Talk:Once (film)

	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 American cinema task force.

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Irish music High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish musicWikipedia:WikiProject Irish musicTemplate:WikiProject Irish musicIrish music articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Completely Diagetic Sound, or 99%[edit]

Sorry to be uncontributive in this way, but I distinctly remember an instance of nondiagetic sound, music, at one point in the film, having remarked previously how it all appeared to be diagetic. Having been a week, I've forgotten, so if anyone watching it again could take a look, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.183.163 (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think that at least one if not more of the songs move away from being diagetic during the song. Being new to the term, I'm not absolutely sure if I'm thinking of this correctly or not. But many of the songs change setting after beginning, with montages beginning and settings changing while the songs play. Also, some songs start live, and then are enhanced by unseen musicians as the song segues from live to recorded versions. --Melty girl 19:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler Tags[edit]

CMB, please justify your deletion of spoiler tags on the talk page, not in edit summaries. You cannot use WP:SPOILER as an authority, since it is disputed. --Jere7my 20:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who said it was an authority? It's only a style guide, anyway. The argument for removing spoiler tags is simple: they are redundant in the places that I removed them from. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carl, I don't think that's really a valid answer to Jere7my's concerns. Wikipedia has many policies -- are we to throw them all out? I think Jere7my is right to point out that the policy is disputed. Jere7my, I can understand why you might want spoiler tags -- after all, Wiki newbies might expect that no one would print endings -- but it is also true that the header of the section in question is "Plot," not "First Half of the Plot" or "Premise." In terms of a compromise, would you feel better about there being no spoiler tags on this article if either 1.) the opening of the article included the premise of the movie without spoilers, or 2.) there was a separate "Synopsis" (or other titled) section above "Plot" that gave the premise of the movie? --Melty girl 04:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! In general, I think that having separate "synopsis" and "detailed summary" sections work just as well as spoiler tags, so that sounds like a good compromise. I think that duplicates the functionality of the spoiler tag, and I'm more concerned with that functionality than with the specific implementation. That requires a bit more individual work than simply deleting spoiler tags wholesale, but I think it's worth it. --Jere7my 07:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Well, I'm not sure how soon I'll get to it, but if no one else implements this idea, I will. --Melty girl 15:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currency Conversion[edit]

I realize that the film budget numbers come straight out of the IMDB box office information page, but I think there must be a mistake in the currency conversion: €180,000 is much closer to $250,000 than the listed $150,000. I suspect there is a typo on the IMDB page. Are there any other sources for this information? Mrwhizzard 04:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carney says the budget was €130,000 in the Creative Screenwriting podcast, which shakes out to $182,000 currently. Robixsmash 20:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what we have is the conversion at the time of production (see the cited source). I don't think we should keep updating it for subsequent change in value. --Melty girl 20:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legendary Spielberg[edit]

Is Steven Spielberg legendary? I was certain that he actually exists Mrscruffy 18:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The American Heritage Dictionary's second definition of legendary: "Extremely well known; famous or renowned." But anyway, why don't you change the word to something more neutral if you don't think it's appropriate? --Melty girl 19:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

translation[edit]

Can we talk about this? I'm not convinced that we can't include the Czech phrase and even its translation. The phrase is clearly said - if it were in a language that we might be more familiar with - like if she said "Je t'aime", I think we would probably just say that "she said 'I love you' in French" , or at the least would put the French words in because we would know what they are. The translation of 'miluju tebe' is apparently available on language translation sites - we could footnote it that way I suppose, but I am not sure I agree that we can't include it at all, at least the Czech words. As an analogy - maybe a weak or incorrect one, but let me try it - I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think we see any signs that say that the scene is Grafton Street, Dublin. But it clearly is - we recognize it - and our article so identifies it, correctly I believe. I would completely agree, of course, that we should not speculate on what she said - as in the end of Lost in Translation where we don't hear what Bob whispers to Charlotte - but this is not speculation, it's a clearly uttered phrase. Thoughts? Tvoz |talk 22:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I understand your desire to keep the info, but do you even know for sure if what she says is "miluju tebe", much less that that means, "It is you who I love"? We need to be able to verify it. I tagged it as "citation needed" for a long time, and no one added one. When the DVD comes out, we may learn more from the extras -- or if you can find an article that verifies what she says in Czech AND what the translation is, that would be citable. But for now, all we have is one editor's original research. What she said was not translated onscreen with subtitles for the audience, which means that 99% of the English-speaking audience had no idea what the Girl said, just like the Guy, and that the filmmakers intended that ambiguity. Even if the WP editor was right about what she said and also translated it correctly, our including the translation in the Plot section changes the meaning of the movie significantly. The Girl's words were intentionally left untranslated, so we should not translate it in the Plot section at all -- when we can verify it, we should probably put it in the Production section instead.

