became unwelcome the moment you tried to shut me down by dismissing my stand as 'two sides of the same coin'.
It's obvious that you're the type of person that needs to have the last word. But since this matter involves me, you won't. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
k. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 07:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Chuckles. Pyxis Solitary, my edit count may be greatest on this article because I've contributed most of the content (save for the plot), copy edits, and rearranging of content on it; not some mystery, it's in the edit history. I copy edit a lot of articles. Copyediting the plot, which, as has been said above and noted in the article's section, needs to be trimmed further, isn't a war on your edits; upholding WP's policies and guidelines isn't a war on your edits. Pyxis you were most recently (that I'm aware of) cautioned at an ANI thread; I suggest you listen and perhaps take a break. UltraExactZZ I don't how this disruptive, bad-faith, ownership nonsense is acceptable; this isn't an isolated issue with one editor; from looking at their talk history during that ANI thread, they've been engaging in these behaviors with many editors for a while. Pyxis, as I (and others) have asked several times, please stop this battleground with editors you disagree with (especially over such trivial or inherently uncontentious matters as forgetting to include a source's author, copy edits, or including excessive publishing details of a novel with a WP article on a film article), stop the ownership of content and edits, stop making article talk page sections on editors, read WP:ONUS, and for the love of Wikipedia, start assuming good faith. Thanks again. Lapadite (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

"Pyxis you were most recently (that I'm aware of) cautioned at an ANI thread;"
"from looking at their talk history during that ANI thread, they've been engaging in these behaviors with many editors for a while."
"Pyxis, as I (and others) have asked several times, please stop this battleground with editors you disagree with"
Let's get something straight ... I have never been cautioned at an ANI thread about anything and I have not been "asked several times" to stop "battleground with editors".
It appears that you dug into the history of my Talk page and have taken an incident from last year at face value without also going one step further to see what it was all about and its conclusion. In your zeal to use something — anything — against me, your hubris has confused me with another editor, and you've latched onto an inappropriate and debunked warning from said editor (who came close to being banned from Wikipedia). Here's what you didn't bother to uncover for yourself:
Warning message from moderator to User:Skyerise re User:Pyxis Solitary:
"Your entire editing style has drawn significant opposition from editors recently. You have found yourself at WP:ANI and WP:AN3 because of it and even received a discretionary sanctions notice. You tagged User_talk:Pyxis Solitary with an unnecessary COI warning,[2] and when he/she tried to discuss your edits on your talk page you were decidedly uncivil,[3] and then told Pyxis Solitary to stay off your talk page,[4] so please don't say that there are almost never complaints. Regardless of what you think, adding a tag is a demand, and in this case an unnecessary one at that, especially when you restore it after another editor has explained why it was unnecessary. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC) [16]
You, Lapadite77, have crossed a line in the sand, you need to floor your brakes, and stop making libelous and slanderous accusations against me. Because if you don't I will seek intervention from Administrators. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I've no idea what you're talking about, I've no awareness of that incident or of User:Skyerise. "I have never been cautioned at an ANI thread about anything" - yes you were; I'm not going to link to it as article talk page discussion should not be about editors, but Ultraexactzz above commented on that ANI thread, and I'll quote a few of the comments from different editors on your behavior: "The Administator's Noticeboard is not your personal police force...When you respond to that with comments questioning our ability to comprehend your incomplete and poorly-framed complaint, it just makes me less inclined to help you out. Protip - asking nicely will get you a lot further on this project than, well, whatever the hell this was." ; "One of the basic principles of Wikipedia is collaboration. That means that we all work together, not against each other. Another principle is good faith. In other words, you really need to assume good faith of others...Everyone edits differently and many like to save edits as they go along so that they don't lose their progress. There's nothing wrong with that and a series of quick edits should not automatically be seen as someone "owning" an article or as an automatic sign of someone making bad faith edits...I would highly, HIGHLY recommend that you fix them in a more polite manner because to be quite honest, your edit summary statement...and the post here can come across as very, very unfriendly". And yes you have been told to stop this combative, WP:ASG-violating behavior, clearly at the ANI thread and also on talk page; i mentioned it on that ANI thread and the talk page history speaks for itself (showing that you've deleted such comments [which is fine], including mine after you made similar accusations of me [with a self-righteous edit summary might I add: "Not interested in excuses. Not interested in being lectured..."). I've nothing else to say on this nonsense from you, just that I genuine hope you stop. I'll stick to discussing article content. Lapadite (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

