Talk:Barbarella (film)

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Bartkowiak, Mathew J. (2010). "The Intergalactic Lounge: Barbarella and Hearing the Future". In Bartkowiak, Mathew J (ed.). Sounds of the Future: Essays on Music in Science Fiction Film. McFarland. pp. 134–147. ISBN 0786444800.

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

what is it rated? in the us, uk, france etc? i have no idea because i dont own the film —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.109.203 (talk) 10:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not positive about all the different countries, however in the US it is currently rated "PG" by the MPAA. Originally it was "Rated M - Suggested For Mature Audiences" when it first came out (and rated "X" in the UK when it first came out).-Lostboy- (talk) 05:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I believe this movie was actually released before the MPAA rating system was implemented.Also, I wuld think to be rated PG today, it would have to be the edited version.

And what is this movie actually about? 88.159.77.217 (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea. It must be a film about movie styles. Rebelyell2006 (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

And when is it set? 40th C / 400th C? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.147.96 (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

For one of the iconic movies of that generation this article is pretty damn pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.220.25 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I had just started college & let me tell you, this movie was very racy for its time. Whole idea was to see some of Jane's skin; nobody cared about storyline. Also, in my recollection the film was very popular; just about every guy I know saw it. There was even a big spread about it in "Playboy." I find it very hard to believe it only grossed $613,000. Something fishy going on.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.79.239 (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

It struck me as odd as well, so I put a cite notice next to it. Tehw1k1 (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I put the meager USA gross back, adding Australia and Italy, as given by IMDb business, which says rentals have amounted to 5½ million dollars. The figures are weird. If anybody has got something better, please cough up. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

is the IMDB figures reliable? 613K could be totally possible for the 1968 release, not including later income from the re-release. total revenue to date must be much higher. Ottawakismet (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ottawakismet, IMDb is not considered a reliable source; we prefer to double-check what they report. In this case, it would be better to search for the film title and the term "box office" (or similar terms) to see if news articles or books report any such figures. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Erik I do recognize that problem about IMDB - hence why I questioned their reliability. I already did a search and was unable to find anything, so thats why I came onto the talk page, to make sure that this was highlighted. I think its one of the most relevant reasons why this article is noteworthy, that it did badly initially and did better later on, so newer figures would be salient. Also,what I suspect the rental numbers refer to, are probably not consumer video rentals, but rentals of the movie to distributors / television. Ottawakismet (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is Tau Ceti in this film a planet, as currently stated in the article ("Barbarella (Jane Fonda) is assigned by the President of Earth (Claude Dauphin) to retrieve Doctor Durand Durand (Milo O'Shea) from the planet Tau Ceti"), or is it a star system? There are only five mentions of Tau Ceti in the film. In the introductory scenes, Dianthus, President of Earth and Rotating Premier of the Sun System, mentions it in these two sentences:

• "Recently, en route to the North Star, he [Durand-Durand] vanished into the uncharted regions of Tau Ceti."
• "Yet we know nothing of Tau Ceti or its inhabitants."

Neither of these sentences explicitly identifies Tau Ceti as either a star system or a planet. Then, en route, Barbarella says:

• "Alphy, when do we get to the Tau Ceti gravitational field?"

And after having been woken up from a 154-hour sleep, when the "course in temporal acceleration" is ended:

• "Alphy! It's Tau Ceti!"

Again, ambiguous. But then, at about 13 minutes into the film, after Barbarella's space ship has crashed, we have this exchange between Barbarella and her ship computer:

• Barbarella: "Where am I?"
• Alphy: "That's what I was going to ask you. Planet 16 in the system Tau Ceti. Air density oh-point-oh-51."

This is the last mention of Tau Ceti in the film, and the only one that unambiguously identifies it, namely as a star system having planets.  --Lambiam

  Done I've change the plot to reflect this. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Trivia sections are not immune to sourcing requirements. Listing every single trivial mention of something is undue, and, without a reliable secondary source to confirm the connection, is original research. I have challenged the inclusion the removed trivia entries, and a valid source is now necessary to include them. See WP:BURDEN for details. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

You are confused in several ways.