For more on how the decision was made to finally cut this, please see the discussion on the WikiProject Films talk page. --Melty girl 02:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think there's a clip - maybe in the trailer - that shows her saying "miluju tebe" - too late tonight for me to hunt it down, but I'll look tomorrow. We don't typically verify words that are said when we quote from a film, I don't think, whatever language they're in. I understand the problem of including the English translation without verification, as I say up front, and take your point about not putting it into the plot section - but that's something else. I'd be satisfied at least with the Czech, and readers can verify themselves. (Of course there are Czech-English translation sites that could do this and we could use as citation.) But first I'd like to at least see the Czech words there, as I don't think they should have to be verified more than any other quote, in principle. Tvoz |talk 09:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll read the discussion you pointed to tomorrow too - thanks. Tvoz |talk 09:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-watched that scene on DVD with English subtitles. The subtitled Czech is probably not accurate, but for what it's worth, it says that his line is "Noor-esh-ho" and her reply is "Noor-ho-tebbe" Rossmcd (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like parentheses are used for situations like this (where there is a meaning that is either intentionally not conveyed or is assumed to be understood). By putting the assumed translation into parentheses, both English and Czech speakers could gain the information, and the precise meaning (i.e., did she really say what equates with "I'm in love [with you, him, etc]"?) could be left somewhat to the reader's interpretation. Given the audio commentary and the context of the scene in the film, that seems what was intended in any event. To leave the text as it now is in the article seems to stray from describing the plot to character analysis (or, at the risk of using another set of parens, to engage in wishful thinking, and constructing a dialogue that would fit with a particular outcome for that scene). C d h (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the plot -- I missed that someone put in the supposed translation. I've deleted it, so now it's back to the status it had earlier in this discussion: it's what happens in the film, namely that the Girl answers in Czech and won't translate for the Guy. Since no translation is provided onscreen, none is given in the Plot section. --Melty girl (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"supposed translation" you dont make a sence. He asked her:" do you love him?" trying to say it in Czech. "Miluješ ho" She clearly answers:"Miluju Tebe" (I love You). I speak both languages. I also happend to own this DVD which has subtitles. Since this movie is spoken in both languages i dont see no reason why not leaving translation of that part of conversation. This is not like someone has to filter part of conversation, like in "Lost in translation" ending. 71.99.80.190 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason not to put it in the "Plot" section: no translation is offered on screen in the movie. So basically, it's not in the movie! This movie is in English, so if it doesn't offer the dialogue in English, either by speech or subtitles, then the the majority of the audience was not intended to know what she said -- just like the Guy. The Plot section is not for interpretation or research -- it's for telling simply what was shown/said to the audience. DVD subtitles and extras are not part of the official feature film -- they can be discussed in a DVD extras section. BTW, I said "supposed" because different people here have offered different interpretation on what she actually says in Czech (see above). --Melty girl (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This movie is in English? No this movie is in English with Irish dialect and in Czech. Not understanding eather of both languages is not my problem. You just waisting coal. 71.99.132.37 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Anonymous, it makes no sense to say that the movie is not in English, no, it is in English. And it was an intentional choice of the filmmakers to provide English subtitles for most of the Czech, while deliberately withholding subtitles for one Czech line that the Girl didn't want the Guy to understand. Clearly, the filmmakers didn't necessarily want the audience to understand what she said either. In the Plot section, we must report what the filmmakers did and cannot include things they did not tell the audience. Since some people say she said one thing in Czech and others say she said something else, we shouldn't put it in. And we need not include quotations anyway -- the Plot section is supposed to be a synopsis, not a script. The synopsis, in this, the English Wikipedia, makes perfect sense without the Czech quote. --Melty girl (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did it again. Stop waisting coal. You don,t need to explain purpose or meaning of the moviemakers. I am not more anonymous then you are! I don't think your mother gave you name meltygirl! You've seen that movie once and now, you are know-it-all. See plots of other A+ articles to compare. 71.99.94.136 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVILITY please. You may also want to read Wikipedia:Why create an account? --Melty girl (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Berardinelli's review of the film clearly states:

She responds, "No. I love you." However, her response is in unsubtitled Czech, so the man does not understand her - nor do audience members who don't know the language.

Therefore, her words are verifiable and including them in the plot would no longer be considered original research. Now whether or not this should be excluded under the premise that the filmmakers didn't want the audience to know it, unless there is a policy or guideline suggesting that we respect their artistic wishes, information like that does not have to be kept out. SWik78 (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost with you, but your source is inadequate. ReelViews.net is not a reliable source, because it's a self-published site created by one guy. The relevant part of WP:V states, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." There are no fact-checkers there -- for all we know, he got his info from an earlier incarnation of this WP article!