So, you think that the discussion that ensued from the attention I brought to your Carol (film) article edits resulted in an ANI warning against me that supports your making the following statements within this Talk page:

  • "Pyxis Solitary you've been cautioned against bad faith comments, accusations, attacks, and personalizing edits several times before (that I'm aware of) by other editors. If you engage in an uncivil manner again it will be brought up on ANI."
  • "I don't how this disruptive, bad-faith, ownership nonsense is acceptable; this isn't an isolated issue with one editor; from looking at their talk history during that ANI thread, they've been engaging in these behaviors with many editors for a while. Pyxis, as I (and others) have asked several times, please stop this battleground with editors you disagree with…."
  • "Pyxis, as I (and others) have asked several times, please stop this battleground with editors you disagree with (especially over such trivial or inherently uncontentious matters as forgetting to include a source's author, copy edits, or including excessive publishing details of a novel with a WP article on a film article), stop the ownership of content and edits, stop making article talk page sections on editors,…."

And in your Talk page:

  • "When you're able to discuss without inserting (nonsense) accusations/attacks, as cautioned against multiple times by other editors, we can have one here, Pyxis Solitary."[17]

For those who are following this matter, the following is what I stated in thread #29 titled "Carol (film)": [18]

  • The Carol (film) article needs to be monitored by one or more Admins. There is 'fast and furious' multiple editing taking place where content is being deleted, rewritten, moved around. The citation of an interview, for example, had the name of the journalist author deleted from it. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not going to involve myself in a discussion with anyone engaging in frenetic editing. Not going to go back further than this: On December 14 that user made 20 successive edits to the article. I don't know who is behind IP address 50.30.160.70 but the one-word "Accolades" explanation for those particular edits kinda make me think it's the same person. Accidental deletions? Deliberate deletions? Ignorant deletions? No one can keep track of the big picture when you have a barrage of edits being made. This movie is earning significant awards and nominations and it's predicted that the film and its two leading actresses will be Academy Awards nominees. When a Wikipedia article becomes the focus of intense editing, someone at the top of the Wikipedia editing ladder needs to keep an eye on it. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I requested that someone -- a neutral party -- keep an eye on the volume of editing this article is being hit with. If you don't comprehend what supervision means, I can't help you. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Because I don't have to and I don't want to. I keep a far distance from any User that has been obsessively editing a Wikipedia article and lords over contributions made by other editors. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Your using the above-referenced discussion (created by me) to allege repeatedly that I have a history of engaging in "battleground with editors you disagree with", being "cautioned against bad faith comments, accusations, attacks, and personalizing edits several times before (that I'm aware of) by other editors", and "cautioned against multiple times by other editors", is a calumnious and malicious twisting of facts to serve your needs.

Pinging the following persons that participated in the above-referenced (#29) thread discussion: @Tokyogirl79 and WikiDan61: The mud slinging by User:Lapadite77 needs to end. I don't need to ping UltraExactZZ since he's already watching the article and, as we can all see, has been actively involved in this Talk page. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Since I've been pinged, I'll respond: is any of this bickering in any way moving toward improving the article? No. So just end it and get back to the process of creating and improving content. If there is a dispute about user behavior, this talk page is not the place to carry it out. Bring it to WP:ANI or any other appropriate venue. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Discussions work better when people engage and listen to each other. This is just back and forth and I didn't hear that and it's not a worthwhile use of my time. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Plot length

The present plot (permalink) has 843 words, over 140 more than the recommended 700 limit by WP:FILMPLOT. Having looked over it several times, I think this plot is as significantly close to 700 as it can be without removing important plot and character information. Any thoughts on how/if it could be significantly trimmed further without losing essential info? Pinging editor who commented on this above @Ultraexactzz:. --Lapadite (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but have no interest in getting involved. My only input would be trimming it significantly, and I expect an edit war would ensue. No thanks. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
As of 09:15, 9 February 2016‎, the length of the Plot Summary is 839 words. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Articles on Oscar omissions