• First there is no "trivia" section in this article, there is a section which details appearnaces of the subject matter in popular culture.  :*Second, you are confused about the standard for verifiability for popcult entries. As long as the popcult entry is straightforward description and not interpretation or analysis, it is verifiable by reference to the media item it refers to, which is exactly how every other reference works. Just as in plot sections, it is not necessary to specifically detail this, since it is taken for granted. If the popcult item strays into analysis or interpretation, then it obviously cannot be referenced by the media item, and requires a secondary source.
• Third, there is no consensus anywhere on Wikipedia for the wholsesale deletion of popcult sections, or for labeling them as "trivia" as then deleting them. Several attempts have been made to make this policy, and they have been defeated. You cannot do the same thing with a "back door" method.
• Fourth, WP:BRD requires that when your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the very next step to take is to Discuss the edit, while the article stays in the status quo ante. If you restore your edit instead of discussing, you have taken the first step into edit warring, which can lead to your being blocked. Starting a discussion does not then entitle you to restore, the article must stay as it was while the discussion goes on.

So, the ball is in your court. Which of the popcult items are not straight-forward description which are verifiable through reference to the media item they describe? Which of them stray into interpretation or analysis? Which of them are so insignificant -- i.e. mere mentions -- that they're not a valuable addition to the list. I'm willing to discuss any item you bring up under these criteria, but you should not restore your deletion, which would continue the edit war without even the excuse of preserving the status quo ante as prescribed in WP:BRD. BMK (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

WP:BRD is an essay. WP:BURDEN is a policy. Come up with sources or the content must be removed. Where is a guideline or policy that says that "in popular culture" (trivia sections) do not need citations? In fact, they do. Without secondary sources, including them is undue, as I have already stated before. I will seek further input from WikiProject Film on this matter, since you seem intent on edit warring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Right, independent reliable sourcing must be used for "in popular culture" elements just like other elements. See WP:In popular culture (an essay) for more, but they need sourcing independent of reference to the media item they describe to show their notability (a guideline). -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) Does WP:TRIVIA not apply here? It says explicitly, "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information." If this article was a Good Article or a Featured Article, it would not have this kind of list section. It could be restructured so we can focus passages on key aspects, like a paragraph about Barbarella's costume being famous and where it has been mimicked. Same for the opening scene and maybe the Matmos slime as well. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

"Avoid" does not mean "do not", and MOS is, as everyone seems to forget, a guideline and not policy. BMK (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

That's OK, you seem to have forgotten what WP:CONSENSUS is. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) WP:INDISCRIMINATE says, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." When I researched the Kylie Minogue music video, I found out that the opening sequence in the film was considered a big deal. We could have a paragraph about that and mention the music video as part of that coverage. Similarly, the costume has been noted as iconic, and it would make sense to talk about that and mention copycats of that costume. It's a better way to put information together. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

This is more like what I'd like to see. But I'd settle for a bare list that has citations. I myself located citations for some of the entries, but BMK has inexplicably stripped the citations away. I guess it was probably an oversight. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Comment Each item of "trivia" requires a secondary source, otherwise it is WP:Synthesis, which says: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. When you state that "The music video of Kylie Minogue's 1994 song "Put Yourself in My Place" is similar to the opening scene of Barbarella, where she slowly removes her space suit while floating in zero gravity" you are making a claim that is not directly attributed to either primary source: someone who has never seen Barbarella cannot reasonably make that claim based on just watching a Kylie video i.e. the editor is editorializing based on having seen both works. I don't have a problem with inclusion of such a claim but it needs to be attributable to a single source; that is a policy requirement, not a MOS guideline. Betty Logan (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

An editor is repeatedly renaming the "In popular culture" section to "Trivia" (see [1], [2] and [3]) on the pretext of WP:TRIVIA.

• I would like to make a couple of points in regards to this. WP:TRIVIA is a guideline, and specifically states: In this guideline, the term "trivia section" refers to a section's content, not its name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information. Therefore the guideline categorically does not make any suggestions regarding the name of the section.
• Secondly, MOS:FILM#Popular culture permits "popular culture" sections while MOS:FILM#Trivia discouarges miscellaneous trivia sections, encouraging the integration of miscellaneous content into other sections of the article. If this were a featured article, it would most likely still include an "in popular cuture" section but not a general "trivia" section. Popular culture references may be trivia, but not all trivia are popular culture references. The film guidelines permit sections about a particular type of trivia, but renaming the section fundamentally alters the type of trivia we want to document, and is counter-productive to the development of the article.

