Talk:The Pink Panther (1963 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use rationale for Image:Pink panther63.jpg[edit]

Image:Pink panther63.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Shot In The Dark[edit]

According to the article, A Shot In The Dark was filmed and released 3 months later, but it was actually released 3 months later but filmed a year before The Pink Panther. Should we fix this? EuroJordan (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the evidence for that statement? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 4 years back the official Pink Panther webiste would have told you that. But, yes, it is known that A Shot In The Dark as shot before The Pink Panther, only there is no RELIABLE source by Wikipedia's standards, if I find one, I'll dd it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clouseau's role in the movie[edit]

I have to disagree with Closseau being the main character here. The real lead star was the thief, and his romance with the Princess was the actual story. Cloussau was sort of an antagonist, and doesn't get as much screen time as he has in the sequels. I guess Edwards didn't expect for Closseau to steal the show, and he was forced to give the audicence more Closseau. However, I don't have any sources, but I would expect for someone to agree write that in the article. --Surten (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Surten[reply]

That's already in the article, or at least it used to be. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is already in the article. Thank goodness Blake Edwards and the rest of the crew decided to focus on Inspector Clouseau's character and not David Niven's character. I found David Niven's character to be boring and generally uninteresting in The Pink Panther. Inspector Clouseau is portrayed as a bumbling idiot and antagonist in The Pink Panther but Peter Sellar's Inspector Clouseau was brilliant. It's easy to see that Blake Edwards and crew were planning another sequel using David Niven's Character as The Phantom for sequels because David Niven said "Clouseau would be exonerated when The Phantom strikes again." I never really cared for The Phantom. Peter Sellars, however, was brilliant. The Phantom and his nephew sucked rocks. Qewr4231 (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technicolor[edit]

I wrote in my edit summary: "'Technicolor' is misleading, the film would have 'Prints by T' credit, while the original negative film stock would have been Eastmancolor, the T process itself would only have been used, if at all, for only some release prints." In fact, the opening credits are for 'Technicolor' and 'Technirama', but my point remains true. Technicolor was mainly a reference to the film lab by this point, rather than to the process. Philip Cross (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Release year[edit]