There are many media articles mentioning/discussing the Academy's omission of this film in the Best Picture and Best Director categories. This is part of the conversation on a lack of diversity present in Academy Award nominations, noted at 88th_Academy_Awards#Criticism_regarding_lack_of_diversity. Do other editors think the media attention on the lack of nominations for this film in those top categories should be mentioned in the article? Here are a number of articles discussing this: Vanity Fair, Indiewire, Quartz, Salon, The Cincinnati Enquirer, The Kansas City Star, Paper, SheWired, Rolling Stone, Flavorwire, The Advocate, Bustle, The A.V. Club, Metro Weekly, LA Times.

Considering that Cheryl Boone Isaacs issued a statement regarding the lack of diversity that included "sexual orientation", I think the article merits a section re response to Carol not being nominated for Best Picture. See: Statement From Academy President Cheryl Boone Isaacs, The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, January 18, 2016. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if a section is warranted, but I would support the inclusion of this media response. Might want to get more input at WT:FILM. Lapadite (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

AndrewOne added some of the information. I expanded it further in a subsection. If anyone prefers a different title to the section, a major rewrite or removal of content please discuss it here. Lapadite (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Film poster

@Film Fan and Johnny Freak: Is there a reason why the original poster uploaded was changed? It's hard to tell from the file history. Lapadite (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

"Thank you" for re-uploading the original poster. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Lapadite (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary, I reversed this edit as wikilinks are allowed and widely used in citations. Works (aliases are website, journal, newspaper, magazine, periodical) are wikilinked, as are publishers when available and relevant. See Template:Citation #URL, #Periodical, and #Publisher subsections. Moreover, accessdates are used in Template:Cite news. And wikilinks in prose may be repeated at the first occurrence after the lead or in lists, tables, info boxes, when useful, per WP:Repeatlink. Lapadite (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Release in Russia

A Russian distributor has acquired rights to the release in Russia. The Russian Duma passed a law in 2013 banning "propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations", which Vladimir Putin defends; and in a TV interview prior to the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics he equated homosexuals with pedophiles, adding that Russia needed to "cleanse" itself of homosexuality. So, all things considered, I think the article needs to include content about the film's release in Russia that mentions the oppressive environment in which it is released. See: Russian Distributor Picks Up 'Carol' Despite Law Against "Gay Propaganda The Hollywood Reporter, December 17, 2015. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah it's noted in Release with the given context. Lapadite (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Doh! My bad. Sorry. Sometimes paragraphs are blurred in the crowd. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Top Ten lists

I removed the Top Ten lists section as it's become superfluous. (See this WP:FILM discussion and WP:IINFO). It is instead summarized in the Accolades section. Lapadite (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

That list is very informative. Years from now it will become a valuable reference. It should be available for future research purposes. Can it be added to the accolades page, or create a page for the data? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
You can add to this discussion at WT:FILM for wider input. I agree that for very acclaimed films these lists can become indiscriminate and unnecessary. At this point, presenting such a lengthy list is redundant and not useful to readers. It can just be summarized here and at the accolades article, noting how many top 10 lists the film appeared on and perhaps how many lists it topped. The top 10 lists are in the cited sources and readers can refer to that. Lapadite (talk) 09:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

This might be redundant to add, but Indiewire polled 21 participating critics from the Criticwire Network on the best films and performances from the New York Film Festival, and Carol was the "overall favorite", topping Best Narrative Feature, Best Director, Best Lead Actress (Blanchett and Mara), Best Screenplay, and Best Cinematography categories.[1]

With library science and research in my background, I am predictable about this, but nevertheless: it should be included. Why not? It's valuable information that will eventually become lost/forgotten with the passage of time if it's not added to the article. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I added it, along with two festival awards, after the Cannes sentence. Lapadite (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Further reading

Further reading section needs to be pruned; there are too many links. See WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:EL. Reviews linked should be added to the Critical reception section, and other notable, relevant content incorporated into the article. I will start adding some of the reviews later. Lapadite (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The following are the reviews that appeared in the section:
First, those I added because they are notable
Second, those I added to provide a general representation of how it was received within English-speaking regions
United States
Britain
Australia
Canada
Took this one out because it doesn't mention the works of photojournalists and street photography that inspired the look of the film:
Pyxis Solitary (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo vs. The Numbers

We keep using bomojo as the source for box office totals, but it always lags behind the reporting by the-n.