I will revert the changes once again and I would appreciate it if the editor persisting with these alterations discusses them here first and gains a consensus for them before changing them again. Betty Logan (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The content listed dubiously as "In Popular Culture" exactly and clearly fits the well established Wikipedia definition of "trivia" - WP:TRIVIA. Calling it something that it is not changes nothing, and doing so is disingenuous. The material needs to be worked into the body of the article, or deleted from the main article. "Consensus" on a Talk Page to keep trivia does not "trump" well established Wikipedia policy with regards to trivia. The presence of such trivia detracts from the legitimacy of Wikipedia. Taco Viva (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

This not a battle that's worth fighting. Does it really matter whether it's called "trivia" or "in popular culture"? The current consensus is that the section requires citations. Content that does not have a citation will be removed. Once we implement this consensus, the section will likely be retitled and rewritten. I suggest that you give your support to the attempt to fix the article and leave these petty battles alone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think the distinction to make here is that this is a subset of trivia. It's not trivia in the sense of being all over the place. There's a certain goal to it, but it is still not a good way to organize the information. For what it's worth, I've added a citation for the Duran Duran sentence. There are also citations for the two music videos (Minogue and Fuzzbox) out there. Not sure about the others. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I had already given a citation to that, but it was lost in the earlier dispute. If we have consensus here, then I think it would be wise to retitle the section to "Legacy" and try to write an encyclopedic paragraph. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC) note: I have removed some unhelpful comments that I made in this post. On further thought, I think they were too inflammatory, and I apologize to BMK for my rudeness. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I would go with the title "In Popular Culture" rather than "Trivia", or ,better yet, use the title "List of Cultural References to Barbarella". Here's what I'm talking about, just take a look at the list for "A Clockwork Orange": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cultural_references_to_A_Clockwork_Orange I hope a solution like this will please everyone. WatchinDaFilms (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Interesting that I was *BANNED* from editing at all *ANYWHERE* because Betty got her panties in a bind over Trivia, and LOOK! It's been removed! ~ Taco — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.65.79 (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to rewrite section on the remake. It overwhelms the rest of the article and contains too much unnecessary detail, such as speculation and rumors that are now irrelevant. I'm quite certain that I could compress it down to a few sentences without losing much detail. This would be a big edit, however, and I think it might be contentious, so I'd like to start a discussion before I touch that section. If people like it how it is, that's fine; I'll leave it alone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am not opposed to the level of detail, but the section could be written better. (It could also be moved below "Legacy" so it comes after the main topic.) We can link to the current revision here so if it is shortened, editors in the future can see content that could be restored if the rest of the article has grown. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well, I think it's quite safe to say there's no consensus for such a rewrite. OK, I'll go back to trying to find more information on the film's legacy. I think I got the low-hanging fruit already, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barbarella (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.dynamite-magazine.de/big-john-bates-and-the-voodoo-dollz
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100813043621/http://fashion.elle.com:80/blog/2007/09/september-30-20.html to http://fashion.elle.com/blog/2007/09/september-30-20.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140303223853/http://whatculture.com/film/universal-not-fonda-of-rose-as-barbarella.php to http://whatculture.com/film/universal-not-fonda-of-rose-as-barbarella.php

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

The infobox is supposed to list the film's composer. We have a source for this. It was working previously, but it seems to be returning an error now. I'll see if I can find a working copy at archive.org. But the problem is that people have added someone who is not the composer – people who wrote and performed the songs used in the film. Musicians go in the production section. The infobox, per {{infobox film}} is for the composer. These are different jobs, and the musicians shouldn't replace the composer in the infobox. This is why there's a note there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

The whole Jarre thing is a bit confusing. There's no score released of the film that credits him, and the Library of Congress notes that "Maurice Jarre doesn't receive composer credit on USA prints; it goes to Charles Fox and Bob Crewe. Furthermore, an initial score by Michel Magne that had been commissioned by and recorded for Roger Vadim was discarded altogether." [4] Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Instead of the infobox, should not this information be covered in a section about the film's music. We currently have no information about it? Dimadick (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Maybe that's the best solution. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Not that I'm trying to make this more difficult, but despite Jarre's apparent contribution to the film, I can not find anything to see when or what he did, if anything. He's not credited in the credit roll, various forms of media released as the soundtrack to the film have him credited no where, or even mentioned. (se: here, here, and here.) For a composer as important as Jarre, you would think there would be some release related to his music, but outside people going by credits, I can't find any documentation or any mention of his involvement. I've even found traes of Michel Magne's thrown away score, but not Jarre.

