Talk:45 Years

Reference to Long Good Friday[edit]

There is a strong parallel between the ends of 45 Years and The Long Good Friday. The similarities have been properly referenced. Please do not delete this again without discussion here on the Talk Page and consensus being reached.Tomintoul (talk) 12:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No there isn't, nor is it referenced. As your latest variation of this content says, more correctly this time, Mark Kermode notes in passing a loose similarity between one element of the film as a whole and one aspect of the final scene of the the Long Good Friday (which doesn't end with a couple on a dancefloor; just like this one doesn't end with someone kidnapped in the back of a car at gunpoint). At least after months of slow edit-warring, and demands that people do not delete it, that misrepresentation has been sorted out; whether it's worth including at all, especially with such a full quote of what is after all only a side-point in the review, is another matter. N-HH talk/edits 09:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since no justification is forthcoming, I'll change the quote to one which better summarises the review and better explains what the film is about. As noted, we may now have an accurate representation of Kermode's comparison between the films, but highlighting only this slight and passing comment from the middle of the review is still misleading, since it suggests out of context that this is some kind of gangster film. Also, Kermode writes in the Observer, not the Guardian. N-HH talk/edits 09:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no edit warring, just an initial disagreement between two editors, which was resolved to their mutual satisfaction. Furthermore, there have been several edits of this section by others since my comment above. Hopefully the latest edit will satisfy all.Tomintoul (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I referred to a "slow" edit war, which there was, with you repeatedly, if intermittently, reinserting an inaccurate precis of one of Kermode's points. The dispute prior to my spotting the error and becoming involved was more about where to place that misleading content – the fact that the question of placement was resolved by agreement didn't stop the content itself being factually wrong, something which no one involved seems to have noticed at the time. You then reinserted it as a full quote, at which point a secondary problem had to be pointed out: it's a passing comment which, when pulled out of context, potentially misleads readers as to the nature of the film and doesn't really add much that can't be put more simply by the different quote I used. You haven't addressed that point or provided the requested explanation of its pertinence, but have simply added it back in yet again, so we now have huge, partially repetitive chunks of one review reposted on the page. Why on earth would you think that someone objecting to content, and explaining why, would be happy or "satisfied" with you putting it back in yet again without your addressing their objections? I'm not going to revert because it's a relatively trivial point, and you seem to have an unshakeable obsession with this one comparison, even though Kermode makes far more substantial references to Michael Haneke's films than the Long Good Friday. N-HH talk/edits 17:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]