Talk:Chinatown (1974 film)

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chinatown (1974 film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Film: Core / American

	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 articles
	This article is on the project's core list.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Top-importance).

California: Los Angeles Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Library of Congress Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

1

Accuracy point in Plot text[edit]

Accuracy point in the 'Plot' section The text reads: '...she tells him that Katherine is her sister and her daughter; her father raped her when she was 15.' I just viewed the film yesterday (and I will check again), but the plot at that point is more that Gittes asks her if she was raped, and Evelyn responds a moment later with a subtle but unmistakable shake of her head, suggesting it was not rape but was seduction or it was consensual. Marty55 (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. And it's half-sister. Sister is impossible, as she would have to be her own mother. 2600:4040:5D38:1600:50D8:B705:D849:1062 (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Summary could be improved[edit]

During the last paragraph of the plot summary, the following sentences occur: "Cross has Mulvihill take the bifocals at gunpoint, and they force Gittes to drive them to the women. When they reach the Chinatown address, the police are already there and detain Gittes." Although the scenes with Gittes getting Curly to sneak him to Chinatown to avoid the police is not necessary to understand the plot, the way these sentences are presented create a bit of a logical issue. If the police (Mulvihill), force Gittes to drive to Chinatown at gunpoint, they couldn't arrive there before him, as it is implied. He also would technically already be detained, and cannot be detained while already detained. The two sentences provided either need to be altered to make sense for those who have not seen the film, as their current state creates two scenarios that cannot simultaneously exist. Justin Spinach (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Spinach See Wikipedia:Be bold. If you think you can do better with the plot summary, fix it. David notMD (talk) 11:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration of what?[edit]

From the fourth text block in the Filming section: "His favorite illustration of this was the 'parable of the hair...'" Illustration of what? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

Any genre additions need references. MarnetteD|Talk 22:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could use a home video releases section[edit]

Lets readers know which formats the film have been released on and if it has undergone any major restorations and whether these were scanned from the camera negative or a print. Gutten på Hemsen (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Penthouse involvement[edit]

I added Penthouse as one of the film's production companies, but my edit was reverted because another user said that: "Bob Guccione investing in the film is not the same as Penthouse being one of its production companies." That's not accurate, however. The end credits of the film literally say "A Paramount - Penthouse Presentation." Guccione was not merely an investor, Penthouse was given full and equal billing to the home studio in the end credits. You can see the credit at 4:50 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsKFwwAPJqE I also provided a link to a Vanity Fair article describing Penthouse's involvement in the film. Jamesluckard (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But that is exactly what the source you gave said. Edits have to reflect what the source says. Opolito (talk) 06:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The primary source is the end credits of the movie itself. Wikipedia rules say the credits of a film are their own source. The end credits of Chinatown specifically say the company Penthouse produced the film with Paramount. The film's credits confirm Guccione's financial involvement was thorough his company, and not any sort of uncredited personal investment. It's no different from Playboy's investment in Polanski's Macbeth. The magazine article was just to back up Guccione's general involvement. Jamesluckard (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found three more sources that explain things a bit more. "Long Road Productions," credited as the copyright holder for the film, was a tax shelter entity controlled jointly by Paramount and Penthouse. It was also credited on two other Paramount films at the time, The Longest Yard and The Day of the Locust. Source 1) https://thenewbev.com/blog/2017/04/a-name-for-evil/ Source 2) https://caligula.org/penthouse.html Source 3) https://variety.com/1974/film/reviews/chinatown-1200423300/ How about we just agree to have the text saying "Long Road Productions" in the infobox become a link to the Penthouse (magazine) Wikipedia page? That seems like a fair solution to me. Jamesluckard (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can also add a bit of text into the body of the article about Guccione and Penthouse's involvement through this Long Road Productions entity, so people aren't confused why that link takes them there. Jamesluckard (talk) 06:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]