Not that my own opinion marks up to much either, but Jarre's scores do not really sound like Barbarella's style. Meanwhile, other tracks of The Bob Crewe Generation not related to Barbarella seem to match the score. I'll look to see if anyone had dug anything out, but for the brief period, I can not find any definitive statement outside that it seems like Jarre did not have anything to do with the score. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

The American Film Institute credits him (link to Google Books, link to AFI film database), and I doubt they'd uncritically add credits. The AFI database entry is a bit confusing to interpret, though. Personally, I think the best idea so far has been to explain it in text, perhaps with the LoC source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'd agree except that I can not find anything really explaining Jarre's contributions, historically I mean, as in, I see him in databases, but as far as the making of the music goes, there is no point where I see that Jarre stepped in. Can not find any tracks credited to him, anything discussing the music doesn't say when or where he came in to do work on the score, nor does he show up in any soundtrack release things (as shown above). I know the AFI credits him, but as books I've read on film credits (specifically those by Stuart Galbraith IV and Roberto Curti), the AFI is often incorrect on non-American productions. For example, AFI also credits this as just a French production, which is not the case. Databases can be useful, but I prefer to find individual research, which currently here seems contradictory. Thoughts @NinjaRobotPirate:? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think we need to go by what the sources say, not what Wikipedia editors think may be true. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I mean, I'm not going to die on this hill. I wasn't the one who added it, and I wasn't the one who added the note (or, I don't think I was). But I think it's important that we don't ignore what reliable sources say. If the sources conflict, we need to report this. We can't just cherry-pick one source and ignore the others. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oh yeah, I mean, I'm not going with "my idea = best", I'm just saying that everything seems to be contradictory and I am not sure which cite should be considered more reliable. For now, I think we should remove composer in the infobox, and just put what we can in the prose. Sound okay? Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I think the infobox can't really explain well enough that the sources conflict with each other. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Cool. I'll try and re-phrase it later. Been slowly pecking away at this article... Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

So looking around, I found that this Billboard article citing Crew and Fox compsing the score as well. here Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

It has been a few months since I've added information about the film score to the prose, if there is no further discussion, I'll remove the discuss tag in the infobox shortly. Anyone else have anything to discuss/add? Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think we probably covered just about everything possible. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ok. If there is nothing really else to go over, I'll remove the tag. If anyone else wants to bring anything up or has anything new to discuss, I'll be happy to get in the middle of it. :D Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:Barbarella (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sock (talk · contribs) 13:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

It will be my great honour to do the GA review for this wonderful movie. I'll be rewatching it tonight, and beginning to the review tomorrow (or Wednesday at the latest). Sock (tock talk) 13:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

No action here for 19 days. I can tell you first off that references 17 and 29 have errors, as does the source by 'Spencer, Kristopher'. Bollyjeff | talk 02:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I fixed 17 and 29. Not sure what you mean with the Spencer, Kristopher source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hoo boy, this took far too long. I am so sorry. But hopefully I can make it up to you with a very thorough review. I'll just do the checks up here, then go in-depth on my reasoning below.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:  

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:  

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:  

   C. No original research:  

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:  

   B. Focused:  

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:  

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:  

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  

Lead

• My only issue here is with "positronic ray". It really needs a note or a further elaboration on what it is, because if I hadn't seen the movie, I would be deeply confused by that sentence. Alternatively, it could just be swapped out for something like this: "...Durand Durand, who has created a weapon that could destroy humanity." Otherwise, this lead is great!

Agreed! Changed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Plot

• Who is Barbarella? It just says "Barbarella is assigned by the president of Earth" with no explanation of why the president knows who she is, or who she is apart from her name. I know this is a little tricky given what you have to work with, but just the name doesn't paint a picture of who she is at all.

Ahh good point. I just labeled her a space adventurer. Does that suffice? Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Considering that's about all we get about her, I believe so. Sock (tock talk) 18:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Same issue with the positronic ray here. Perhaps referring to it as a "laser-powered superweapon" would be more comprehensive, or something of that ilk.