If someone can find a relable source for the Czech and/or translation, then I agree that it can go in the article, but it should not go in the main plot section. The plot section is for what was presented onscreen, and the English translation was not. --Melty girl (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will find a suitable reference but I politely disagree with you that it shouldn't go in the plot section. It most definitely was presented on screen and the original language of presentation should not have any bearing on the suitability of the quote being included in the section. SWik78 (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have inserted the line and provided a reference to an interview with Glen Hansard in which he confirms the translation of Girl's statement. SWik78 (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this to the Production section. Check it out. Sorry, but I don't think you can include words in the plot section that were not included in the film. The English words, "I love you" were not spoken or written on the screen, so how can you present them as if they were? The plot section is for summarizing what was onscreen, and you should not override the filmmakers' presentation. If they'd wanted it in the film, they would have put it there. --Melty girl (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my reasoning behind why I believe that it should be included in the plot section. Before I give you any kind of an explanation, I will inform you that I will not revert your edit but I might request comment on this. It is clear to me that your mind is made up about not allowing this line into the plot section and I don't want to get involved in an edit war. You said The English words, "I love you" were not spoken or written on the screen, so how can you present them as if they were?. The words actually were spoken on the screen and they were spoken in a language from which a verifiable translation can be obtained. There is no secret or abiguity to it and there can be no comparison to Lost in Translation because one is verifiable and the other one isn't. Then you said that the words ...were not included in the film. This is incorrect. Simply because you or I cannot understand the line uttered has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the plot of this film if that line can be translated and the translation verified. Someone who speaks Czech might (I emphasize might because I don't want it to be interpreted that I'm using this sort of speculation as authority, simply for argument's sake) tell you that, yes, the plot does indeed contain the utterance of the phrase I love you from Girl to Guy. In that case, we would have 2 different opinions on what is in the plot and what isn't. Therefore, it is only your opinion, not fact, that the phrase wasn't included in the plot and that it shouldn't be included in the plot. And as far as If they'd wanted it in the film, they would have put it there, my answer is that they did put it there and there is no secret about it. The film was released in the Czech Republic where people could find out for themselves what she said to him. Additionally, unlike Sofia Coppola, the people involved with this project are not keeping her words a secret because of any intended ambiguity. I wish that this could be included in the plot because there seems to be a consensus of several editors to include this line into the plot and you have been, so far, the only opponent. Some edits of adding this line and discussing it in this talk page have been, admittedly, improperly referenced and poorly formatted but, in my honest opinion, in utmost good faith. They have all been reverted by you as well as I have been twice today. Please give some consideration to including this into the plot section even though you disagree with it. Thank you. SWik78 (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read this entire thread, you will see that I am not the only one with this opinion; here is a corrected version of link I included above (it's been archived since): Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Archive_16#What_about_non-English.2C_non-subtitled_plot_points_in_English-language_films.3F. You will find that many editors who are part of the WikiProject Films already reached consensus that the English translation should not be included in the Plot section. Yes, Czech speakers will have the treat of knowing what she said -- but this film is in English, and the filmmakers deliberately omitted English subtitles for what she says; the other Czech in the film is subtitled in English, but this is not. The very plot hinges on the fact that she never tells the Guy she loves him in a way that he -- or the majority of the audience -- will understand. This fact should be reflected in the Plot section, which is meant to retell the story as told. The translation, which was not made available to most of the audience, belongs in the Production section, where it can be revealed, explained and verified appropriately. Perhaps in the Czech Wikipedia, it might be appropriate to include it, since that audience will know. But this is the English language Wikipedia's article about an English language film in which an English translation was deliberately withheld. You can't override and tell what wasn't onscreen. --Melty girl (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The plot is the plot. It's as simple as that. Perhaps in the Czech Wikipedia, it might be appropriate to include it. The language doesn't change the plot.