Anyone know what we go by for the release year of a film? A now-blocked editor moved this article from ...(1963 film) to ...(1964 film) in March 2013 without giving any reason I can find. IMDB lists it as 1963, though in its listing for all release dates, it shows the premiere as 1964. Eric talk 15:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why Wikipedia uses Release Year to list films, although it seems a logical thing to do, unlike many other practices here that are devised by small groups of individuals with minimal planning and forethought. I noticed that The Pink Panther (1964 film) states that it was released January 9, 1964 in the UK and March 20, 1964 in the United States. If one goes by the Release Dates, it most definitely would be a 1964 film in both the UK and the U.S., although it is obvious that virtually all the shooting, editing and production would have taken place in 1963, since there wouldn't have been enough time in the first six days of January to do much more than produce prints and have them delivered for the UK theatres. Why IMDB should differ on this point, I can't say: It is, after all, a wiki, and its editors aren't infallible. As for Wikipedia, some articles listed the film as The Pink Panther (1963 film) (1963), some listed it as The Pink Panther (1963 film) (1964), and others listed it as The Pink Panther (1964 film) (1964). Where it is included in lists by year, some articles put it into the 1963 section, while others put it into the 1964 section. I just tried to make it uniform. If someone can come up with documentation to show that the film was actually first released in 1963, instead of 1964 as shown in The Pink Panther (1964 film), the articles should all be edited to show this. Alas, it isn't as simple as just moving the main article and creating a single redirect, which is what appears to have happened when the article was moved from The Pink Panther (1963 film) to The Pink Panther (1964 film). — QuicksilverT @ 16:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hg- Well said. Did you follow that second link I put above? It gives December 1963 release dates for three countries. Eric talk 16:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, missed the "see more" link. If IMDB is correct in this regard, it would most definitely make it a 1963 film, but the Wikipedia article doesn't list any of these earlier release dates. Is it possible that when the article got moved from "1963 film" to "1964 film", this information wasn't available at IMDB either? — QuicksilverT @ 16:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows? The user who moved it gave no rationale, and is blocked indefinitely for vandalism. Eric talk 17:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I saw this discussion and researched the matter a little bit. WikiProject Film does prefer to go by the year of the earliest release date. Here, IMDb's listing of releases in West Germany, Finland, and Sweden seem strange and not reported elsewhere (that I could find). WikiProject Film editors tend to take IMDb's data with a grain of salt; we prefer to see the data confirmed elsewhere. In Google Books, I found that this film is repeatedly called a 1963 film, which seems fine, but it's also possible that these resources took the year from IMDb at face value. :) However, the British Film Institute's database, which I would trust, does state 1963. Maybe we could just state "1963" in the infobox and plac ethe UK and US premiere dates in the article body? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into it, Erik. I think we should just move the article back to its previous name. I think we can simply undo last March's move without losing the edits that have been made since then. Can anyone confirm that? Eric talk 18:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I reverted the move. You can do this by going here (though the "revert" action is now gone since it's been moved). Do we want just "1963" for the infobox? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that. I'd lean towards not adding more release years, as there are several listed on IMDB for different countries and it could get busy for an infobox. Eric talk 19:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the edits I made yesterday can simply be reverted, if they involve links changed from (1963 film) to (1964 film), and parenthetical years that match. In cases where the link conflicts with the parenthetical year, they will need to be re-edited. — QuicksilverT @ 22:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I took care of this article and Capucine. Eric talk 23:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm using Special:WhatLinksHere/The_Pink_Panther_(1964_film) as a guide to backtrack, but I've run into a problem. There are two templates, Template:Blake Edwards and Template:Pink Panther, that are used on many of the pages, but contain contained the incorrect 1964 link and year in parentheses. I corrected the templates, but articles that have been scrubbed of references to "The Pink Panther (1964 film)" still show up in the Pages that link to ... listing, despite page purges and refreshing my browser cache. It may just be database lag. I'll have to wait a while and see if the template changes ripple through in a few hours, then try again. — QuicksilverT @ 00:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The failure to update in the Pages that link to ... reports appears to be a Wiki cache bug, similar to the problems with image files not updating last year. I've found that by performing a null edit — adding one newline character to the end of the file — forces the cache to update and the file disappears from the list, even though the edit has nothing to do with removing a reference to "The Pink Panther (1964 film)". A null edit does not show up in the article's edit history. — QuicksilverT @ 23:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a RELIABLE SOURCE that deals with the 1963 release dates? Yes, the film may have been filmed, edited and prepared in 1963, but we name our films by the dates they are released. The BFI database shows the date the film wass either copyrighted, or filed with them (which would have been 63 for an January 64 release) and we have the UNRELIABLE imdb referene, but is there something reliable that people can point to that proves a 1963 release in csome territories? - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see Erik's post about halfway up? Eric talk 12:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did, but it still doesn't explain why we are putting this as a 63 film with no evidence that any releases were in that year. As I have already said, the BFI dates are from the date the name was registered with them or copyrighted, not when it was released. - SchroCat (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Poked around a bit and found this entry in German film lexicon zweitausendeins.de – see date at Erstauffuehrung (= premiere). German sources on web give the premiere as 19 December 1963, but none I saw could point to an engraved granite tablet from God certifying the date. Took a stab at searching German periodical archives from late '63. Nothing came up, but my search was in no way thorough. Don't know Finnish or Swedish. Eric talk 15:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good sleuthing, Eric. As far as not reading Swedish or Finnish, there's always Google Translate; not great, but usually good enough to get the gist of articles. Also, last night I finished reverting my earlier edits that started this whole discussion, changing the dates in articles from "1964" back to "1963". — QuicksilverT @ 18:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Pink Panther (1963 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 02:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

fluff[edit]

The film ends after the police car carrying Clouseau to prison runs over a traffic warden—the cartoon Pink Panther from the animated opening credits. He gets back up as we hear the crash that was coming out from the police car, holding a card that reads "THEND" and swipes the letters to read "THE END."

Above line doesn't ... really seem relevant to the plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerryToogood (talk • contribs) 05:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Pink_Panther_(1963_film)&oldid=1210686045"