Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984 film)

Untitled

1984 is the British title of this film, it was released elsewhere under the title Nineteen Eighty-Four.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlloyd (talk • contribs) 02:59, 3 August 2004 (UTC)

The on-screen title is Nineteen Eighty-Four. Vote for adopting this as the official title. Lee M 12:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The film was given limited release in the United States in December 1984 to qualify for the Oscars.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.179.166 (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The music

"The Eurythmics fourth album 1984 (For the Love of Big Brother) was subsequently released as a soundtrack to the film, and includes the track "Sexcrime" which was released as a single. (A little sidenote: many people have been fond of the original Eurythmics soundtrack for the movie, which was experimental and dark, and ironically, by eradicating this soundtrack for the DVD release, the director commited the very thing which makes this movie so frightening - he altered history)"

I've extracted the following and made a rewrite of the music section for several reasons:

1. The situation as described was inaccurate - in the cinematic release, the one Eurythmics track used in the film was over the closing credits. This was done against Michael Radford's consent, possibly without his knowlege, for purely commercial reasons (Eurythmics were under contract to Virgin Records at the time).

2. Radford made a public statement at the time that the film on cinematic release was not the film he had delivered to the producers. I don't believe, therefore, that the comment that Radford "altered history" holds water. What he actually did was to restore the film he had made to its original state so that it would be seen by viewers of the DVD as he intended.

3. The page is actually supposed to be about the film, not whether people like or dislike the contribution of various people to the music soundtrack. The section on the music was a lot bigger than the section on what the film was actually about. Eurythmics fans can surely argue the merits of their music on the Eurythmics page, if they wish. --Stephen Burnett 12:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Might I just add, in reference to point 1, that the original UK video release follows the cinematic release in having just one Eurythmics track ("Julia") over the end credits. The video actually contains the full-length version of the track, even though the credits themselves end quite early in the song. The rest just plays out over a blank screen. --Bonalaw 12:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC).

When I saw the theatrical release late in 1984, it did not seem to feature the Eurythmics tracks that were releases at the time of the film. For example the Eurythmics hit 'Sex Crime', was not featured. I heard the opposite of what the article suggests, that the Eurythmic's tracks had been removed following a row. Gomez2002 12:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Remake

as we seem to be in a era of remakes (aka king kong, Resident evil, superman etc...), is there any nod to a 21st century version?86.31.236.116 10:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering about a remake myself. I checked IMDB and it does have a mysterious listing for 1984 and next to it (2010). When you click on it there is nothing at all, no listing of possible actors or who is directing it. This would suck since Iwanted to do the remake, Im a wannabe screenwriter. How's this for some ideas. Anthony Hopkins as O'Brien, Clive Owen as Winston Smith, Kate Beckinsale as Julia, and Brian Cox as Charrington, and finally Ian Mckellen as Goldstein. --76.31.242.174 (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

V For Vendetta

Why the hell is there "V For Vendetta" in the See Also list? Just because something similar happened to both films? Why dont we add "Fahrenheit 451" and the "BAFTA awards" in the same way? I suggest the removal of these links.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.224.137 (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, since after 2 weeks I got zero responces, I'll just proceed and delete the V For Vendetta entry, feel free to add it back if you see a reason to.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.90.100 (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's one thing I noticed very quickly after seeing the two films: quite ironic that the actor who played Winston Smith should also play the Big Brother-like figure in a very similar film. That's the link, not the situation. Backgroundbob 01:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove from Category:Films which explore libertarian themes

1984 is more about totalarism and its perils than libertarianism. futurebird 21:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

Is this on DVD or VHS or downloadable in US? 71.50.69.27 02:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

1984 (film) or Nineteen Eighty-Four (film)

I'm starting this talk section to discuss moving this page. I'll move existing comments from the top of the talk page here and continue the discussion. --Steven J. Anderson 01:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please register your views and your reasoning below.

