Talk:The Fountainhead (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.

Objectivism (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Objectivism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ObjectivismWikipedia:WikiProject ObjectivismTemplate:WikiProject ObjectivismObjectivism articles

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

What is a 'starkly realistic' musical score? -Toptomcat 03:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is no mention made that the entire work is a critcism of socialism? This is much more a political commentary than it is a novel about architecture. The entire wikipedia entry does it an injustice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.143.93 (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to moved quotation?[edit]

@TallNapoleon says moved the Individual vs. Collective quotation to wikiquote. Might you be good enough to put a link to that new location on the page? Thanks.

Sorry, that was in the form of a command--i.e., someone put it on Wikiquote if you want to keep it. I wasn't thinking much... I'll move it there in a bit when I have time. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "Reception" section[edit]

Removed "Reception" section. It was simply a list of various reviews - all negative. Reviewing the section's history, I saw that it was a "piling-on" of reviews. One review was quoted, then another was added by someone else, etc. "Reception" should contain more subtlety. Reviews aren't the whole of the public's "reception". The net result was that the section that came to be was a quite biased list of negative reviews.

Like Teebol (21:17, 24 August 2009) said "...Wikipedia is a scholarly site...". A list of reviews isn't scholarly, even though the over-vaunted citations gives the appearance of scholarliness.

72.94.33.58 (21:48, 24 January 2010) said "Links to opinion pieces have no place on Wikipedia. Content should be factual. Contrarian ideas may be included, if factual and not opinionated.". These citations amount to links to opinion pieces. The fact that they were all negative is non-neutral. The fact that the editors selected such strong wording suggests "opinionated".

All-in-all, utterly opinionated, non-neutral POV, and unencyclopedic, needing immediate correction. The quickest correction is deletion. It can certainly be restored, but it needs more subtle, neutral, and dry analysis. As well, it should present a picture larger than the "world of reviewers".

108.7.13.173 (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for crying out loud. If links to opinion pieces have no place here (and that is obviously just one person's… opinion), then all reviews would be off limits. Because a review is purely an opinion, the opinion of the reviewer.

Also, if you think it's biased because all reviews listed were negative… add positive reviews. If you can find them that is… I guess you couldn't, so in typical Randist fashion (and you are very, very obviously one) you decided to delete the whole section.

"It needs dry analysis" Nope. Analysis would violate WP:NOR, and that is an absolute (misguided, IMNSHO, but absolute) no-go. --jae (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article does need a "Reception" section, which is common for Wikipedia articles about books, movies, plays, etc. If you feel this "Reception" section is too negative, please feel free to improve it -- but please do not simply delete the entire section. In addition, if you wish to make a major edit (such as deleting an entire section), please create an account and log in to Wikipedia as a regular Wikipedian. Sincerely, --Skb8721 (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way of finding out what the box office was ?Was the film a commercial failure? The reaction / reception of the film by the public is a fact that needs to be listed in the article.This should meet with wikipedias objectivity guidelines, I believe.Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So why has no-one reinstated the reception section, in the last twelve fucking years? --jae (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is in fact a section called "Critical reception". --RL0919 (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Author's reception[edit]

The previous version of this page stated that Ayn Rand "disliked the picture from beginning to end". I find this highly unlikely, as she praises it throughout her personal correspondence in The Letters of Ayn Rand. The source for the previous statement was a secondary one, but this is "straight from the horse's mouth" so to speak, and I find it unlikely that she would never have expressed her displeasure in writing, if she really did dislike the film. Letters provides records of her evaluation of it from the beginning of scriptwriting until after the film's premiere, and her emotions range from cautious optimism in the beginning to pleasure and gratitude in the end. There were minor conflicts, but they appear to have been resolved and she wrote letters of thanks to Vidor and Warner for their work on the film.

I was unsure how to handle the old content, as it contradicted the author's words so deeply, so I deleted the less likely sentence (in my opinion) and left the more likely one. I apologize if I did not handle citations correctly. --✶♏✶ 00:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What she said about the movie in letters from the time of its production does not mean she didn't have a different perspective afterwards. The quote about disliking it was from a biographical interview done over a over a decade later. So there's not necessarily a contradiction as long as the different timeframes are noted in the text. On that basis I've put the other evaluation back in, because it is soundly sourced and appears in multiple biographies. --RL0919 (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Her positive comments in the Letters date to years after the movie. I was unaware that the original comment was supposedly from an interview; I thought it was a secondhand report. Do you know or can you provide the context? --✶♏✶ 02:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The three letters quoted in the article are from 1949. Rand did a series of private interviews with Barbara Branden in 1960-61 when Branden was writing the authorized biographical essay in Who Is Ayn Rand?. Jeff Britting used them when he wrote Ayn Rand for the Overlook Illustrated Lives series (the source cited for the negative comments). For what it is worth, Rand's change of heart is explicitly documented in Anne Heller's Ayn Rand and the World She Made. Heller speculates about possible reasons: the fact that an unapproved change was made in the final edit, the movie's lack of financial success, etc. Whatever the reasons, Rand had a change of heart. --RL0919 (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the style of the architecture[edit]

According to the article, the style used for Roarke's building is the International Style, which was a surprise to me, as I had always thought it to be more like Art Deco. I'm no expert on the subject, but I think someone who knows more about the subject should double check it and possibly revise that part. __209.179.21.175 (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]