Box Office Mojo (as of February 18) reports $29,566,638[2] as the worldwide box office -- whereas The Numbers (as of February 17) reports $31,649,244.[3] That's a $2,082,606 difference.

Why are we relying so much on bomojo? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It generally does. I changed the box office source to The Numbers on Room (2015 film), for example, because Mojo is not adding the international earnings. Lapadite (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Sound decision, Lapadite77. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 23:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
An editing pissing contest is starting to brew. The template citation has been reversed to BOM. However ...
  • As of February 22: Box Office Mojo has not updated Australia, Finland, Italy, Mexico, New Zealand, Portugal, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom. It has not reported on Central America and Hungary.
  • As of 2/23: The Numbers has not updated Finland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, South Africa. It has not reported Iceland, Switzerland (French-speaking).
The Numbers will undoubtedly, as it has consistently done, update all financials in a couple of days and BOM will again fall behind. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

There's no pissing contest. Easy4me mostly (if not exclusively) makes box office and critical reception updates. They changed the source back to Mojo, as they did at Room. I had noted in an edit summary on the latter's article that Mojo has not updated international numbers. They haven't changed it back since. Hopefully they've gotten the message. Lapadite (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"There's no pissing contest." Bad choice of words on my part. It's more like a tennis match. Who will prevail? Venus or Serena? :-) Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Production section "under construction"

I've added more information to the section. There's still more content to be added, particularly in the pre-production, filming and post-production subsections. I'll concern myself with better structure and flow after I've finished incorporating all or most of the content I've read (should be by the end of today). I will return to this in the afternoon or evening. Please don't move things around in this section so the process isn't more cumbersome. Thanks. Lapadite (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Critical reception

Joe Reid of Decider (a division of the New York Post) just published a ranking of all 57 Oscar-nominated movies from 2015. Carol is Number 1. He writes: "Todd Haynes may never be fully embraced by the Academy, and that’s fine. Six nominations is nothing to sneeze at, but a shutout in Best Picture and Best Director says a lot about the niche sensibility that Haynes works from. Which is no excuse for anybody who sees Carol and brushes it off as cold or mannered. Not when there are white-hot infernos, tightly coiled as they are, burning inside of Cate Blanchett, Rooney Mara, Kyle Chandler, hell even Sarah Paulson smolders with vested interest from the sidelines. There is exquisite beauty in things like sets and costumes and music, yes, but it all comes down to those few hopeful shots of Carol and Therese meeting each other’s glances, perfectly captured by Haynes’ camera at the point where the possibilities of something forbidden might just come true. Carol features the best ending of any film this year. Would that its awards narrative had ended so perfectly as well." [4] Also on same date: the Skandies Critics Poll named Best Actress: Rooney Mara, Best Screenplay: Phyllis Nagy, and Carol as Number 2 of Top 10 Movies of 2015. [5]

I understand why the Top Ten list section had to be removed, but the *Critical reception* section is anemic. Is there any way that a more elaborate history can be provided about the critics and publications that named Carol one of the best films of 2015? In the distant future cinephiles, film students, and researchers will come to this article seeking facts about the film and this kind of information will probably be lost by then. Perhaps the last paragraph of *Accolades* can also be moved under *Critical reception*? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 10:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I moved the last paragraph of *Accolades* ("Carol was named one of the best films of 2015 by numerous critics and publications, appearing in over 130 critics' Top Ten lists....") to *Critical reception* because the content is information about how Carol was received by critics. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
There's is much to focus on in addition of content and improvements. I'm still focusing on the entire production section (and on the accolades article). Go ahead and start collating reviews and summarizing them if you wish. No need to wait for a section to be completed. This article still needs a lot more work to be considered comprehensive, but there's no rush. Lapadite (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Connection made between Edie Windsor and character of Carol