Agreed. Using your words! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

• "They bring her into the wreckage of a spaceship, where she is bound and several dolls with razor-sharp teeth attack her" > "They bring her into the wreckage of a spaceship, where she is bound and attacked by several dolls with razor-sharp teeth." Something along those lines, previous wording is awkward.

You are not wrong! Changed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

• "and she expresses her appreciation by having sex with him in the old-fashioned way (which was replaced on Earth long ago by exaltation-transference pills)". This is a tricky sentence to write, given the amount of information you need to provide for it to make any sense to someone unfamiliar with the film. I'm thinking something like "and she expresses her appreciation by having sexual intercourse with him, a practice that was made obsolete on Earth by taking pills" or something similar. I don't think the time frame of the process changing is necessarily relevant.

Tried to re-phrase this a bit more. I used a bit of your phrasing and tried to imply that Barbarella isn't used to this, but like any sixties film, she does it and digs it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Again, with Pygar, I'd say using "sexual intercourse" explains it better than "old-fashioned sex", since that terminology only applies in-universe and is literally just sex to us.

Agreed. This one's a bit easier to re-phrase. 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Overall: Not a lot of issues here, just some small wording problems that I don't blame you for having. This is a weird movie.

Agreed. This movie honestly...Barbarella passes out so often and just ends up somewhere else. Its tricky to get a real plot from it. :D Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Good stuff! Plot section is looking great. Sock (tock talk) 18:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Cast

• Again only one issue here, and that lies with the image. I'm not convinced that the image is in the public domain. While the trailer may have been created without copyright information, it's using footage from the film which is clearly copyrighted, unless I'm mistaken. I'd get a file reviewer to take a look into that, because I don't think that image is usable. Could very well be wrong here though, just erring on the side of caution. I'd also say this should be in the plot section rather than the cast, since it illustrates an event that occurs in the film.

I can live without it honestly as its a pretty crappy quality image (both in image-quality and the also screenshot itself). Barbarella (and most films prior to the mid-1970s) have released their trailers without copyright notices. read more about it here. I forget if I added it or if its been there for a while, but I'm happy to remove it as it does not really add much. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Development

• Lots of redlinks that I don't think need to be here. I highly doubt any of these links will be created in the near future, which is really the only reason to use redlinks at all.

I've removed the redlinks. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

• "The comic had been published amidst publicity; unlike previous adult comics, it was published by Belgian-French publisher Eric Losfield in his Editions Le Terrain Vague" - The relevance of this sentence is confusing me. Losfield and the subsequent Editions he published this in seemingly have no baring on the rest of this information. I think this sentence can go in its entirety, or it needs to be expanded to explain why Losfield publishing an adult comic was odd.

Y'know, I probably had a point here at one point and forgot to finish that sentence. Whups. Removed it. I'll add it back once I have that book handy. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

• "Southern felt that the film was his Candy" - Bit confused by this one, seeing as Southern wrote the book Candy that the subsequent film was based on. I feel like this is missing context.

I...think I am too. I've removed the bit about Candy as I can't get more details about what the hell Southern is going on about here! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

• "It was popularly believed that fashion designer Paco Rabanne was responsible for Fonda's costumes" - By who?

This was changed by a different editor who dug up some new info. Since we only have that Guardian source, I stated that some publications including the guardian stated this. The source doesn't state that it was a popular opinion, so much that it states that it is fact. Which new information brought forth says that its not. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Filming

• This section seems a bit thin. For all of the various elements of the film that seem like they could be discussed here, I'm glad to see the notable strip-tease included but it seems odd that there's no further information on anything else (i.e. the excessive-pleasure machine). If more information isn't out there, then this works just fine, but it feels like it could be beefed up.

There is not a lot of critical backlog on the films of Vadim, so it was a bit tricky to dig up information. (he was not a really popular director with critics at the time and he's not really popular now either). Curti's book help put things in perspective, but I found the actual making of to be a bit dry or trivial. There is one good interview with Roger Ebert who visited the set who goes into detail how certain scenes were shot. I think it comes off a bit point-formy, but maybe it now leads better into Fonda saying how she really felt on set. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Awesome work expanding this. I've done a bit of copy-editing myself, biggest issue I found was repetitive sourcing. A source can cover multiple sentences or even an entire paragraph. Assuming all of the information comes from the same source, there's no need to break the usage of it up. Sock (tock talk) 18:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Post-production

• One-line and single sentence "paragraphs" always rub me the wrong way. Is there any more information on the editing work by Mercanton? This is another one where I understand if more information is difficult if not impossible to find, but the sentence might just need to go if we can't expand it.

