Talk:Darkest Hour (film)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Darkest Hour (film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Film: British

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Darkest Hour (film) is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aborted?[edit]

In the entertainment section of my local newspaper they said this film was aborted, as Hurt had only filmed around 70% of his pivotal supporting role before passing away. Hopefully not, but does anyone know for sure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8E16:8300:4DD9:1F5E:90B:C2FD (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, this film has a trailer, a release date, and an Oscar campaign already initiated. It very much exists and your newspaper seems to be spreading #FakeNews. Read the blurb about Hurt in the Production section: Hurt didn't film any of it, in fact, according to lead actor Oldman. Ronald Pickup took over Hurt's role.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 17:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hurt was to film the House of Commons scenes but died the day before. I was an extra (conservative MP) and we were confused when Neville Chamberlain was not Hurt. But the word went around that Hurt had died.

Why is the Plot so short?[edit]

If it's to prevent spoilers, then everyone should know that the plot is actually part of history. Not sure if that's obvious to most people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.215.112.202 (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Darkest Hour (film)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Darkest Hour (film)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BOM":

From Pan (2015 film): "Pan (2015)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved February 29, 2016.
From The Theory of Everything (2014 film): "The Theory of Everything (2014)". BoxOfficeMojo.com. Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 12 March 2016.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Inaccuracy[edit]

Has anyone found a good source for the film’s historical (in)accuracy? http://cinemaemcena.cartacapital.com.br/critica/filme/8432/o-destino-de-uma-nação notes that the Underground scene is completely fictional. —FlashSheridan (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The character Elizabeth Layton is essentially fictional in the film, as she was not Churchill’s secretary until later, but my edit to that effect was removed.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki article already covers quite well the historical inaccuracies, which are grave to the extent I feel thoroughly cheated. An addition: I tried to find sources confirming that Operation Dynamo was indeed conceived by Churchill himself, but I can not, it seems this is yet another lie in a movie that is mostly fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.234.205.28 (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2018[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I suggest amending the character name of Sir Anthony Eden to simply Anthony Eden, as at the time that the film is set, 1940, Eden wasn't known as Sir Anthony. He received the honour in 1954. In the film he isn't even mistakenly referred to as "Sir Anthony". 203.122.199.34 (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Stickee (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect link to the actual Elizabeth Nel nee Layton[edit]

Suggest the link to the actual historical Elizabeth Nel nee Layton which Lily James is portraying to change from “Elizabeth Layton” to the correct historical person by the name of “Elizabeth Nel”. I have made the changes in the Lily James and Elizabeth Nel’s wiki pages. Angyeekiang (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tacky poster[edit]

This is the first time I've ever seen us use a movie poster that states some mediocre award the film has won in a larger font than the title of the film itself. Can we get a regular poster in this article please? Jozsefs (talk) 08:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Separate accolades page[edit]

With over 70 nominations and over 20 wins, I think we can create a separate page for the accolades this film has received. Would that be alright? Daerl (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rotten Tomatoes summary is ridiculously biased[edit]

So the "narrative falters" and the film has to be "held together" by Oldman. This kind of scoffing is absolutely unheard of for a film with an 85% rating.

Given the deepening left/right divide (especially online) and polarised opinions of Churchill, it's easy to imagine how an RT scribe might toss their objectivity aside when framing the reaction to DH. Whatever the reason, obvious bias has crept into the summary, and as such, I believe it should be discarded for this particular article. Yeah, it's common practice to use RT's opinion, but it's not common practice for them to vomit out such nonsense about a well-reviewed film. 82.132.217.36 (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Handkerchief Headaches[edit]

I assume past editors have taken Chamberlain's forehead-mopping-with-hankie towards the end of the film to be a sign of support. However, this leans more towards perhaps surrender. Uaiazr Jxhiosh (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't - it is a signal to the Tory backbenchers that Churchill now has his support - it's also mentioned earlier in the film before Churchill's first speech as Prime Minister. It is, however, dramatic licence. What actually happened was that when Churchill announced the shelling of the French fleet at Mers El Kebir at the start of July, the Chief Whip David Margesson rose to his feet as a signal to the backbenches that they should give Churchill an ovation. This was the first time he was cheered by his own party.Paulturtle (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC) And Chamberlain had actually been quite a bit more supportive of Churchill in the War Cabinet Debates than the film would have us believe, not least because he was cross at the way Hitler had made a fool of him by breaking the Munich Agreement. He and Churchill actually worked together quite well in 1940.Paulturtle (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing sentence?[edit]

The Reception section has the following part: "The film opened in its theatrical weekend alongside Coco and Call Me By Your Name in United States theatrical release to be Cinemascore did wisely ordinary grades." This seems utterly confusing and nonsensical. What's this part supposed to mean? Paywithdebit (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just here to second this--is that collection of words actually a sentence? I'd edit it into something myself, but to be honest, I'm not even sure what it's trying to say. 2603:6010:2F01:F489:96B7:A0BD:5061:15A3 (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was added in 2021 by an IP. I suspect English is not their first language. I have removed it. DuncanHill (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]