Talk:Fried Green Tomatoes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:Fried green tomatoes.jpg

Image:Fried green tomatoes.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 07:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dvd fried green tomatoes.jpg

Image:Dvd fried green tomatoes.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

repetitive writing

Is it me or did I just ead the same thing over again in the plot and expanded information? I could have sworn I heard the same things in the plot summary and in the expanded info! Nosebutton (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Racism

I think that the article should discuss the racist element that was evident in the American South. It explains why the local police that appear investigating the murder of Ruth's husband, looking past the two Caucasian women running the Cafe, while the African American employees are scrutinized.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Racism could be mentioned, but I think sexuality and sexism are the more overarching themes. See Google Scholar and Google Books -- while there are some hits, the hits are not very significant. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 18:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

And it goes without saying that comments like that need direct citations, especially if put in the Plot section. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It may be more pertinent to discuss issues of race with regard to the adaptation from book to film, rather than within the story itself. I seem to remember reading about negative reactions to the film, some critics saying that the black characters in the book had been somewhat marginalised in the film, and that the Cicely Tyson character was reduced to a mammy stereotype. I (or someone) will have to look into it.--BelovedFreak 21:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I may have misunderstood. I thought the intent was to add the discussion to the plot itself, which starts to walk a tricky line. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I totally agree with the person who wrote below that race should be mentioned. This novel is not just a female buddy film. Not that this is the most reputable source but just one example, race and racism are the first themes listed at: http://www.answers.com/topic/fried-green-tomatoes-at-the-whistle-stop-caf-novel-2

"Race and Racism

Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Café explores the width and depth of race and racism. While the evidence of racism is obvious, discussion of the situation is hushed and never crosses the color line. In fact, the only person who successfully crosses that line is Idgie, who simply doesn't understand the world in those terms."

I mean, they try to kidnap the cook and frame him etc based on race, etc, if I remember correctly...

I would add some info myself but I am very busy right now. Please, someone step up and fix this, it's a very white-washy Wikipedia article...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Plusdrama33 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 2 July 2010

If you can find discussion on themes of this film in reliable sources (not answers.com unfortunately), please feel free to add them. The article would certainly benefit from discussion of the themes. If you are too busy, someone will get around to it, probably me at some point. Bear in mind though, that this article is about the film; the novel has a separate article at Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe.--BelovedFreak 18:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

"mixed but positive"

How can a film receive "mixed" as well as "positive" reviews? As there is no source to site either I've removed the "positive" assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.147.251 (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Generally positive. As in, they weren't 100% gushingly positive, but on the whole they were more positive than negative. The sentence doesn't need citing any more than the one you've left because it is followed by a link to the Rotten Tomatoes aggregator (which gives 82% "fresh" ie. 82% positive) where the reader can look at individual reviews. edit: I just realised it's not immediately followed by the Rotten Tomatoes link because the bit you changed was in the lead. As the lead summarises the rest of the article, cites are rarely required in the lead. Later, the article reads "generally well received by critics", which matches how the lead was before you changed it. --BelovedFreak 10:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

LGBT?

I don't exactly understand how this is LGBT-related. I mean, it was never stated that Ruth and Idgie were lesbian or bisexual... was it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.104.161 (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The part of the article ("Differences between the film and novel") referring to the lesbian (or otherwise) relationship in the film was recently deleted for no apparent reason. Hopefully it is a little clearer now. --BelovedFreak 21:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The film doesn't specifically reference any lesbian relationship between Ruth and Idgie, but the book is unambiguous about it. There is a passage that states something to the effect that Idgie "was as happy as anyone in love in the summertime can be." <Wildheart61 (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)wildheart61Wildheart61 (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)>

This is dealt with in the "Differences between the film and novel". LGBT references in the book are discussed at Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe. Any further additions to either article would need to be based on commentary in reliable secondary sources, not our interpretaion of the script/novel.--BelovedFreak 17:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Idgie as Ninny

The current article says there is nothing in the movie, except for the very ending, supporting the suggestion that Idgie is Ninny. However, there is a shot, close to the beginning, which cuts from a shot of Idgie's shoes as a little child to the shoes of Ninny, with the shoes looking very similar. I really though this was an indication of them being the same person. As I have no source for that I will leave the article unchanged. I will see if I can find a source. Ananda (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in the first sequence between Ninny and Evelyn, Ninny asks "Does the name 'Idgie Threadgood' ring a bell?" and goes on to explain "I was practically raised by the Threadgoods. I married her brother Theo." While the staging at the end might make it seem that they're both the same person, I'd suggest that this is audiences wanting to "see" what's become of Idgie. In the book, the two are explicitly different, and Idgie is shown in a scene that takes place after Ninny's death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.102.136.132 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 16 January 2009

The novel specifically tells you that Ninny and Idgie are two different people. Whenever I would watch this movie with someone for the first time they always said at the end "she is Igie!" I always pointed out things from the movie that would make that impossible so finally I wanted to settle the issue so I read the novel which of course is different in so many ways but it specifically informs you that they are two different people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.176.112 (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If I recall correctly from the DVD commentary, this is one issue (along with the realationship between Idgie and Ruth) that was deliberately ambiguous and perhaps left for the viewer to decide. In the novel, Idge and Ninny are, unquestionably, different people, but in the film, the ending casts significant doubt over this assumption. It should definitely be dealt with in the article, but will need references to reliable sources, and not just our own interpretation. --BelovedFreak 04:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The cemetery where Ruth is buried is right next to Ninny's house, which she is in shock to see has been demolished. If she were Idgie, and had recently left that fresh-looking note, she would have already seen her house was gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.127.226.175 (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Keeping a dead link

Why insist on keeping a dead link?[1]

Roger Ebert reviews, including his review of Fried Green Tomatoes, are available at RogerEbert.com. Why insist on keeping a dead link to the Chicago Sun-Times? There is also a copy of the article available via the very slow Internet Archive. It is not clear why an editor is insisting it is better to keep a dead link backed by an archive copy instead of using the live version at RogerEbert.com. Please clarify which Wikipedia guidelines support intentionally keeping a dead link? -- 109.76.211.106 (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

As I explained in my edit summary: "The URL remains the same regardless of dead link because the archive is provided." That is why the "|archive-url=" and "|url-status=" template parameters exist. Why keep a link to the Chicago Sun-Times? Because that is where the review was originally published. Ebert was a film critic for the newspaper from 1967–2013 and RogerEbert.com is an archive of his reviews, but it is not the source of the review for this film. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Accolades table

The Wikipedia Project Film guidelines WP:MOSFILM#Accolades say "Column names for the table are typically Award, Category, Recipient(s), and Result."

Before I edited the article this page was not following that recommendation and instead using the verbose and redundant label "Recipient(s) and nominee(s)". (Every nominee is a recipient of a nomination). It is not clear why an editor is choosing not to follow the WP:MOSFILM and only now insisting on following the different formatting used by "Template:Awards table > Format 5".

Please clarify why you are choosing not to follow the WP:MOSFILM for this film article. -- 109.76.211.106 (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The keyword in the MOS Accolades section is typically. But the section is not the template itself. The template for an awards tables is Template:Awards table and five formats are provided. Any one of them can be used and all are acceptable formats. Format 5 uses the Emmy Awards as the example. The format for Format 5 is  Year | Award | Category | Nominees(s) | Result | Ref.  In many articles editors have alphabetized the awards table by placing the Award column before the Year. Using this awards format complies with Template:Awards table. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)