I'm happy with removing it as it's pretty minimal. I know some reviewers do not like having sources in the infobox, but its really the only place to put it otherwise. But yeah, I can't find anything, so I'm happy to remove it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Release

• Again, a bit thin here. No date for the screening in Paris? And if we don't have a date, why list that Paris screening in the infobox over the New York premiere? And it seems like there's a lack of coverage about the controversy the film had surrounding it, unless there was a lack of coverage at the time as well.

When I'm working with older films, especially ones that are not American productions, its very difficult to find sources to state a French release date. When I did my research on the article for Black Sabbath, I only got a real source stating its release date Roberto Curti published his book about it in about 2014 or so? Otherwise, it was down to a month. So I couldn't pin point a release date for Barbarella's French premiere. I know its on IMDb, but I can not find any source backing that up. I think more information will eventually open up on it, but in the mean time I don't think we are misleading anyone with the maximum amount of information I could get, as I could barely find anything on the films French release. Ditto with Rififi which at least had a Criterion release that had a lot of information. I was pretty excited to dig up very brief Guardian article from my University's documents stating how popular it was in the UK. Because almost every other contemporary resource just says it wasn't popular, which does not seem to be the case according to the contemporary Guardian article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

All fair reasons, my only continued concern is the presence of that Paris date in the infobox when it doesn't have any evidence of being before the New York premiere. I think the New York premiere, since we can source its date, belongs in the infobox instead. Sock (tock talk) 18:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I can't clarify this now. I've updated the infobox to make it more clear for the wider releases. If we can find more details in the future, I'll clarify it a bit more. Maybe more things will pop up. Looking better now?Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Reviews

• No reviewer names? Wendy Michener is the person who said that the film "just lies there, with all its psychedelic plastic settings", not the Globe & Mail. It's important to attribute quotes to the correct person, not the company, if an individual's name is included. This was mostly done in the Retrospective portion, just not the Contemporary one.

Hmm. I'll wait back to hear back for you on this, but you make a good point. I usually try to only add an author of an article if they have their own wikipage, but I guess I didn't follow through with that. I think I should add names if its a notable critic, and remove them if there is nothing. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm sticking by this one personally. Just taking a cursory glance over some featured film articles (including The FP, which was an undertaking largely made by myself, Blackrock (film), and Fight Club), these articles tend to name the critic regardless. For me, it's comparable to those warnings on DVDs that the "views expressed in these commentaries are the views of the individual, and not the view of [publisher]". Same goes for these magazines. Variety didn't think this film had a "flat script", Donald Willis did. Sock (tock talk) 18:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Whups. Thought I replied here. I've added the names where I could. Some sources (like Variety) do not really credit an author with a recognizable name (i.e: its just initals or calling themselves "Som.") or something. I basically stated it was a reviewer from these ones where I can't get an author name in. Hope this was good @Sock:! Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Aftermath and influence

• Just a suggestion that this image could be used here

While I'm totally for showing off a contemporary Barbarella fanbase with pictures, I'm not so crazy about this one just because the big red devil guys takes way more attention in that photo. Its a bit more of a photo of him than the other person. Can't be that hard to find some free Barbarella dress-up/cosplay online right? Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, way better photo you found there, and a nice added detail in its caption. Sock (tock talk) 18:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Redlink again with Gazzam, no need unless he's become relevant recently

Removed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

• The Rodriguez-rooted production information just tapers off. Gazzam was approached and then...nothing. Seems odd to just leave that open-ended like that.

• Seems odd but that's all she wrote! It seems that Gazzam wrote a script, but since that happened De Laurentiis died and since 2009 the only evidence of it seems to be that it was written, like this weird Variety article that suggests it was already a project that was done. I have not been able to find anything about what happened to this from any published source. The only thing I found was this blog interview with Gazzam here who says the script was completed in about 2012. It used to be on his website, but he has recently changed his site and its not longer there. Not even on archive.org. :( Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Fair point. If no more information exists, I guess that's really all that can be included. Sock (tock talk) 18:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Found this on the Amazon series with Refn, with him appearing to be separated from the project.

