Talk:The Conversation

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

References to use[edit]

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • King, Mike (2008). "The Conversation and Enemy of the State". The American Cinema of Excess: Extremes of the National Mind on Film. McFarland. pp. 58–59. ISBN 0786439882.
  • King, Mike (2008). "The Conversation and American Psycho". The American Cinema of Excess: Extremes of the National Mind on Film. McFarland. pp. 178–179. ISBN 0786439882. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs) 01:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coppola comment[edit]

Source of the Coppola comment is the Region 1 DVD audio commentary.

Missing plot spoilers[edit]

I get the feeling that this is an attempt to avoid giving spoilers, which is exactly what I came to this Wikipedia article for. If that's the case, I shouldn't have to argue that this is misguided. Anyways, I did find a spoiler. I would update the article myself, but I haven't seen the movie.216.195.28.24 (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

will sort that out soon, thanks for pointing it out. Geoff B (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if the plot description of the ending can really be taken as straightforwardly as it is described. My interpretation is that Harry has gone nuts, doesn't really have a bug in his apartment, and that there probably was not even a murder. I'm not saying that should be taken as canon either, but should it not even be raised as a possibility? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.75.93 (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Sequal' (re: "Enemy of the State") should be taken out[edit]

While Gene Hackman's character Harry Caul is similar to his character Edward "Brill" Lyle in Enemy of the State, there has been no canonizing elements attributed by the producers of either film, despite some critics' comparison. Therefore, I would not use the title "Sequel" as it would confuse the reader. While there may be coincidental elements that may have been used, such as the identification badge Hackman's Caul wore being used as a legacy id badge used by Hackman's Lyle, there are too many elements that don't match up, including age, mental demenaor, medical condition (consumption of alcohol in Conversations by Caul contradicts Lyle's hypoglycemia), and career track. While it's not completely impossible that Hackman's two characters could be the same person, it is folly to call Enemy of the State a sequel to The Conversation.


Hey is it oke if I add some stuff regarding the films reception???? I don`t know how the whole English source citing works, in Dutch wiki we just have a source list, so if I make mistakes could you please help instead of undo my hard work that way wiki will never improve!!!! 62.45.130.67 (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Screenplay Development Timeline[edit]

There's a possible error in the passage about the film's production. If Antonioni's movie Blowup was 1966, and if, according to the quotation, Coppola saw it only "a year or two before," then it can't be true that the screenplay was completed in the mid-60s. Flagging this, but don't have time to follow up just now. Thank you. Eroston (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a 'cheat'[edit]

Careful listening to the phrase "He'd kill us if he got the chance" as spoken/played early in the film places virtually 'equal' emphasis on the key words "kill us", inferring (just) a possible threat to the speaker and his paramour. At the end of the film, when the phrase is heard, the word "us" clearly has heavier emphasis than the word "kill", inferring a different meaning, i.e., justification for the speaker to act first. Or, was this just Harry's perception of what was said? Tricky! Don't you just love what they do in movies?66.81.105.227 (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Box office[edit]

I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so please excuse me if I'm not approaching this properly, but I see a couple of brief edits that can be done to the box office section of this article. I think the edits show, rather than tell, and eliminate editorializing.

Could we rewrite to say the following:

The film made $4,420,000 in its domestic gross on a $1,600,000 budget. Coppola's The Godfather Part II, also released in 1974, grossed more than $47,500,000 domestically on a $13,000,000 budget.