By the way, there was no consensus in that discussion. I will include some of the points brought up in the discussion that are not opposed to it being introduced in the plot:

I think it is worth mentioning in the synopsis, as long as you stress that it is not subtitled
it's usually not that difficult to tell when someone's saying "I love you" regardless of the language. Again, maybe a footnote
the audience is meant to leave asking the question "what did she say?", and since there's nothing to stop them hunting down a Czech person to reveal the answer, there's also no reason for Wikipedia to censor the information, as long as it's stressed that the line is untranslated
if a translation can be reliably sourced, it would be just as acceptable as any other NPOV-described sourced analysis

The "consensus" you speak of is an agreement between yourself and Doctor Sunshine (talk · contribs) who was the first person to agree with you after you tried to rephrase your opinion 4 times. Even he/she initially said I'd maybe include the translation in a footnote with [reference] but it's not necessary. So you are misrepresenting yourself by claiming a consensus. You are the only one strictly opposed to including the translation. SWik78 (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever you are, please stop[edit]

Who keeps changing the budget listed on the page from euros to dollars? The movie was made in Ireland, so shouldn't the money displayed be in the currency it was shot on? And another thing, i had listed that the film was realeased in Ireland and the UK scince november, yet the DVD release section only displays when it's out in north america. WHY? So whoever keeps altering the correct editing I've done please stop it. I have enough to put up with, with Ben.W.Bell changing every film listed as Irish to british. Alright? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.134.54.3 (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to be more civil next time; this is a collaborative process that isn't about what you "have to put up with." Your rude comments show that you've failed to read the history tab's edit summaries, where all the edits I make are explained, and you would discover that your edits are not "correct." You also would have learned about WP policies that go against your assumptions: Once is an international article, because while it was made in Ireland, it is distributed by an American company, made most of its money in America and was internationally distributed. Therefore, according to the Wiki policy WP:$, as an article that's non-country specific, the currency of the article should be USD; the policy requires one currency, and all figures are sourced/cited. People are free to add information about the film's other DVD releases, but anything that does not have a valid citation can be removed. Just cite reliable sources and your info will stay. --Melty girl (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely convinced that it's an international article, this is a pretty firmly Irish movie despite the distributor. Stating the production budget in USD in the main text seems to imply american funding to me and becomes misleading as the dollar changes in value against the euro. 28 Days Later seems a good example with production in £ and worldwide gross in $ in the infobox and £ first then $ in the main text, that being a British movie with US distribution and having made the majority of it's money in the US. Even if this is an international article, WP:$ doesn't require _one_ currency but states 'Some editors also like to provide euro and/or UK pound equivalents'. Unless there are serious objections here, I'll apply the 28 Days Later currency usage (with euro rather than £) to this article in a few days time. Timffl (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

28 Days Later is a B-class article, and as such has received little scrutiny against policy: it's never had a peer review or GA review, much less an FA review. Therefore, it can not be held up as an example of acceptable style guidelines in practice. Like many Wiki articles, it is a work in progress and is filled with problems. Let's be clear: there is no example to be applied from that article. So back to the WP style guideline in question... WP:$ states: "In non-country-specific articles such as Wealth, use US dollars (US$123). Some editors also like to provide euro and/or UK pound equivalents, formatted as described in the next section." That means, in non-country-specific articles, use USD, and optionally "also" provide equivalents -- give USD alone or list both USD and Euros together. Last, I don't think a case can be made for this article being country-specific. It was internationally distributed -- that means the financial involvement of American businesses backing this product and its first success involved American audiences. This article doesn't just cover the production phase; it covers distribution, reception and financial success. Cork is an Ireland-specific article; Once is not.

For those who don't like this policy or believe that this is article is somehow specific to Ireland, I think this question is best taken to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) for policy changes and/or to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films to ask how to this WP policy is usually applied to an internationally released film. I actually don't think the policy is written as clearly as it could be, and I don't necessarily agree with it -- I was actually scolded in the past for not knowing about it -- but I do believe in following WP style guidelines and want to move this article towards a higher rating. --Melty girl (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's most appropriate that the currency for the buget of any film article should be the currency on which it was shot. That way readers aren't confused as to where the funding came from of the country of origin of the film itself. Still, I think it should be okay to display the buget in USD as well. Most appropriately in brackets. But those are just my thoughts on the subject. --User:Teknolyze —Preceding comment was added at 23:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mendelssohn Performance[edit]

Many people have asked about the piano tune played by Marketa Irglova in the music shop, found around 12 minutes into the movie. The credits only list it as "Song Without Words by Mendelssohn," which is an incomplete description...

the tune is Felix Mendelssohn's Song Without Words Op. 30 no.6, more popularly knows as "Venezianisches Gondellied," or the Venetian Gondola Song

Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaundicedjonjon (talk • contribs) 18:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of I love you from Czech to English[edit]

