Talk:Went the Day Well?

Location of Turville

Checking streetmap.co.uk and Bing maps, the only places called wholely or partly "Turville" are in Buckinghamshire. I can't find any evidence that there's a second one in Oxfordshire. Nick Cooper (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

To reiterate, the film is acknowledged as being filmed in Turville, which is indisputably in Buckinghamshire, albeit close to the border with Oxfordshire. Turville is the location used, not where it it purported to be in the film, so "there's no reason the place has to be real" is meaningless. Various sources coreectly place Turville in Buckinghamshire (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], etc.). The bottom line is that Screenonline is simply wrong in this respect, and it is not "original research" to ignore it. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Your OR is worthless. The source does not say whether the film is set in Turville or filmed in Turville. Provide sourced info. Geoff B (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The narrative makes clear - from dialogue and the village name on signposts, etc. - that the film is set in the fictional village of "Bramley End," and this is already stated in the plot summary. The existing Screenonline sources states: "Turville in Oxfordshire stands in for Bramley End." I don't quite understand how you read that in a manner that justifies your claim that it, "does not say whether the film is set in Turville or filmed in Turville." Multiple other sources also state the shooting location as Turville, but place it in Buckinghamshire, which is where Turville is. It is not OR, nor is it "worthless," to properly describe the filming location as it clearly is. Nick Cooper (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Having checked further, the Journal of Popular Film & Television source (full text transcribed here) already used elsewhere on the page states:

'Reflecting the "Deep England" strain present in much British wartime propaganda (Calder 180-208), the setting was shifted from the unpromising village of Potter in the London commuter belt to the much more idyllic village of Bramley End (pretty Turville, in Buckinghamshire, was chosen for location shooting), hidden away somewhere in southeastern England.'

I have therefore amended the page. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I previously changed the Bucks to Oxon but that was to provide consistency with the reference in place at the time. It seems clear that Turville is in Buckinghamshire and the original reference was incorrect. It looks like part of the problem might be that the pub (apologies I forget the name) a prominent, if not authoritative, source uses Oxfordshire on its website but (almost) all other references have it in Bucks Brainfood (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC).

if we are getting worried about this, is there a possibility that Turville >used< to be in Oxfordshire before the county boundary changes? There are areas of south Oxfordshire that used to be in Berkshire but are now in Oxfordshire. Could the same sort of happening occurred with Turville? Just a thought. Longfinal (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that unlikely, as it is a fair way from the border, and the page for Turville doesn't suggest it was the case. I note that Brainfood suggests above that the pub website at one point claimed Oxfordshire, and assume it's the Bull and Butcher, which now gives the address as, "Turville, Henley on Thames." Henley-on-Thames clearly is in Oxfordshire, and this may be the source of the confusion. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Fictional hate propaganda

The evil Germans threaten to kill five children because the parents have not complied. When did that ever actually happen? It was however the regular practice of the Bolsheviks after the Russian Revolution to kill the eldest son of families who hid them to prevent them being seized for military service. The film is an example of 'emotional engineering' hate propaganda and should have a warning attached to it. Liars create wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.104.182 (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no dispute that it is a war propaganda film. When the film was made the British fully expected German invasion at any time. The British are the "good guys" and the Germans "bad guys" are villainized. That is a standard of every war film ever made. But the claim that is hate propaganda is ridiculous. The Germans are not bad because they are Germans, they are bad because they are enemy invaders of a peaceful village. The story is of course fictional, since Germany never achieved its plan to invaded Britain. However Germany had recently invaded several other countries only a few months before the film was released, and during that time had committed many well documented atrocities much worse than any in the film. The point of the film was: "it could happen here too" and the British people should be ready for it. Mediatech492 (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

"bow in"

The text of the Wikipedia article has the term "bow in". Perhaps it is an Englishism, but as a New Worlder, I cannot fathom it. Could someone edit for clarity? Bellagio99 (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

As an Old Worlder, neither can I. Perhaps it's a cricketing term? Someone seems to have decided that this article needed more words in it, and longer sentences. It could really do with a thorough cropping; but at least "bow in" has now "bowed out". Haploidavey (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)