Roberta Kaplan represented Ms. Edie Windsor before the Supreme Court in her challenge against the Defense of Marriage Act. I'm posting this because it mentions "Carol" (the character and film) and, well, it should be read: Why More LGBT-Rights Stories Need to Be Brought to the Screen (Guest Column). Roberta Kaplan, Variety, February 22, 2016. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Further reading .2

Regarding removal of "The nearness of you – Carol and the cine-poetics of love" from the list: Joanna Di Mattia is a film critic and writer in Australian media (see: http://www.killyourdarlingsjournal.com/author/joanna-di-mattia/ and http://sensesofcinema.com/author/joanna-di-mattia/). Her site is a "reliable source". The purpose of a further reading list is to provide, per Wikipedia, "works which a reader may consult for additional and more detailed coverage of the subject of the article." This article was included because it's an essential insight about the aesthetics of the film. The article merits inclusion in the *Further reading* section. I found that although the original site was shut down, it was re-opened as an upgraded version (its secondary name is "Cinematic Encounters in the Dark"). The nearness of you – Carol and the cine-poetics of love. Joanna Di Mattia, In A Lonely Place, January 21, 2016 Pyxis Solitary (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Year setting

The article currently states the film takes place in 1952, which is only half accurate. It begins around the Christmas season on 1951 and then moves to 1952; this is indicated explicitly in the hotel scene before Carol and Therese make love, as the announcer on the television wishes its viewers a happy 1952, meaning everything before that, obviously, takes place in 1951. --Matt723star (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for jumping the gun. Didn't realize it was indeed 1952/53. --Matt723star (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Cast

Before adding to the article, I wanted to get opinions, but shouldn't the actor/actress portraying the roles of Jack and Rindy be added to the cast? Since they are mentioned in the plot outline?

Plus the review article for Carol on Variety include Nik Pajick who portrays the role of Jack, and Kevin Crowley who plays Fred Haymes. Both are relevant roles.[6] Vmars22 (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Per policy in WP:MOSFILM > WP:FILMCAST:
"A film's cast may vary in size and in importance. A film may have an ensemble cast, or it may only have a handful of actors. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film: billing, speaking roles, named roles, cast lists in reliable sources, blue links (in some cases), etc. If there are many cast members worth identifying, there are two recommended options: the names may be listed in two or three columns, or the names may be grouped in prose."
When deciding to include actor names and the characters they play, the general rule of thumb has been "opening credits vs. closing credits". Do the names appear before the film begins or after it ends. Are they major or minor roles? (Although 99% of Carrie Brownstein's landed on the cutting room floor, her involvement in the production was publicized beforehand.) Lapadite77 is the more knowledgeable editor regarding Wikipedia editing policies that has been working on this article. Perhaps he might clarify this better. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 05:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I just checked the opening credits and actor names in them appear in the following order: Cate Blanchett, Rooney Mara, TITLE, Sarah Paulson, Jake Lacy, John Magaro, Cory Michael Smith, Carrie Brownstein – Kevin Crowley – Nik Pajic, And Kyle Chandler. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
As WP:MOSFILM says, cast lists comprise "the most relevant actors and roles". Editors follow rule of thumb above, notably billing and cast lists in reliable sources; if there's uncertainty or a disagreement a talk consensus settles it. Variety and The Hollywood Reporter list the same actors: Cate Blanchett, Rooney Mara, Sarah Paulson, Kyle Chandler, Jake Lacy, John Magaro, Cory Michael Smith, Carrie Brownstein, Kevin Crowley, Nik Pajic; RogerEbert.com lists all but Nik Pajic. Lapadite (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand that but he's mentioned in the plot outline in the article, shouldn't he be added because he's a somewhat relevant character? Vmars22 (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Nick Pajick? He could be added per the above. Lapadite (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Added him and Crowley, shouldn't Trent Rowland (Jack Taft) be added since mentioned in the plot outline on the article? :) Vmars22 (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