Would it be inappropriate to include the phrase I love you into the plot because the phrase was spoken in Czech language and was not subtitled in English but a reliably sourced translation has been found. SWik78 (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on this topic has been ongoing long before the above editor joined the conversation. Please refer to the long discussion above and to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Archive_16#What_about_non-English.2C_non-subtitled_plot_points_in_English-language_films.3F, where editors reached consensus that the information, if sourced, should be included in the article, but outside of the plot section, since the English translation was intentionally withheld in the film (other Czech dialogue was subtitled; this was not). The non-Czech character being spoken to and the non-Czech-speaking audience of this English language film would have received a completely different meaning of this scene and the movie itself, had the English translation (of "I love you") been provided. But it was withheld by the filmmakers and therefore should not be presented in the Plot section as if those words were given by the film. It is in the article, but in the Production section. --Melty girl (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no clear consensus in the above mentioned discussion, hence the reason for my request for comment. There have been attempts from more users than just myself to insert that line into the plot section but the have all been reverted by Melty girl (talk · contribs).SWik78 (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors in that discussion commented that it shouldn't be in the Plot section. --Melty girl (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right when you say that some (I'm sorry, but I can't agree with many) editors said that it shouldn't be in the plot section. However, some also said that it wouldn't hurt the article as long as it was explicitly stated that the line wasn't subtitled. My point that I want to make clear once (pardon the pun) and for all is this: the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Archive_16#What_about_non-English.2C_non-subtitled_plot_points_in_English-language_films.3F did not bring forth a clear consensus and, therefore, should no longer be used as an authority for either one of us to quote as proof that either one of us is right. The discussion, plain and simple, was fairly inconclusive as to answering your question. SWik78 (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that this is the English-language Wikipedia, I think that it'd be inappropriate to detail the Czech phrase, which would require specialist knowledge to know. I've seen the film with English subtitles, and it does not translate the phrase. For whatever reason, it's not a detail intended to be readily acknowledged by audiences. I think its placement in the Production section, with the citation, is sufficient. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably unsubtitled because it was an ad-lib on the part of the actor, who also tried out other ad libs in that moment, and the director didn't want the meaning of his film radically altered by that ad-lib. As it is, it's kind of like an Easter Egg for Czech speakers, which is fun. --Melty girl (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right about the Easter Egg for Czechs. But the main point I was trying to defeat was your statement that if it's not presented on screen in English, it's not a part of the plot. I disagree that the plot is different for us than it is for Czechs. It can be verified, and, therefore, it is a part of the plot. SWik78 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but not everyone knows the Czech language. This is the English-language Wikipedia, so we can easily assume that people who come here will be versed in the English language. However, take a look at WP:PSTS: "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." The sentence is indeed verifiable, but if we're looking at the primary source only, Czech language is the specialist knowledge needed to understand that. I think that implementing the secondary source in the article starts changing the section from a basic description of the film to what the film means. For what the film means, that content should be covered in real-world context sections. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, let's centralize the discussion at WT:FILM so it can continue to have more exposure. I won't comment here any further. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Erik here - it's primarily an English-language film, so if the filmmakers wanted to translate the phrase, they presumably would have done so. It is not as if this is an old foreign film with numerous missing subtitles. (Back in the bad old days of VHS...) However, if there is a reliable secondary source - in other words, a recognized and trusted publication - that translates the Czech, then it certainly might have a place in an Analysis or Reception section. That's my brief take on it.

