 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dropped from second para. after "Bogdanovich:
Incorrect: Bogdanovich's first feature was Targets. -(unsigned)
The better solution is to fix the statement rather than remove all mention of the fact that Bogdanovich was a film critic. - Nunh-huh 21:35, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will revise. Ellsworth 21:49, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the revision is fine. Ellsworth 21:49, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "...Sam the Lion, owner of the eponymous movie theater..." is an incorrect statement. The name of the theater in the book and the movie is the Royal. It couldn't be eponymous unless the actual name of the theater was The Last Picture Show. The title of the movie (and the book for that matter) refers to the final showing of a movie at the theater before it shuts down symbollically referencing the death of Sam the Lion and the dying town itself. Someone on this site is in love with the word eponymous because I see it used every chance they get on several entries. I guess it's one of those words that makes the user feel intelligent like the use of the word "esoteric".
The statement about camera angles is not correct. For example toward the end of the fight scene with the beer bottle, there is an overhead shot.
I caught that, too. I will change that line. Rsmoore 16:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, could someone take the time to add a summary, I was just skimming through this and I noticed there wasn't a plot anywhere in the article. Ace Fighter 07:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The back of the dvd says it was released "to critical acclaim and public controvesry." Someone should find out what that controversy was and include it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.89.173 (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:MPW-5271.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 ensure 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) 12:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to expand the current Accolades section into a section dealing with how the critical response to this film has changed over time. I shall be including in that the so-called "controversy" about the nudity and will move that out of Production where it now looks out of place. I will also deal with the different characters in more detail and so the current Characters section will get subsumed and disappear. If anyone has any other ideas for improving this artcle could they please drop a note here about them so we don't get folks treading on each others toes. Cheers Cottonshirt (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I added the notes about the controversy over the nudity. I support you. Thanks so much. LA Movie Buff (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no reference anywhere except the original version of this article that James Lee Barrett had anything to do with writing the script for this film. If this is your pet theory and are keen to see it stay in the article then please cite a reference or I am going to delete it real soon. Cottonshirt (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs to clarify that Ben Johnson's objection to taking the part was that he objected to the cursing and other foul language in the film. He didn't want to be associated with such things. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article should be about the book, with a separate article entitled: The Last Picture Show (movie) containing the current content about the movie. Isn't that standard policy?--Toepoaster (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This might be the most over-linked article on Wikipedia — seems like every mention of every name is linked, over and over again! Isn't it supposed to be that the first mention of a linkable name/item/place gets the link, and then, thereafter, not? Where are the obsessive/compulsive editors who do nothing but tend links? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the 'Awards and acclaim' section heading to 'Reception'. I had seen this done elsewhere True Grit (2010 film) and I felt it allowed me to incorporate the new info on the film's 2011 UK re-release. I understand that excessive external links are frowned upon, and generally try to avoid them, but since this re-release received a 5 star review, I felt this link was pertinent. LizHawkins (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on The Last Picture Show. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following appears in Johnson's IMDb biography:
"Had initially turned down the role of Sam the Lion in The Last Picture Show (1971) when it was first offered to him by Peter Bogdanovich because he thought the script was "dirty", and he did not approve of swearing and nudity in motion pictures. Bogdanovich appealed to John Ford, who got Johnson to change his mind as a favor to him. With the permission of Bogdanovich, Johnson rewrote his role with the offensive words removed. Johnson went on to win a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for playing the role."
It would be unreasonable to expect any human being to be perfectly consistent. But The Last Picture Show contain male and female nudity. More to the point, in the 1964 Gunsmoke episode "Quint-cident" (8.33), he rapes a woman. True, it's not shown, but we do see him forcing his way into her home. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to take a stab that they mean the honeymoon location is Lake Texoma on the border of TX and OK, which is a very real resort area.
If someone who recently has watched the movie will concur, I'll be happy to make this edit in the movie synopsis. Deliusfan (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