See the Main Title Cards in the production notes (pg 22). Those are the names that should be in the cast list, as noted in the sources above. Lapadite (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I have seen the production notes, but I don't understand why Jack shouldn't be left out, Carrie Brownstein is listed but she's only in the film for what a minute? :) Vmars22 (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Vmars22: Wikipedia has rules for editing and policies for article styles. It's not a fan site where someone can add whatever they think belongs in it. Sometimes you have to abide by rules, even if you don't agree with them. If you want to create a discussion about it with admins (someone help me here 'cause I can't remember what area of Wikipedia), you can do that and see where it goes. Carrie Brownstein appears in the opening credits because her role when filmed was greater than how it was reduced in the final cut. The crediting of actors are negotiated and included in their contracts before they set foot in the production. If you go to The Weinstein Company website, the actors highlighted are (in this order): Blanchett, Mara, Paulson, Lacy, Smith, Brownstein, Chandler. If you look at the Cast Bios in the Production Notes by Number 9 Films, the actors included in the document are: Blanchett, Mara, Paulson, Brownstein, Chandler, Lacy, Smith. For the Main Title cards they credited Blanchett, Mara, TITLE, Paulson, Lacy, Magaro, Smith, Brownstein - Crowley - Pajic, and Chandler — these are the only names that should be listed in this Wikipedia article. It doesn't matter what names a film critic or interviewer includes in their piece. They're a third party. What matters is what the producers determined to be the prominent actors. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know about Carrie's scenes being reduced on the film. So, using a poster/production notes (by billing) determines the relevant cast/etc? Vmars22 (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

In a nutshell: you cannot add the name of every actor that you think had more time onscreen, or that you personally think had a more relevant role in a film. This is Wikipedia -- not Wikia. As explained before: follow the names of actors that appear in the opening credits (i.e. the Title cards). When you don't have access to the production notes, you at least have access to the film itself. If it hasn't been released yet, then you cool your editing jets and wait for it to be so that you can see who the producers consider the principal actors in their film. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright then :) It just depends on the title credits, poster (possibly?) and production notes? Makes sense. Even if a role is some what important, its just what the producers think are the principal actors. I guess this talk is resolved then? :) Vmars22 (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Just one more thing! Can "as listed on Roger Ebert.com" be changed to as listed on production notes? Vmars22 (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

You're referring to the source screen advisory about cast names, right? Done. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Yup! Thanks! :) Vmars22 (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Production companies

While looking at the production notes, I noticed "IN ASSOCIATION WITH STUDIOCANAL , HANWAY FILMS, GOLDCREST, DIRTY FILMS, IN FILMS weren't added to the info box expect SC since its the UK distributor, aren't they production companies? I'm not sure what determines the production companies that are added, but should they or shouldn't they be added? Vmars22 (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Keywords: "In association with". But which are the production companies that forked over the most $$ and which one oversaw the production itself? (A) Number 9 Films owns the copyright and (B) together with Killer Films procured the (C) major backing from Film4 Productions (the film opens with The Weinstein Company logo followed by the Film 4 logo. TWC came on board in 2013 during Cannes). Template:Infobox film doesn't address associated production companies, but it does say you only:
  • "Insert the name(s) of the producer(s), separated using {{Plain list}}. Link each producer to his/her appropriate article if possible. Only producer credits should be included, not executive or associate producers, etc."
This source explains how you separate the wheat from the chaff:
This is an opportunity for you to learn the differences in the hierarchy of the title "Film producer" and the differences between the rounds, the squares, and the triangles. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

So they wouldn't be added because they didn't really have major involvement? I might have misunderstood it, but is that why they don't get added to the info box? :) Vmars22 (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The producers that appear in the infobox are those considered the major players. Can you imagine what an infobox would look like if a film had 15 "In Association" production companies and all 15 names + major players were included? I don't see why the ones involved in producing Carol couldn't be mentioned in the *Production* section. What does @Lapadite77: think about this idea? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The more I'm notified, and see all the threads, the more I'm reminded of all the research i've yet to complete for this article (I'll get to it, really). As for associated companies and producers, they aren't included in the infobox. Only the primary producers are mentioned in the infobox. The American Film Institute, British Film Institute, AllMovie, Lumiere, and Baseline StudioSystems archives/databases/catalogs, along with industry sources such as Variety, Screen International, The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline, (plus The New York Times), will confirm which of the producers and companies are central (other helpful sites include Box Office, Turner Classic Movies, Film Daily (for films from 1915-1970), and TV Guide). If a film is nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture, the nominated producers and companies are the ones included in the infobox (with potentially few exceptions handled on a case by case basis). Associated companies and producers generally aren't included in prose unless they are notable/ have notable involvement. Lapadite (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