Not sure if that goes into WP:CRYSTAL or not though...the only little bit he's spoken about it seems to be that "Refn is also thought to have turned down projects including remakes of Wonder Woman, Barbarella and Logan’s Run. and "filmmaker suggested his TV remake of “Barbarella” is no longer happening." Nothing is really concrete as its seems to be just assumptions from vague comments. I personally believe them, but I don't think its something we should have something so leading in an article. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I would say that including his quote about being more interested in Neon Demon and that "not everything needs to be remade" is worth including. Don't necessarily need to say he left or anything, but he certainly did comment on it further. Sock (tock talk) 18:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. I've added this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

• The series was actually announced awhile before 2014, with Refn attached as early as 2012. I think the television series element in general needs to be further researched.

I've added the earlier announcement. Its a bit of a crystal ball thing as things are often purchased and then sat on forever and nobody is going to report "we failed at making this" so all research is sort of just guessing at what's going on. The closest I could find to anything that was not vague or wishy-washy was Variety stating "Refn was involved as executive producer in a long-gestating “Barbarella” TV series reboot set up at Amazon Studios in 2014 which has not been made.". Not sure how to add that, "Current status: Nothing"? :) Help!Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, seems like that's about all that exists. Can't ask you to include info that is non-existent! Sock (tock talk) 18:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

References

• Source #5 has me a bit uncertain on its reliability.

Removed it, that was there before, I should have taken it down on my own. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Fixed a few small things in some of these, but otherwise good stuff. I'm not sure what Bollyjeff is referring to with the Kristopher source, but I'd love to hear what the issue is.

