Talk:Blue Is the Warmest Colour

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eliijayy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Running time of film

The infobox states that the running time is 179:35, and most reviews I have seen talk about a "3-hour film". However, the timing of the version recently shown on the Film4 channel in the UK (which I ascertained by removing all the commercial breaks) is 173 minutes. Is this a DVD version which has been cut? -Blurryman (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The Artificial Eye DVD I have has 173 minutes as the run-time too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I pursued this further. The Curzon Artificial Eye website for the film actually shows a run-time of 180 minutes. And Rotten Tomatoes has 2h 55m. Then all of this suddenly rang a bell in my head about something I'd come across before, and an internet search revealed the answer, which only affects PAL DVDs: "It is because of the way in which movies are transferred to video ... [which] means that the film is being shown 4% faster than it was originally intended to be shown .... The most obvious effect of this 4% speedup is that the film runs for 4% less time." So for this film, rounding up the numbers, 4% off 180 = 173. Bingo! -Blurryman (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay but why does the BBFC list it as 180: https://www.bbfc.co.uk/release/blue-is-the-warmest-colour-film-qxnzzxq6vlgtodyymjm1 @User:Blurryman Stephanie921 (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stephanie921 The BBFC use the running time of the film when shown in cinemas, as is shown in the infobox in the article. Showings on TV are, I presume, sourced from DVDs which run 4% faster. -- Blurryman (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Cheers guv @Blurryman but shouldn't the runtime be changed to 180 then - if the theatrical running time at the normal speed is 180? Stephanie921 (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stephanie921 Sorry, I misunderstood what you were querying. If you go into edit mode for the article, the infobox text shows "179 minutes", followed by "Theatrical runtime: 179:35", but then cites the BBFC page showing 180 minutes as the source. I haven't tracked back to the origin of that entry, but I agree that the timing should now be rounded to 180 as in the cited source, so I've done that. Cheers. -- Blurryman (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by "followed by ""," :) It looks like u meant to say something but accidentally left it out Stephanie921 (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Oops! Corrected. -- Blurryman (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:Blurryman Cheers for clearing that up me mucker, I get u now :) Thanks for correcting the runtime Stephanie921 (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

FYI, apparently "179 minutes" comes from the Cannes press kit. ภץאคгöร 20:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nyxaros Thanks but is there something wrong with the link? When I open it my screen loads before staying on Wikipedia. I tried using private mode and I just get a blank screen Stephanie921 (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I checked it now. I couldn't find a problem because it starts downloading the pdf directly in my browser. You can find the file here on Cannes website after you scroll down to "INFOS PRESSE" section or you can click this one. Hope it works. (Cannes website shows the duration as 177 minutes, not counting the credits I suppose.) ภץאคгöร 08:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Mintzner quote in § Concerns about graphic sex

@Tropical Storm Angela: I don't quite understand why you restored the quote that 80.111.17.229 (talk · contribs) removed. The quote doesn't reference the film's sexual content at all, so what is its relevance to that section? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

It was a strongly important aspect of the motion picture in question. That's the reason I restored the quote related to the NC-17 rated motion picture about which the article gives information. I did not realize, however, the quote didn't mention these sexual materials at all. I'll be bold without being reckless, although much more careful when reverting edits that may (potentially) be questionable, vandalism or otherwise not appropriate for Wikipedia information sites. Angela Kate Maureen (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it's an important aspect. The rest of the section is still there, though, and does talk about the explicit content. If we're in agreement that the quote isn't about the explicit content, is it okay if I re-remove it? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

You can remove it again. There ain't any harm done, no hard feeling whatever. Angela Kate Maureen (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

When a source is used, the quote or commentary should be on-topic, so if the text is changed appropriately, you could restore the source. -- Valjean (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Issue with the timeline

I don't think Adèle is 15 at the beginning of the film. She probably is in the graphic novel, but not in the film. Clues to support this statement are as follows.

1. The first time we are explicitly told Adèle's age is during her 18th birthday party. If she was 15 at the beginning, this would involve a three-year time jump prior to that scene, but there's no indication of that, whereas all following time jumps are clearly indicated by a change of haircut and circumstances for one or both main characters.
2. Furthermore, in the scene that follows the birthday party, we see Emma visiting with Adèle's parents, and they say they're happy to finally meet their daughter's philosophy tutor after *months* of hearing about her. Had a time jump happened, at this point Adèle would have known Emma for years, not months.
3. It also makes no sense that they would refer to her as her philosophy tutor. We know Adèle had trouble with her philosophy grades when she met Emma. We're also told her high school only includes a philosophy class for only one year of their study course. At the dinner where Emma is introduced to Adèle's parents (which, again, comes after her 18th birthday), Adèle discusses how her philosophy grades have improved thanks to Emma's tutoring. That wouldn't make sense were she talking of a class she attended three years ago.
4. At the party, Adèle's friends are dressed and behave the same way they had in previous scenes where they would allegedly be three years younger. It's the very same group of school friends.
5. Since early scenes, Adèle talks about her post-high school plans, which is not something you usually do three years before you graduate.
6. In the scene after the birthday party, the relationship between Adèle and Emma seems still recent and fresh. We don't get the sense they have been dating for years at that point. This is especially glaring in comparison to the following time jump that's clearly indicated, among other things, by a decline in their relationship.

What the film seems to me to suggest is that Adèle was 17 at the beginning (see also her asking Emma, "How do you know I'm a minor?", which would fit the idea that she knew she wasn't going to be a minor for long), and then turned 18 during the same, final school year. The year in which she met Emma and had bad philosophy grades (also, most high school programs in Europe include philosophy classes during the last years, when the students are older, not when they're younger).

I know I'd need a secondary source stating all of this in order to justify a change, but I think most secondary sources are getting this aspect wrong, most likely by referencing each other, as well as sources referencing the graphic novel's timeline. However, there might be an authoritative source out there, perhaps an interview with the director, clarifying this element. I just want to present the idea that the timeline currently contained in the synopsis might likely be erroneous. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)