So like for example, you wouldn't add Dirty Films because its just the banner Cate and Andrew are producing under and didn't really have any major involvement other than Cate starring in the film, obviously. Vmars22 (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

She was an executive producer on the film. Exec producers are not included in the infobox. Production companies that serve as an exec producer are not included in the infobox. I edited the sentence about Blanchett serving as executive producer to include the name of her company. For the record, this is what appears in The Weinstein Company "CAROL Production Notes" (pg. 3):
  • Elizabeth Karlsen and Stephen Woolley of Number 9 Films produced CAROL alongside Christine Vachon of Killer Films. The film was developed by Number 9 Films with Film4, who also co-financed alongside Goldcrest Films. It was produced in association with Dirty Films co- founders Cate Blanchett and Andrew Upton. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Section needed: *Adaptation from source material*

Per WP:MOSFILM > 5. Secondary content > 5.4: The article is missing a section that is not only appropriate to include, but of importance in view of the source and its social significance:

== Adaptation from source material ==

I think that the adaptation of a novel in which the story is told from the point of view of the character Therese into a film where the character Carol is given her own perspective, merits this section.

Content in the article involving Phyllis Nagy's adaptation of the novel that now appears under *Development* can be transferred under it. The Nagy citations associated with the adaptation that have already been used in the article are:

  • Cocozza, Paula (November 12, 2015). "How Patricia Highsmith's Carol became a film: 'Lesbianism is not an issue. It's a state of normal'"
  • Emily ( November 13, 2015) Phyllis Nagy: On Screen Writing and Carol". The Laughing Lesbian.
  • Gayne, Zach (November 20, 2015). "Interview: Screenwriter Phyllis Nagy On Adapting Carol"
  • Jordan, Louis (November 19, 2015). "Carol's Happy Ending". Slate.
  • Park, Jennie E. (December 2, 2015). "Carol: "Less is More" when adapting Highsmith".

Since I am proposing this section requiring editing, I would be willing to do the heavy lifting for it. This article (and its sub-articles), however, owes its breadth of information and quality of content to the diligence and care by @Lapadite77:. So I defer this suggestion to her input. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, those sections aren't really necessary or a good fit for all articles, and such details are already covered in the production section. I think the production section currently does a solid job of chronicling the development of the project, particularly Nagy's challenges and decisions. There are still improvements to be made and content to be added of course. But moving the info on creative changes and challenges into a subsection would disrupt the flow (at least at this point). I think it's best, for this article, to keep a linear account (as much as one can) of the journey in major subsections. The article is still developing; when all or most of the notable content is added we can reassess structure/how the information is presented. This article's a good candidate for WP:FA down the line, and I might nominate for WP:GA after critical reviews are added, so we'll get more outside opinion on it (and peer review is ideal for that, if you want to make use of it). Lapadite (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


________________________________________________________________________________________

  1. ^ "Best Films and Performances from NYFF 2015". Indiewire. Retrieved February 9, 2016.
  2. ^ "Carol". Box Office Mojo. February 18, 2016.
  3. ^ "Carol (2015) Theatrical Performance". The Numbers. February 17, 2016.
  4. ^ A Ranking of Every Single Movie Nominated for an Oscar This Year. Joe Reid, Decider, February 22, 2016
  5. ^ The Skandies Critics Poll Goes for 'Mad Max: Fury Road' and 'Carol. Sam Adams, Criticwire, February 22, 2016
  6. ^ Chang, Justin (May 16, 2015). "Film Review: 'Carol'". Variety. Retrieved March 12, 2016.