I believe I've fixed what he was stating earlier. It was just a coding error. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Andrzejbanas: Very little left at this point! I still have a handful of issues with the article, which have all been detailed above, but it's within a home stretch now. Can't applaud your work here enough! Sock (tock talk) 18:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Pass or Fail:   I'll keep this on hold for two weeks rather than one, to make up for how tardy I was to reviewing it. A fair amount of issues throughout this article but nothing I don't think is fixable with a bit more work and research. The section for proposed sequels and some of the production areas stand out as the ones needing more expansion, and since I was able to find a few things about them with just a couple searches I'm sure it won't be too difficult for you. Andrzejbanas, you've done an excellent job on this article. Just a little further now! Sock (tock talk) 14:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Passed. Fantastic work, Andrzejbanas. I'm happy to add this excellent film's excellent article to our list of Good Articles. May your next GA review take far less time. Sock (tock talk) 23:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what to with the current poster. As infobox standards states to use the earliest theatrical release for the film as the poster, its not clear what it was. We have an exact date for an American premiere, but I have only been able to decipher the French release down to the month (which is the same month as the American premiere). It's not too big of a deal, and I am okay with using an American poster. Any other thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm astonished there is zero mention in this article that the Great Tyrant is voiced by the great British stage and screen actress Joan Greenwood. Presumably Pallenberg's German delivery just wasn't up to the job, I'm sure there is some interesting information about how and why this happened. She must've been livid at being revoiced. Gymnophoria (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've had to do a lot of research to get this film up to GA muster, and there has not really been a strong (english-language anyways) overview of the career of the director of this film. It's production history is murky (check out the screenwriter section, no one really seems to know why all of a sudden a dozen screenwriters showed up and apparently worked on the film) and according to Fonda, the film was predominantly followed with the director being drunk and partying. I'm not even sure if the film was shown in French (I've never heard a French language dub of this film even existing), so the dubbing information is a bit gone. Tons of actors in European films back in the day were dubbed, so livid? Maybe. I couldn't really find much information about it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't know why you saw fit to remove this from the page. The source I used is the one referenced elsewhere on Wikipedia on this subject. If it's good enough for other pages I don't know why it's not good enough here Gymnophoria (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Couldn't tell you, but like many pages on wikipedia they are using sources that aren't reliable. I removed it as it appeared to be a blog which fails WP:RS. I replaced it with a published book source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Andrzejbanas, the source url you provided on the poster's Wiki page did say that McGinnis designed it, as do his official website and Vanity Fair. Adding a citation would defeat the purpose of the 'Source' parameter on the poster's Wiki page, so there's no need for that. Tks, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Wiki article states a Barbarella poster was designed by him, but not this specific one. I'll use the Vanity Fair source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Barbarella 01.jpg
• Barbarella 02.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey Andrzejbanas, do you think the Barbarella: Queen of the Galaxy title should be included in the intro? A glace over many of the Blu-rays and DVDs of the film show that the reissue title was used instead of just Barbarella (https://www.blu-ray.com/Barbarella/98665/#Releases) - I'm wondering whether it should be presented in the manner of how the full title is presented in either Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark. Speaking of which, does Curti mention whether the 1977 reissue was down to capitalize on the success of Star Wars? It seems like the most logical explanation for the re-release, but I can't find any sources confirming it (for instance, in his Bava book Lucas mentions the re-releases of various Italian sci-fi movies around that time, but doesn't specifically mention Barbarella). PatTheMoron (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hey hey. Curti's book doesn't say that but I mean, I wouldn't doubt that it is (which explains the removal of all the more explicitly sexual scenes) Curti doesn't have a lot of information on this release just stating "Despite its timidness, Barbarella was rated R at the time of its U.S. release (the 1977 re-release got a PG rating, though)." I wouldn't include the alernative title in the lead as it's a bit confusing. the version with that title is dramatically cut, but it also uses that title on some home video versions which are not uncut. Not sure how it should be handled, but...this might not be a popular reason but I'm not too huge on listing countless alternative titles in the lead. I don't think anyone is going to look at the article and not be sure if it's Barbarella, or Barbarella: Queen of the Galaxy, you know? Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm thinking of perhaps presenting the alt. title as a note like in the Raiders article so that it doesn't clutter the opening text. I'll have another look to see if any of the other sources specifically tie the re-release to Star Wars. PatTheMoron (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I feel like if we had more specific information on this re-release we could expand on it, but as we don't, it's not that essential. Especilally as the Queen of the Galaxy subtitle is different in various forms and having it or not doesn't really confuse or help readers. If you'd like to re-add it, i'd suggest using the sub-heading like Raiders does. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Is that a typo for "kind"? AnonMoos (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I added that and I don't have access to that Globe & Mail document at the moment, but my memory is that it says King, not kind. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, the word "king" doesn't make too much sense in this context. If there's a typo in the original source, you could use "kin[d]"... AnonMoos (talk) 05:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree it makes more sense, i'm not against changing it to that. It still sort of gives the same effect. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I changed the spelling to "Mathmos". For one, the script at www.scripts.com/script/barbarella_3582 uses only "Mathmos". (I didn't use it as source because I have doubts about copyright compliance.) Also, while it is conceivable that someone mispronounces "Mathmos" as "Matmos", the converse does not happen. Paradoctor (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Why doesn't this article have a regular Wikipedia cast section, right after the plot, like 99% of Wikipedia film articles? Kumagoro-42 (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

When I was developing the article to its current state, I felt it was already getting a bit long. As the article has a substantial casting section, I figured it could be included in there. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

As a follow-up to the last edits, I don't see any issue for the cast. The cast list (which has more information and sources than the current iteration that has been reverted) gets the point across and is discussed around the information of casting in the film. I don't mind having a Cast section. But we shouldn't have both. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm looking at another page, referenced from within the Barbarella page, Danger: Diabolik, which seems, to me at least, to adhere to the pattern established across a multitude of film pages:

Precis, with a brief details panel at the right: Poster, Director, Producers, Story By, Based On, Cast - just the top few, Cinematographers, Editors, running time, Distributors, Budget, Box-Office

Plot

Cast (sometimes a simple Actor : Character list, sometimes much more information on how each actor was engaged and how they addressed the role)

Production - including Development, Post-Production, Release, etc all of which can be very expanded with sub-paragraphs

Release - similarly can be very expanded.

My point is that, to my mind, the existing Barbarella page could be restructured in the style of those multiple other film pages.

Remove the current Cast panel and use it as a section following Plot. Include, within it, some of the detail from the Pre-Production and Casting section.

Happy to discuss further. h-b-g (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I think we can just move it into a cast section. I think when I did it this way I was emulating something like Fight Club which had it in this format. (It no longer does). I'll transfer the cast information over shortly. Just don't want to lose information on the voice-over actor, as that's somewhat key information. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply