Talk:Carry On at Your Convenience

Fair use rationale for Image:Carry-On-At-Your-Convenience.jpg

Fair use added. SkierRMH 06:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Carry-On-At-Your-Convenience.jpg

Image:Carry-On-At-Your-Convenience.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 02:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting and even strangely encouraging that this film war a commercial failure, since it suggests that even easily amused audiences have their limits about what they will put up with. I think it is worth noting that, while many of the Carry On films could be criticised for unconsciously putting forward crude sexual and other stereotypes, this one smacks of a conscious attempt at anti-trade-union propaganda, e.g. not casting one of the regulars as the bolshie shop steward (in case the audience might sympathise with him) and giving Sid James's character (who the audience would be expected to identify with) promotion to a manager at the end. PatGallacher (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Knowing what we know now, it seems possible that Union bullying tactics dissuaded fans from watching it. Even so, the film is remarkably satirical. Management try to introduce new ideas but the Union block it. This is exactly how Unions undermined British Industry, eventually making it uncompetitive and leading to the decline of it.....the car industry being a prime example. But the film also shows inept management figures as well, so it is balanced. A key issue here is that the film became more popular overseas because it showed exactly how other countries saw Britain at the time. Kentish 21 Dec 14 0759 GMT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.78.18 (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

As a union rep I would say that union "bullying tactics" - which I have never used and would refuse to use - could not possibly have persuaded any union member to not view the film, given that attendance of the cinema was in union members' free time outside of work. That unions might have advised members not to view the film, is certainly a possibility. During the time period in question, most union members paid their subscription in cash, in the workplace or at branch meetings, and their rep would have mentioned any "current issues". If so, there ought to be evidence, in the form of meeting minutes or union journals, that officers and reps were asked to encourage their members to boycott the film. I have yet to find any such evidence. A more likely explanation is, that the decline of the Carry On series during the 1970s had already started, and "Convenience" was the first casualty. Bawdier comedy was arriving in the form of the On the Buses films and then the Confessions and Adventures series. It is this trend that probably caused the poor box office receipts for "Convenience". Rugxulo (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Loving the idea of a union "advising" its members what films to see in their spare time...totalitarian much?89.207.1.20 (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing "totalitarian" about a union advising that its members boycott a film. Would you say a church is "totalitarian" if it advises its congregation to avoid giving money to a movie that's believed to be blaspheming Christianity? --Ismail (talk) 06:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Typical 'Carry On' use of puns

Are there no sources that mention the use of punnage in this one film for the title and characters? The fictional business manufactures lavatories, for which the UK uses the synonyms "convenience", "WC", and "Bog". I should have thought that this is a particular noteworthy aspect for this subject. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)