Talk:Frost/Nixon (film)

Preview

Is it appropriate to add http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi2519466009/ to the external links section? It's a preview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IReceivedDeathThreats (talk • contribs) 23:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Article Needed

It seems odd, but entirely like Wikipedia, to have an extensive write-up about the movie but to have no article at all about the source material. Nixon going on tape post-Watergate was a major news event during the 1970s, something that was never even considered possible. I guess for most of the writers here, this was too long ago, Surely the original series deserves better than just being a cross-reference in this article and the article about the play of the same name. 69.14.38.16 (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources

• Dawes, Amy (November/December 2008). "The Limelight and the Wilderness", Creative Screenwriting, Inside Information Group 15 (6).
• Block, Alex Ben (November 18, 2008). "Getting 'Frost' bite", The Hollywood Reporter, Nielsen Business Media.

Bradley0110 (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Headlines

• Ron Howard Revisits Frost/Nixon, November 25, 2008

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Drunk Dialing

• According to this article at cnn.com, the phone conversation didn't really exist between Nixon and Frost. Shouldn't this be mentioned somewhere? Excise (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Done.--Patrick (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy

• Section removed until someone can do a comprehensive review on this. The section removed stated that the telephone conversation between Nixon and Frost was the only fictional part of the movie - which isn't accurate. The article it used to cite this indicated quite the opposite, saying that the movie was at least "10% fiction". 87.65.156.69 (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

mixed reviews

• it is nominated for best picture , how could be mixed reviews —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.43.68.32 (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

  The reviews were mixed. Not everything was positive, and there were factual inaccuracies. Check out the section. Happyme22 (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Due to another reader questioning the mixed reviews contention, I am going to lay out why the movie has indeed received mixed reviews.

Anyone with half a brain who read the section before I rearranged it (seen here) could tell from what was written that the previous opening statement of "The film has received praise from critics" could not possibly be true. The section was (and still is) filled with comments from positive and negative critical reviewers. Thus the 'praise' statement was misleading, as it led people to believe that the film received only praise. While it did receive very high marks on Rotten Tomatoes, and in other places, some other critics were not so kind. Rotten Tomatoes certainly is reputable and its findings deserve to be included, but the findings of others deserve a fair shot and deserve to be included right along side.

Weighing the positive reviews of Roger Ebert, Peter Travers, Rotten Tomatoes, and Metacritic with the negative reviews of Elizabeth Drew (a Nixon historian), David Ettlestein, Fred Schwarz and Rene Roderiguez, it is clear that overall reviews of the film are mixed. Happyme22 (talk) 07:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well given 90% of critics liked it apparently, it wasn't mixed BUT this article implies that because of a large of weight towards negative... basically leave it as it is but could do with one or two more positive comments to highlight the fact it was mostly praise. Plus wiki has always had articles that highlight whether a film received mixed reviews or not from sites like RT and MC. Stabby Joe (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

All movies receive some negative reviews, but the term "mixed reviews" on Wikipedia usually means the film received a middling overall score on aggregate sites like Rotten Tomatoes. It currently has a 92% rating there, which means the reviews are overwhelmingly positive. To give you an idea, 'Jurassic Park III' is described as having "mixed reviews" with a score of 50%, and so are 'The Iron Lady' (51%) and 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' (53%). Other movies with a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 92% are generally described as receiving "critical acclaim" including 'Birdman,' 'The Grand Budapest Hotel,' 'Philomena' and 'Silver Linings Playbook.' Sadiemonster (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC) (Edit: This was really a reply to Happyme22).