Roles reduced and scenes deleted in final cut

Scenes being deleted and actors having their roles reduced in the final cut of a movie comes with the territory of filmmaking. Mentioning cuts that affected the leads and the supporting actors in the opening credits is useful, but including every actor role reduced — such as the character of Florence played by Ann Reskin — is information overkill. (If a minor role were to be included in the information about the final cut, you then need to include the other minor roles that got the knife, too). Pyxis Solitary (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Right. Vmars22, please refer to this explanation. Lapadite (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I will use this from now on, it makes more sense now explained :) Vmars22 (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC) One other thing, should Sarah Paulson's discussion of her "key scene" being cut be removed from the article? Or not? Vmars22 (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? You must be. Because after my comment specifically stated "and the supporting actors in the opening credits" you still come back with that question? Do you know who Sarah Paulson is? She's the THIRD name of the title cards. The name that follows the title of the film. I don't think you're actually paying much attention to all the explanations we've been providing you about editing on Wikipedia. And I am not someone who would ever let anyone play me like a fiddle. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I know Sarah has third billing in the film, I am paying attention to what you've been providing with me on here, I just meant, that because it's only one single scene, versus Brownstein and Reskin who filmed more scenes, but got trimmed down. Vmars22 (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
The important actor is Paulson, not Brownstein. The important role is Abby, not Genevieve Cantrell (OT: in the novel Cantrell appears and is mentioned in the last chapter -- in only 4 pages to be precise -- and she serves to propel Therese to seek Carol). Reskin has onscreen time, but the character of Florence in the novel is marginal (OT: Florence finds Therese's letter meant for Carol and sells it to Harge; other than this after-the-fact revelation by Carol she's the maid and nothing more). Quite frankly, the onscreen time that Brownstein got is on par with the amount of time her character was given in the final chapter of the novel. Bottom line: minor roles are just that. You don't litter an article about a film with blah-blah-blah about every minor role that got trimmed during final cut. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, Florence in the novel is much bigger, I think in the final cut of the film, she's only in the one scene right? When Carol and Therese arrive at Carol's home. Vmars22 (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
This is what I wrote: "...but the character of Florence in the novel is marginal". This is what you responded: "Yeah, Florence in the novel is much bigger". Pyxis Solitary (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Added a scene with Mara and Lacy being cut out due to the fact they are relevant actors in the film, and important, and a statement about the deleted scenes from Haynes. Vmars22 (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Carol (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 21:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Trivia re character name in film vs. novel

In the film closing credits the name of the character played by Carrie Brownstein appears as Genevieve "Cantrell". In the novel The Price of Salt (Carol) the character's last name is spelled Cranell. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Isn't Therese in the book a stage designer vs in the film she's a photographer? :) Vmars22 (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Aspiring theatre set designer in the novel -- aspiring photographer in the film. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Release

@Pyxis Solitary: @Lapadite77: I would like to get your opinions before I edit the article on adding information about the films release-date previously being December 18, 2015. As listed here.[1] And also listed on here.[2] Is it more or less trivia? Or relevant to the article? Vmars22 (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's relevant. The Entertainment Weekly article is a better source for that. A simple statement on the release change would suffice (no conjecture on the reasons). Lapadite (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
@Lapadite77: @Vmars22: I added the info on release change from December to November. I had already intended to edit the Entertainment Weekly citation because it was missing the last/first name parameters and just went ahead and killed two birds with one edit. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
@Pyxis Solitary: @Lapadite77: Hi there! I included information about the double 10 vinyl release of the soundtrack, on this article and the soundtrack, I found it primarily through Amazon but didn't know if that was considered reliable, I found another source, but I'm not quite sure if the citation I included is better than the Amazon one. Should it stay on this article or just stay primarily on the soundtrack one? Thanks! :) Vmars22 (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@Vmars22: Template:Cite web#URL: "Do not link to any commercial booksellers, such as Amazon.com." This applies to any product advertised and/or sold on Amazon. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Chang, Justin (May 15, 2015). "Film Review:'Carol'". Variety. Retrieved April 22, 2016.
  2. ^ McGovern, Joe (July 30, 2015). "Todd Haynes' Carol changes its release date". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved April 22, 2016.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Carol (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:

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: 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) 23:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Little White Lies magazine "Carol" issue

For those who are interested, the Little White Lies edition (No. 62 - Nov/Dec 2015) devoted to Carol is available on Internet Archive @ https://archive.org/details/Little.White.Lies.062.November.December.2015.Carol Pyxis Solitary talk 08:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carol_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1079332450"