Nineteen Eighty-Four (film):

The film is listed this way at imdb. "1984" is listed as an alternate title (not the primary title) in the UK. If someone else has information to the contrary, please provide a source.--Steven J. Anderson 02:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The UK title on screen and as certified by the BBFC is Nineteen Eighty-Four. 1984 only gained currency because of the stylised logo used in the UK and elsewhere. Nick Cooper 21:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

more differences from the novel?

Are there any more differences from the novel? Differences in events? Differences in dialogue? 218.215.143.107 01:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This part in the main article

"In the novel, Winston admits making love to a prostitute - in the film, this is omitted. "

Is not true as he admitted paying $2 to make love to a prostitute. However this is no editable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.245.27.182 (talk) 11:03, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

1. In the film, Winston is served some wine by O'Brien himself. In the book, a servant who is identified as a member of the Brotherhood serves Winston and Julia some wine.

There is a servant in the film, too. He definitely serves Wiston! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.64.54.248 (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The article suggests Julia was not at O'Brien's apartment with Winston in the novel. As far as I understood, she was there but O'Brien told her to leave before Winston. Oh Frustration (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Why does it say that Winston is killed in the novel? I've never come across that interpretation before. Mariavite (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The quote I seem to remember from the end of the novel was something like "As the long awaited bullet was entering his brain ..." But it's been years since I read it, I could be wrong. It doesn't seem like a novel interpretation to me. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does say that in the penultimate paragraph of the novel, but he is sitting in the café, ignoring what is going on around him, and half-remembering, half- imagining (or having a vision of?) himself back in the Ministry of Love: "He was in the public dock, confessing everything, implicating everybody. He was walking down the white-tiled corridor, with the feeling of walking in sunlight, and an armed guard at his back. The long-hoped-for bullet was entering his brain." In the next paragraph (the last of the novel), his mind comes back to where he is (in the café) and he is pleased that he has been cured: "But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother." Kmasters0 (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Release Date

is the 10th, Oct. 1984 the release-date for England or for the US? -- Hartmann Schedel (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Brownell's comments

In the production section of this article it is written "Sonia Brownell, Orwell's widow, owned the film rights to the famed novel. Shortly before her death in 1980, Brownell eventually agreed to allow the film to be produced only under the condition that no futuristic special effects be used."

But there is no reference given to this statement. One would naturally assume that in allowing for this film to be made, Ms. Brownell would have also set some other preconditions asides from 'no futuristic special effects be used.' The film is dogmatically faithful to the book, I'd say, and it does not even shy away from showing the old technology that Orwell spoke about in the book ('floating fortresses' and so forth). Can someone please add a reference to this section?--The Diamond Apex (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I kinda disagee. I wouldn't say it "dogmatically" stays faithful. It is faithful but there are deviations in crucial areas. For example the full dialogue between O'Brien and Smith during the torture scene is left out. If you recall the novel has O'Brien mentioning the old nazis and soviet communists and how they failed to convert the heretic whereas the inner party learned not to destroy but convert the heretic so that there are no martyrs. Orwell's mention of the nazis and soviets was/is important in my opinion. There are some other areas as well.--76.31.242.174 (talk) 05:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Smith killed?

The novel does not depict the killing of Smith. In the final scene, as in the movie, he is sitting in the Café drinking gin and listening to the news. He just realizes that now that he has achieved his goal of learning to love Big Brother, he will be killed, and he imagines and welcomes his coming death. I edited the "differences" section to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stewart king (talk • contribs) 22:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Locations

