Talk:Sometimes a Great Notion (film)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sometimes a Great Notion (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was created from splitting Sometimes a Great Notion into Sometimes a Great Notion (1971 film) and Sometimes a Great Notion (novel) per discussion at Talk:Sometimes a Great Notion. Sometimes a Great Notion is now a disambiguation. --JayHenry 20:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC) |
"Never give a inch"
editGrammatically, of course, "never give an inch" would be correct. However, the famous Stamper mantra is "never give a inch." I understand the desire of so many folks to correct this in their articles, imitations, quotations, even modern-day renaming of the movie; but it makes them appear equally pretentious and illiterate. Adding the "n" completely misses the point. Among other things, it ignores the rough, minimally educated background of the elder Stampers, contrasted with younger brother Lee's advanced education, hippie leanings and soft skin. Just saying... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.21.241 (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
A missing piece in this discussion is that the story was challenged in court for coopting the lives of real people without their permission. (Henry and Albert Firchau, who were the inspiration for the story). They won in court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.147.52 (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Title
editWhen I saw the movie (England, early seventies) it was definitely titled "Never Give A Inch". The current intro reads: "Sometimes a Great Notion (also known as Never Give an Inch)" - this could use a little work by someone who knows why, where and for how long it had the NGAI title. Also shouldn't that first sentence read 'A" instead of 'an'? Cross Reference (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Release Date
editIt seems as though the release date on this article is worthy of dispute. The article calls it a 1970 film and the release date is listed as December 31st, 1970. IMDb, however, says the earliest release date is the same date, but in 1971. Seeing as how this film's two Oscar nominations are for the 1971 calendar year, I'm inclined to agree with 1971. The Vincent Canby NYT review was published on March 22nd of 1972. I doubt this film ran for over a year and still garnered a Times review. On the other hand, the Roger Ebert review is dated as January 1, 1971. BUT - he references Richard Jaeckel as an Oscar nominee. His only nomination was for this film and the nominations for this film weren't released until 1972. I can't find anything concrete other than IMDb, but I think this merits discussion and possible change to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nharlowg (talk • contribs) 00:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Nharlowg: IMDb is edited by people and therefore is not the most reliable. Rotten Tomatoes and RogerEbert.com says January 1, 1970 while if you Google this movie; it says November 12, 1970. So I don't know which is correct. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 06:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Critical reception: Canby excerpt apparent typo: needs verification?
editIn "lumberingly sets up almost a very physical and emotional crisis that can (and, indeed) must erupt before this kind of movie can be said to have decently met its obligations," "a very" is all but certainly a typo or scanning error for "every." Would this require verification (e.g. via online images or library microfiche) before correction? Michael (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)