Talk:Notting Hill (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Notting Hill (film) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
May 25, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

	Comedy Portal This article is within the scope of the Comedy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to comedy, comics, comedians, comedy movies, and the like. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

could u pls tell me we i could the the brete that julia wore in notting which is a chanel black soft brete.

grasshopper_634@hotmail.com

Beret? Pcb21| Pete 15:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Budget 2 Should this be in the lead? 3 Location of Shop 4 Profit 5 GA 6 Too Much Detail

[edit] Budget

I got the $42 Million (US) figure from http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=nottinghill.htm

[edit] Should this be in the lead?

"Upon release the movie was heavily criticised by some for presenting an 'ethnically cleansed' vision of West London despite being set in one of London's most diverse and multicultural areas."

Is this so important that it should appear in the lead paragraph, even before the story synopsis? I don't think so. I would also like to know who the mentioned "some" are. Surely not the average viewer - at least I can't remember thinking "gee, what an 'ethnically cleansed' vision of West London" after seeing the movie. Shinobu 13:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The 'some' were the press reviews at the time as well as discussions that occured in other sections of the media. The movie location was chosen because that area of london was, for lack of a better term, 'fashionable' at that time (arguably it still is), it had the ethnic multiculturalism and vibrancy that London (and Britain in general after the era of 'cool britainia' had begun) was seeking to celebrate. The movie used the marketability of the location without addressing it in great detail, presumably to make it more appealing to american audiences (Richard Curtis has been critised for taking the bumbling british persona to unheard of levels). This aspect (or failing depending on your pov) of the movie is also mentioned in wiki history of british cinema.

Id agree that 'some' should ultimately be replaced with a more detailed listing of were the critisim came from, but the information is certainly relevant and important enough to warrant a mention.82.46.144.194 15:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean "some political and community leaders in London (and Britain in general)"; it is doubtful if every single person in the country was seeking to do so. Further, the area was chosen by Richard Curtis because that's where he lived at the time (and hence the film was seen by some as an extended real estate ad, since prices went up after the film and he duly sold his property). It was also rumoured that the 'whitewash' of the film was so that it would appeal to American audiences whose idea of Britain had been formed from postcards and other eclectic sources. The point should not be made in any event without a quoted source.

[edit] Location of Shop

Does anybody know where the actual bookshop used for the film is based, if indeed it existed at all? --Supergussy 21:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The following is noted on IMDb.com, but seem to contradict each other (and are not sourced):

• Thacker's bookshop is actually an antiques shop in real life, next to a butcher. One or two doors down from the butchers is an office for Richard Curtis' production company.
• The real Travel Bookshop had a sign in its window saying "We're almost famous." It would sell non-travel books when it fitted in with a theme. For example, selling Martin Amis' London Fields when doing a Notting Hill theme. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TAnthony (talk • contribs) 22:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Profit

Does anyone know of how much money the film made at the box office? Could someone please find out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.69.6 (talk • contribs) 5 September 2006

IMDB.com says $116 million, I'll add that in ... TAnthony 23:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA

The really long quotes in the text are hard to follow, so I set off the one in "Filming" with cquote. The others at the end of "Casting" and "Filming" are borderline. This seems fairly complete according to WP:MOSFILMS. I'm not really sure what "losing out to Star Wars" means in the "Box office" section. The lead sentence says that it won a BAFTA, "and both won and was nominated for several others." This is unclear, as it implies it was nominated for a other BAFTAs and won a few. Likewise "...the request was declined due to huge problems that fans attending a Leonardo DiCaprio premiere had caused the police." What problems? When? Why is this related? Assuming these issues will get fixed, seems GA quality to me. Gimmetrow 01:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made all of the fixes you have suggested, aside from the other quotes, which I think are fine. Thanks for the review! Gran² 05:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. On the "fake premiere" sentence, how about: "Police had found the fans at a recent Leonardo DiCaprio premiere problematic, and the police were concerned the same problems might occur at the staged premiere." Gimmetrow 14:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That's better, so I've implemented it. Gran² 14:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too Much Detail

The article's well written, but gives away too much of the film's detail. Even though this film is not that recent (1999), I think there'd still be people wanting to see the film who're just looking to this article for some info.

I personally would take out some of the parts of the article that gives away the ending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.96.176 (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry but if you don't want spoilers, then don't read the plot section. Gran² 07:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)