"Alexandra Palace not used for the two minute hate" Are you sure? This looks very much like the Great Hall at Alexandra Palace: http://film.virtual-history.com/pic.php?id=964 vs http://www.alexandrapalace.com/For_Exhibitors/Conferences_&_banqueting/Great_Hall.html --128.16.5.246 (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Palmer, R. Barton (2007). "Imagining the Future, Contemplating the Past: The Screen Versions of 1984". In Sanders, Steven M (ed.). The Philosophy of Science Fiction Film. The Philosophy of Popular Culture. pp. 171–190. ISBN 0813124727.
• Weaver, John; Kreitzer, Larry (2005). "1984: Controlling the Past and Determining the Future". In Fiddes, Paul; Clarke, Anthony (eds.). Flickering Images: Theology and Film in Dialogue. Regent's Study Guides. Smyth & Helwys Publishing. ISBN 1573124583.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs) 21:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Plot ending

He doesn't say anything, it appears to be narration. You physically cannot say "I love you" without moving your lips, try it. Should it not also be mentioned that he looks absolutely horrified? It's clear a part of him is resisting his brainwashing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I think he still loves Julia at the end as the term I love you was used between the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 12:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

In the book, it is Big Brother he loves. The movie is ambiguous: Is he talking to Julia or to Big Brother? I don't think the article should assert that he "actually" means Julia and therefore his spirit hasn't been broken after all; that is just an interpretation. Rather let the article note the complete (and surely deliberate) ambiguity of the movie's ending. Fauskanger (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the movie we're talking about. Not the book. You do have a point since I guess it'd be better to mention that it could go either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 17:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Richard Burton:

Do you think we should metion that it is richard burtons last role — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.162.241.245 (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Filming dates

The article uses a claim from the Turner Classic Movies website, clearly sourced from IMDB's production dates, that the film started production on March 19, 1984 and wrapped in October 1984. This is completely impossible, as the film was released in October 1984 in the UK. Also, no film like this would take seven months to film. Two months would have been a reasonable amount of time, and indeed, there is a title card at the end of the film stating that it "was photographed in and around London during the period April-June 1984, the exact time and setting imagined by the author." This seems like far more convincing information than IMDB's claim. Jamesluckard (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Requested move 19 April 2019

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. IP editor is evading a block of an indef'd editor. Anyone else who feels strongly about the title is free to start a RM if they wish (non-admin closure) Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984 film) → 1984 (1984 film) – WP:COMMONNAME. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] 90.249.169.199 (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose no evidence from books provided. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Google is good. 90.249.169.199 (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per film poster used in article and home release, though it does make for a slightly awkward title. PC78 (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The on-screen title is Nineteen Eighty-Four, with the opening credits confirming the title here. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Your personal policy is not Wikipedia policy. 90.249.169.199 (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#From other topics. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

That policy does not support your argument. We're still looking for the title most commonly used in reliable sources. 90.249.169.199 (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The title for the 1984 film version that is most commonly used in reliable sources is Nineteen Eighty-Four, per its on-screen credits. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's a blatant lie. 90.249.169.199 (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Where are your sources to support such a dismissal? Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

You get the occasional publication that uses the on-screen title (Variety, for example) but they are vastly outweighed by those which use the title as marketed: [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] etc. 90.249.169.199 (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Calidum 17:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. This is what readers recognize most often. Its the title used in every major film resource - Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, TCM, IMDb, Amazon Prime, Google Play. I am not citing these as sources -but rather pointing out how the film is handled on other platforms. I found these by searching the sites for "Nineteen Eighty-Four" - and yet had to often fall back to searching "1984" because some sites don't even bother with the longer title). The Gale/Cengage study guide puts it like this: "Orwell's book is titled Nineteen Eighty-Four. The same title is displayed in the film itself, but reference materials generally refer to the film as 1984.". -- Netoholic @ 09:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Britishfinance (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: Announcement of this discussion appears at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Many of the sources provided also call the book "1984" which is lazy and incorrect. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - why is it necessary to call it the 1984 film? I know there's a 1956 film as well, but surely if this move goes ahead, then it's been demonstrated that the 1984 version is the primary topic, so the article could simply be 1984 (film)? 1984 (film) currently redirects to 1984 (disambiguation) which is not a good disambig either - but it's presumably because of the two films Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Clear common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.