Interesting section: Fact vs. Fiction

A few articles based on historical events have good sections comparing how the real thing compared to what actually occurred. While most viewers realize that this is a movie (a good one at that... sorry for POV), some may think its exactly what happened --or turn to Wikipedia for what was different. In writing up the article on Jack Brennan, Nixon's Chief of Staff, I've found a few good articles about the subject that show people who were involved generally liked the movie, but that it was surprisingly off on key issues: most notably, Nixon's side actually wanted him to apologize and claim some responsibility. To call it different than the movie would be an understatement. Here are some good items from credible sources: Daily Mail, Diane Sawyer remembers, Jack Brennan's recollection (Brennan actually consulted on the film). Anyone want to take a stab? --Bobak (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like some good material on the adaptation process and viewing experience will continue to appear. Editors should review Film Style Guidelines for Adaptations for help before adding material. Also, please don't focus on an "accuracy" section since the film is fiction; instead weave the material into the Production and Critical Reception sections. Of the three articles listed above, the Diane Sawyer one doesn't appear to be especially relevant since it's commentary by Lynn Sherr and some interviewing of Diane Sawyer; unfortunately, Sawyer hadn't seen the film at the time of the interview, and her comments are based on seeing the play and what she's "heard" about the film. Other articles which appear to be good fodder for the Production section, though, are: Dating David Frost and David Frost on Frost/Nixon. Of course, enhancing it with comments from Morgan and Howard about the adaptation would be even better than relying primarily on third-parties.
Jim Dunning | talk 06:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Bobak has a good point. This film is being portrayed as textbook-fact -- "this is the way it went down" -- which is not the case. I would support stressing this more in the article, and I'm willing to take a whack at it in the coming days. Happyme22 (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Just keep in mind that the film is recognized as "fiction" and reliable sources should be used, not WP editor synthesis or analysis.
Jim Dunning | talk 06:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh I understand that, and sorry if it seemed like I implied something. Happyme22 (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No prob. I might be overly-sensitive to the numerous "differences from" or "historical inaccuracies" sections I see that add little to a film article, when the valuable material could be used to enhance the Production sections.
Jim Dunning | talk 06:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I've been working on the "Historical accuracy" section at Valkyrie and saw this discussion. Would this help? It says, "Frost/Nixon, too, is firmly anchored in fact. Quite apart from Michael Sheen and Frank Langella's eerily accurate performances, the dialogue is closely based on the transcripts of the interviews. Nobody is in danger of being misled, and even David Frost said he enjoyed it." Just letting others know about this! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because this seemed the best place to mention it: The section on dramatic license mentions buildings near the Sydney Opera House being visible that didn't exist at the time. As an Australian that has grown up and worked in Sydney, I didn't notice this. What I did notice, however, was blatantly obvious. Frost was watching Nixon's resignation on a colour television. Nixon resigned in 1974. Colour television didn't come to Australia until 1975. 220.233.34.248 (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that a major inaccuracy in the film is that it presents the interviews as consisting of only 4 2-hour sessions, making it appear that Nixon's long answers put Frost under time pressure. In fact, there were 12 2-hour sessions, according to the Wikipedia entry on the subject. Erniecohen (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Critical Reception

I have added a review of the New York Times and the Box Office results.Sha-Sanio (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The ad for rotten tomatoes should also be removed 117.9.4.209 (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Caroline Cushing"

I see there is no article for her, or mention in the "David Frost" article. Is she a real person? 118.165.204.220 (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, although presumably not significant enough to have her own wiki article. http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jan/18/frost-nixon-key-players 94.170.25.203 (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"Frost discusses the possibility of an interview with his producer and friend"

An interview with the producer or Nixon? Ambiguous

Plot

The plot section was flagged as too long, so I've reduced it by about half. I kept as much of the original prose as possible, just edited out extraneous information. I hope it's okay. Sadiemonster (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Frost/Nixon (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 http://web.archive.org/web/20120820010834/http://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/movies/reviews/story/808259.html to http://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/movies/reviews/story/808259.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 13:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frost/Nixon (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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.movingpicturesmagazine.com/Default.aspx?DN=c049ff6b-f947-4ec3-86c8-17005d4ebc46&month=10&year=2008
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110127011012/http://talksport.cerosmedia.com/1R496782495aad0012.cde/page/27 to http://talksport.cerosmedia.com/1R496782495aad0012.cde/page/27

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)