Talk:The Blue Lagoon (1949 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

The Blue Lagoon (DVD)

Maybe on to be wanting the film? (in DVD) Doncsecz (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(film)>(1949 film)?

Should this be moved? Theoretically no film should get the distinction of 'film', 'film' should be used to refer collectively to all the film versions of the blue lagoon. I would assume that this article has gotten the priviledge of not needing its year distinguished because it was perceived as the only/first film at the time of the article's creation. However, in reading The Blue Lagoon (novel)#Films one can see referenced a 1923 silent film. It does not currently have an article, but if it does indeed exist, it would be the one deserving a yearless name. I, however, don't think any one of the films should get the priviledge, they should all list the year for simplicity's sake, and the (film) article should contain links to the three movies titled The Blue Lagoon was well as possibly the sequels (people can decide on whether that would be too extensive or not). This will be resolved if we can confirm the existance of the silent movie and if people could write an article on it. Another possibility would be to merge all three film articles into one article explaining the details of the different film adaptations of the novel. Tyciol (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of articles of Wikipedia concentrating on a single film, even if there are remakes. What I have removed are the somewhat sardonic references to Simmons and Houston's tanned appearance and 'raging hormones" in the film. That kind of sarcastic observation does not belong in a Wikipedia article.AlbertSM (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous word choice

The article currently says, regarding Joseph Breen, head of Hollywood's censorship office, "In 1948, Breen approved the script with further changes, like no nudity or suggestive content, and suggested they show the marriage passing incontinently." Per Wiktionary, "incontinently" means "lacking moral or sexual restraint, moderation or self-control, especially of sexual desire". That seems like the opposite of what he would have suggested. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]