For future reference, it probably is not a good idea to copy and paste article threads to WP Films unless it is directly germane to the project as a whole. A simple request for more eyes on the article talk page should be adequate if RfC is not giving sufficient new input. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The English translation, along with information about how the Czech phrase came to be put into the film via an ad-lib, is currently in the Production section. In the past, I'd removed both the Czech and the English because there was no sourcing (and for the other above-stated reasons); but once SWik78 found a source, I moved it from Plot to Production, and framed it appropriately for that section. --Melty girl (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] The "specialist knowledge" argument seems flawed to me - what if everything were exactly the same but it was French rather than Czech and she said "Je t'aime"? I suspect at the very least we'd include the French words - I tried doing that with the Czech words some time back but that was overruled too - and more than likely we'd translate. So why should Czech be any different? It's not, from a structural point of view. I think that the argument got a lot weaker after Hansard revealed the meaning (which many people had already discerned) - it seems pointless to insist that this piece of information be segregated from the plot, as long as the plot section clearly states that the phrase wasn't translated in the theatrical release. Tvoz |talk 09:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People have differed on what the Czech words actually are; regardless, we do now know they say "I love you" in some phraseology, but let's face it: it's not a phrase that's famous in English like "Je t'aime," so your analogy falls down. The fact is that most English speakers, whatever their first language is, will not be able to understand what is said. And clearly, if it's not even subtitled on the DVD, the filmmakers' intent is that it not be understood. So why the insistence on inserting a meaning into the Plot section when most people would not receive that meaning when they see the film? The translation is now in the article, because it's verifiable. But putting it in the Plot section misrepresents what happens onscreen for the majority of viewers. It's simply not there for the majority of English speakers who see the movie, and the English-speaking filmmakers clearly intended for this ad-lib from the actor speaking the phrase to go untranslated. The Plot section in this, the English Wikipedia, is not the place to override this overriding intention of the filmmakers or the obvious, verifiable plot action that can be observed by most audience members. It's now in the Production section -- isn't that good? If you can't use the film itself to verify what was said -- and you can't outside of the Czech Wikipedia -- then I think it shouldn't be in the Plot section. --Melty girl (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that I have a problem with is this leap in the progression of logic and reason. A while ago, it was speculated that there exists a possibility that the filmmakers left the line out of the film on purpose. The last comment speaks of the filmmakers' intention as though it is a widely accepted fact what it is that they wanted to achieve by leaving out the line. The truth is, rather, that we don't really know why it was left out nor that it was left out on purpose. Hence this debate. We can speculate and arrive at different conclusions using the same information which is exactly what we're doing. Obvious, verifiable plot action may not be as tightly and precisely defined as you may think. One of the last sentences of the plot section contains the following: Guy buys the Girl a piano and makes arrangements for its delivery. That does not describe an obvious action. All we see is Guy walking into the store and speaking to the owner and the piano being delivered afterwards. Why the piano got to her is an educated guess. We assume the most obvious scenario even though others may be possible. The possibilities might include the store owner, who's known to be exceedingly gracious to Girl, loaning the Girl the piano upon Guy's request considering the strong possibility of Guy not being able to actually afford purchasing a piano. Clearly, I'm being creative in trying to make my point but wouldn't that fall into the same category of stating something that is not blatantly obvious to an English speaking viewer? Kind of like making an assumption that the Rosebud on fire in the incinerator is the same sled from Kane's childhood. Who tells us that it is the same sled? SWik78 (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if I may add, I think it is clearly agreed that there is no consensus reached here, at least not yet. So I would then say that it is not appropriate to say see talk page in an edit summary when reverting an edit of this somewhat contentious issue. SWik78 (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the above ill-considered comment, Melty girl. I should have checked to see that the revert was done by a known anonymous IP vandal before I made my comment which now clearly seems inapropriate. My apologies. SWik78 (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about that comment. Also, I agree that there isn't consensus here. I would ask you to consider, however, that two editors whose main Wiki focus is film articles both disagree with you. (I'm not saying that their opinion is more important than yours, but I am asking you to consider what they've said more carefully, based on their wider experience.)

I really don't know what to say about your previous comment. I don't really see the analogy working with the language issue. People either know Czech or they don't, and the majority of English speakers on the planet don't. Without a subtitle there is no issue of audience interpretation in the way you're talking about. About the other plot point you raise, if you really feel like saying the that the Guy buys the Girl a piano is not clearly enough implied, then change the wording. In the previous scene, the Guy's father gives him money, so I think it is strongly enough implied -- but if you can come up with a better wording that doesn't speculate about other possibilities, I would be fine with that. --Melty girl (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as though we're going to have to agree to disagree. I really do believe that I raise a good point but, in the interest of all of our time being freed up to do some more important work on the 'pedia, I concede the point. You, as well as Erik and Girolamo, do make very good points and it is highly likely that you do know a little more about these issues than I do. Anyways, thank you everyone for contributing to the discussion. I tend to get quite excited debating things so I hope no one took anything the wrong way, especially you, Melty girl. I'm leaving this alone...for now :)
Peace! SWik78 (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings at all. I obviously get excited debating things too! And wise words below to the anon editor below. --Melty girl (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"known anonymous IP vandal " ??? I for once strongly oppose this insold from your side! 71.99.125.232 (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of us have spent hours debating this issue on this talk page and finding secondary sources to back up our arguments while you simply click a button and revert an edit back to your preffered version without any debate or even an edit summary. While you may make an argument that it is not vandalism, your edits are definitely disruptive and not constructive. All the editors discussing the issue on this talk page have access to (undo) buttons but we do not use them in content disputes. If you don't want to be called a vandal, there is much you can do to help your case. Right now the article is semi-protected which means that many unregistered and newly registered users are unable to contribute new information to the article. And the article was semi-protected because of your anonymous reverting of other people's hard work. If you truly want to help, ask for help from some of the editors on this page because they are clearly willing to help you even if your point of view differs from theirs. For starters, consider getting an account so you don't have to be contacted on a page reserved for discussing improvements to the article.
Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is discussing the film, not English-speaking people's view of the film. If it actually occured in the movie, it can be talked about in the article. If a credible, referenced translation is available, then even better. One trigger-happy reverter should not conteract established Wikipedia principles of WP:ATT and WP:Delete. Deletions should be "based on policy and guidelines, not personal likes and dislikes." I also keep reading arguments above about not spoiling the filmmaker's intention of the the film. Wikipedia couldn't care less whether we are or are not ruining the film maker's intentions, because we don't even dare have an opinion about what the film maker's intentions are. Anything that occured in the film is discussible here. Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion are notability are verifiability, not representing the filmmaker's intentions.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have not carefully read this discussion. First of all, the information is in the article; it just isn't in the Plot section (it's in Production). If you read this entire discussion, you will know that it is not just "one trigger-happy reverter" who thinks this should not be in the Plot section. There was a discussion first at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Archive_16#What_about_non-English.2C_non-subtitled_plot_points_in_English-language_films.3F before it was ever discussed here, and editors from the project have since commented here agreeing that it should not be in the Plot section. I won't rehash all the policies cited, but is not based on simple willfulness; there is a reasoned, policy-back rationale behind not wanting it in the Plot section. Your opinion is welcome, but you should get your facts straight first. --Melty girl (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Miluju Te" = " I Love You"[edit]

Clearly one, or the other, SHOULD be in PLOT section. That sentence is clearly said in the movie. There is no misreprezentation here. Source is clear. Translation is clear. One or the other should be clearly there in the plot section. 71.99.125.232 (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please add german Interwiki link[edit]

Whoever is able to edit this, please edit an interwiki link to the german Wikipedia article on Once. Thanks in advance :) 91.14.195.240 (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the heads up about the german article. Peace! SWik78 (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't split the Soundtrack section out![edit]

I disagree strongly with the suggestion that the soundtrack section should be split out into its own section, for two reasons. First, this article does not merit splitting on length alone and it is unlikely to grow too much bigger. Second, this movie is a musical -- it's all about the music -- and therefore, the film and the music info should stay together. Split apart, you will have two very short articles that lack the full context. And it's likely that some information, such as the Academy Award, will end up being repeated in both places. I say keep it as one article, just as it is now. --Melty girl (talk) 05:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: A musical film like this is mostly about the soundtrack. Joe Byrne -- Plé -- Contribs - :ga: - :fr: -

- 11:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubtitled I love you[edit]

As much as I debated to include the translation of the mentioned phrase into the plot, I have an issue with the phrase Miluju tebe being listed there. The reason I say that is that during the last time this was thouroughly debated, different editors came up with different theories on what was said. Besides Miluju tebe, editors also described the uttered phrase as Miluju te[1] and Noor-ho-tebbe[2] (which is what I remember hearing in the film). In the external link that I provided as proof that I love you is in fact what Girl said, Hansard speaks of Irglova ad-libbing the scene where she says I love you in Czech but then also goes to say But then we shot another version of the scene where she said something else. I wonder if that means that one version contains Miluju te or Miluju tebe and the other version contains Noor-ho-tebbe and that, maybe, European and North American DVDs each contain a different scene?

In that case, I would suggest de-listing Miluju tebe from the plot description for an english translation or to remove it altogether because the 2 phrases that might have been shot don't neccessarily have the same translation. SWik78 (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this one never ends! OK... first, I don't believe there is a basis for believing that there are different versions of this film circulating. Just because multiple takes were shot doesn't mean anything -- Hansard says that the one used in the final film is "I love you." So I can't go with you on your original theory for multiple versions without a source saying that there are multiple versions of this very low budget film; your memory may be faulty, as memory tends to be. Second, a Czech source has now been provided in the Plot section to back up what she says in Czech -- have you looked at it? If it had not been provided, I would have removed the phrase, as I have many times, because before it was unsourced and required expertise to understand, with different editors thinking she said different things. But now, it is sourced. --Melty girl (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the Czech source and, yes, undeniably it says Miluju tebe. The memory thing may be very true as you suggest. I just wanted input on Hansard's she said something else and what it could mean in relation to people saying Noor-ho-tebbe was said on screen. I don't mean to go into any WP:OR by guessing what he meant when he said it, I just meant to suggest that you were right for fighting as hard as you did to keep it out of the plot section because I'm having second thoughts about supporting its inclusion. Anyways, I got the input I was looking for. Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Yes, I'm still not entirely comfortable with it being there, but felt that a source certainly improved things (though most English speakers can't read Czech) and by not translating it in the Plot section, we still go by what the film actually showed/said. --Melty girl (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True. A source did improve things and not translating it to the plot section still goes by what the film actually showed/ said. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised at the length of discussion of this detail. It's not really possible to call this an Easter Egg for Czechs: of the two words spoken, the characters themselves have already translated the harder one for the listener in the preceding dialogue. The remaining word, "you" in accusative form, is more or less the same across all the slavic languages, and only marginally different from the Romance language forms. Anyone able to say even "What's your name?" ("How are you called?") in any of these languages could make a good guess at the meaning of the reply.