Thoughts? Vivatheviva (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, feel free to make the edit yourself! There's really no need to discuss such a simple edit. To be precise the first sentence still needs a source though, but don't worry about it. I'll include the ref for that in the infobox template myself. Heinerj (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying! I will go ahead and make the change. Like I said, I'm new to this. Vivatheviva (talk) 06:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No alternative end mentioned?[edit]

Why is the alternative end not mentioned at all? Harry is arrested for the alleged murder of his girlfriend Amy and her alleged lover after their dead bodies where found in the hotel room, where the director was murdered. Any clue? VINCENZO1492 23:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good detailed summary, maybe could become a link?[edit]

http://www.filmsite.org/conv.htmlMarcin862 (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Conversation. 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, 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) 09:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Conversation (website) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 September 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Conversation → The Conversation (film) – My bot and I just changed 150 instances of [[The Conversation]] to [[The Conversation (website)|The Conversation]]. There are only 140 articles linking to the article about the film. Since new additions of [[The Conversation]] could be either about the film or the website, I would like to have The Conversation be a redirect to Conversation (disambiguation). Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Vpab15 (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • For convenience: 3-year pageviews analysis about all "The Conversation" articles [1] adapted from the previous (failed) RM at Talk:The_Conversation_(website)#Requested_move_31_January_2019. No such user (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed three new links from The Conversation to The Conversation (website) today. GoingBatty (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Support The Conversation be a redirect to Conversation (disambiguation). The website/magazine/journal is a niche academic thing that is very attractive as a secondary source in many Wikipedia articles, while remaining obscure for more readers. No primary topic for “The Conversation”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cautious support. The ngrams pageviews show some 3:1 ratio for the film versus all other "The Conversation"s which makes it borderline primary. Still, the disambiguation factor described by the nom, plus the fact that it's borderline ambiguous with all other "Conversation" entries, plus that the film is not quite The Godfather league tip the balance just enough to move. No such user (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh: The Wiki internal linking problem isn't entirely coupled to the article title. My suggestion would be to change all internal links for the film to [[The Conversation (film)|The Conversation]]. Any new links to [[The Conversation]] can then be checked periodically to see where they were intended to go. That approach does not require the film article title to actually be changed. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support there are a lot of subjects though this does get the most views. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is the primary target. Also the most notable use of "The Conversation". ~ HAL333 21:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The film gets considerably more page views than the similarly named articles combined. The film itself was also well-received, which furthers the case for it being a primary topic in terms of importance. The above comments supporting the move don't exactly make a strong case for doing so. -- Calidum 15:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Film has been notified of this discussion. Vpab15 (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject United States has been notified of this discussion. Vpab15 (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. The title is borderline generic, and there are numerous reasonably significant matching titles. BD2412 T 02:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it seems likely there is WP:NOPRIMARY, and, at the very least, disambiguating all will yield clearer usage statistics in a few months after the move. We can always re-evaluate after we see those results. -- Netoholic @ 02:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Hugely influential film, primary topic. Binksternet (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the film remains the notable primary, and per discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 8 February 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is consensus against this proposal, and since this is being repeatedly proposed without success, I suggest there should be no further RMs on this in the near future, until and unless some significant new evidence (e.g. page views or usage in sources) showing that the primary topic may have changed.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Conversation → The Conversation (film) – This is a very generic title, and there are several articles of the same name and likely more to come. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support per my arguments last time. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment :Sorry, I didn't see the previous discussion, but strongly support moving this article. The Conversation website is heavily used, and while the film is notable, the title is very generic and there are likely to be more articles with this name appearing over time. And, as time goes on, older films do lose their popularity as a target, however worthy. Also, a bit US-centric. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are several problems with this request. The movie is clearly the primary topic, with the website second. It's clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. We also can't move the page because of hypothetical articles that might be created, that is pretty clearly WP:CRYSTAL. Mannysoloway (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since the film article's main contender is the website article The Conversation (website), which has about one-fifth the pageviews in comparison. In addition, the film has significantly more contextual significance. Furthermore, I find "The" distinct enough here to separate "The Conversation" from other variations like "Conversations" or just "Conversation". To type "The Conversation" is a very specific thing to do, and it's much more likely this film than the other possibilities, further boosted by the significance that it has that the website does not. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it looks like the last RM discussion ended not even four months ago, so it seems premature to try for a new consensus considering no particular change since then. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The current situation is suitable. The film was notable earlier than the other contenders, and remains a prominent magnet for searches. Stability in article naming is a good thing. Binksternet (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would just like to point out that pageviews can be an unreliable guide where the title is such a generic one - we do not know whether half those who landed on it were actually looking for the film, and The Conversation website gets a good chunk of hits. Per GoingBatty's earlier comments, this page keeps getting linked to in error in citations. I instigated the move suggestion ahead of seeing the previous one - my bad - but I count 6 supports, one neutral and 4 opposes above, so I'm not sure why it wasn't passed then. SmokeyJoe, No such user, BarrelProof, BD2412, Netoholic and others may wish to take another look. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got pinged. There is no PrimaryTopic for “The Conversation”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see any other candidate for becoming the primary topic. Dimadick (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I didn't get a ping, but my comments from four months ago still stand. If I wasn't involved already I would consider closing this as pointy. Calidum 15:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Erik and Binky. (But maybe there's a plot to get this RM murdered...) Martinevans123 (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my comments in the RM only 4 months ago... though I think this should be SNOW closed as really there is nothing new being offered so soon after the last one. -- Netoholic @ 03:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not delving into this question again this soon after the previous discussion. BD2412 T 05:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (last) I can see that this is going to end up being closed, but I would just like to reiterate for the record, that the previous move request got 6 supports, one neutral and 4 opposes, and IMO that counts as consensus in favour. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You engaged in WP:CANVASS above by pinging only those who supported a move in the previous discussion. Let the record show that too. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Erik. I had a look at Conversation (disambiguation), and "The Conversation" seems to be the primary topic for that exact title. And the film is on tonight on BBC2 in the UK too! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - "The Conversation", being so generic, could refer to multiple topics. With only a few hundred daily views, this doesn't seem like it's likely to be such an overwhelming primary topic. And, if we look outside of the United States, it is unlikely that readers from further abroad would expect to end up here. Adding a parenthetical seems like the best option. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest it has been well-known in the English-speaking world outside the US. But it's probably its 1974 pedigree that mitigates any claim to be primary topic. It was perhaps seen as a bit shocking in the 1970s: in 2022, not so much. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    RandomCanadian, not sure where you get "only a few hundred page views" from, but for the film's article, the last 30 days shows a daily average of 1,374. The website's article shows a daily average of 288. Basically, the film's article is viewed 4-5 times more than the website's article. And none of the other articles called The Conversation come close to these two. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "A few hundred" - yeah, 1300 is a few hundred (it's not like, say, a few thousand daily views or more). However, even disregarding that, page views are not a sina qua non for determining primary topics (or lack thereof). "The Conversation" (and "Conversation") is such a common phrase that here, helping readers is also a concern, and putting a little disambiguation does no harm, especially in light WP:PRECISION (which does suggest that naturalness and consistency with otherwise common practice is a good thing - given how frequently readers are faced with articles about films which end with (film), and how this film is relatively obscure owing to it's age, it would be entirely logical here); and to the fact that WP:COMMONNAME refers to usage in reliable sources. No reliable sources or analysis thereof have been presented to support the notion that "The Conversation", when employed in reliable sources, overwhelmingly refers to one random American movie from 1974. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, as long as we're seeing the same numbers. I get everything that you say, but even while "The Conversation" is generic in a general sense, there aren't actually that many notable topics called "The Conversation". Readers need to get prompted by something in their world. Just because a term can be generic doesn't mean readers are randomly and frequently typing in generic terms to see where it goes. (If you really want to argue that many readers prefix broad-concept nouns with "the" in their searches, feel free to do so.) The disambiguation page and the articles other than for the website The Conversation basically have "no" pageviews compared to the film. At the end of the day, the goal is to get readers where they most likely want to go. If a handful of readers of all of these don't want the film article, they can keep going to the disambiguation page to find what they want. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think most people knows what "a conversation" is, as well as the general concept of "conversation". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:The Conversation[edit]

If only it were possible, would it not be fitting if (for once) this Talk Page could be renamed "The Conversation"? Or might the spooks at the NSA/CIA have something to say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.182 (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Conversation&oldid=1194325854"