"Love him?"

It's clear she doesn't answer yes or no, because she repeats the same word...

"Love [tebe]"

As the film shows, it's a present reality in Europe that one meets people speaking many languages: some exposure to them is normal. It's perhaps a puzzle for the audience, but not a very difficult one. I hardly think this essential line can be excluded from the plot: it's there for all to understand.85.179.8.171 (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship and compostion of "If You Want Me"[edit]

The song "If You Want Me" is mislabeled. This isn't a Wikipedia error, but a soundtrack error. Hansard mentions this in the bonus features of the DVD. Irglova wrote and composed the song entirely, despite the movie's claim that it was composed by Hansard. I don't know if that counts as a qualified source, given that the soundtrack is also mislabeled. Hansard says something about how the movie miscredits both of them, then Irglova corrects him and says that it was the soundtrack. Not a big deal, but I thought I would bring it up. Skafkas (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not mislabeled here in Wikipedia. It says, "Irglová and Hansard: "If You Want Me" (Irglová) – 3:48" -- that means it was performed by Irglová and Hansard and composed by Irglová. The source is AllMusic.com. In the movie, the Guy wrote the music and the Girl writes lyrics for it -- but that's fiction. The actual song was composed by Irglová, and that's how it's credited in the this article. --Melty girl (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Hansard doesn't perform in the song. It's a solo by Irglova.Skafkas (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not true. The album credits them both, with Marketa's name first, and that's how it's listed in this article. Hansard sings harmonies and plays on the track. It's only "The Hill" that Irglová performs solo on piano and voice (also properly credited here). --Melty girl 02:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I'm an idiot. Sorry I didn't come back sooner to say so. My original comment was in response to Hansard intentionally pointing out the mistaken composition credit on the album. But I understand your explanation of him getting credit as performer. I didn't really pay attention to the harmony he was singing, and didn't read your last post until today. Skafkas (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming back to finish the discussion. Cheers, Melty girl 04:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

"metacritic" :
- [http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/once?q=Once Metacritic entry for Once]
- [http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/once?q=Once Once], Metacritic.com. Accessed [[1 March]] [[2008]].
"EW per-screen" :
- [http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20035285_20035331_20042740,00.html ''Entertainment Weekly'': "'Once' a Hero"] from Jun 14, 2007
- [http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20035285_20035331_20042740,00.html "'Once' a Hero"], ''Entertainment Weekly'', [[14 June]] [[2007]]. Accessed [[21 April]] [[2008]].
"rotten tomatoes" :
- [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/once/ Once (2007)], RottenTomatoes.com. Accessed [[1 March]] [[2008]].
- [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/once/ Once at Rotten Tomatoes]

DumZiBoT (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Chords[edit]

Haha anyone know where I could find the guitar chords for trying to pull myself away?

I have been searching for a long time. xD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.90.251 (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want the exact tablature/fingering or just the letter chords? --Melty girl 01:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything would work for me!! :3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.90.251 (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm not expert enough a guitarist to produce the exact fingerings, but I can figure out the chords for you. You'll have to give me a little time though, because I'm a new mom, so I may not be able to do it immediately. Email me with your email address (go to my user page and click "email this user" in the toolbox on the left sidebar), and I'll send you the chords when I get a chance. --Melty girl 03:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filming of summer scenes[edit]

There are some flash-back scenes which appear to be filmed during summer ( judging by the vegetation ). Have a look at this youtube video. I wonder when they were filmed. It might be an interesting addition to the section on production. It looks like some of those shots could not be filmed during 17 days in January. Pnelnik (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Once (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071210220530/http://www.irishmusiccentral.com:80/theframes/discography_albums.html to http://www.irishmusiccentral.com/theframes/discography_albums.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Once (film). 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) 14:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Once (film). 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) 22:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Once (film). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081025212403/http://www.stv.tv/content/out/film/filmreviews/display.html?id=opencms%3A%2Fout%2Ffilms%2Freviews%2Fonce to http://www.stv.tv/content/out/film/filmreviews/display.html?id=opencms%3A%2Fout%2Ffilms%2Freviews%2Fonce

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) 01:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Once (film). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080503150756/http://www.moviecitynews.com/awards/2008/top_ten/critics_19.html to http://www.moviecitynews.com/awards/2008/top_ten/critics_19.html

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) 11:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]