Talk:Notting Hill (film)

Notting Hill (film) was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 25, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
August 15, 2009	Good article reassessment	Kept
March 31, 2018	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Notting Hill (film) was copied or moved into Notting Hill (soundtrack) with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Film: British / 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 supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
	This article has an archived peer review.

Comedy Mid‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Romance Mid‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in literature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Clarification of the Lead[edit]

"The film was well received by critics, and became the highest grossing British film released." The highest grossing British film released when? Of all time? That year? Opening weekend? It really needs some clarification, and a source at that. --Joker1189 (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Budget[edit]

I got the $42 Million (US) figure from http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=nottinghill.htm

Should this be in the lead?[edit]

"Upon release the movie was heavily criticised by some for presenting an 'ethnically cleansed' vision of West London despite being set in one of London's most diverse and multicultural areas."

Is this so important that it should appear in the lead paragraph, even before the story synopsis? I don't think so. I would also like to know who the mentioned "some" are. Surely not the average viewer - at least I can't remember thinking "gee, what an 'ethnically cleansed' vision of West London" after seeing the movie. Shinobu 13:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 'some' were the press reviews at the time as well as discussions that occured in other sections of the media. The movie location was chosen because that area of london was, for lack of a better term, 'fashionable' at that time (arguably it still is), it had the ethnic multiculturalism and vibrancy that London (and Britain in general after the era of 'cool britainia' had begun) was seeking to celebrate. The movie used the marketability of the location without addressing it in great detail, presumably to make it more appealing to american audiences (Richard Curtis has been critised for taking the bumbling british persona to unheard of levels). This aspect (or failing depending on your pov) of the movie is also mentioned in wiki history of british cinema.

Id agree that 'some' should ultimately be replaced with a more detailed listing of were the critisim came from, but the information is certainly relevant and important enough to warrant a mention.82.46.144.194 15:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "some political and community leaders in London (and Britain in general)"; it is doubtful if every single person in the country was seeking to do so. Further, the area was chosen by Richard Curtis because that's where he lived at the time (and hence the film was seen by some as an extended real estate ad, since prices went up after the film and he duly sold his property). It was also rumoured that the 'whitewash' of the film was so that it would appeal to American audiences whose idea of Britain had been formed from postcards and other eclectic sources. The point should not be made in any event without a quoted source.

Location of Shop[edit]

Does anybody know where the actual bookshop used for the film is based, if indeed it existed at all? --Supergussy 21:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is noted on IMDb.com, but seem to contradict each other (and are not sourced):

Thacker's bookshop is actually an antiques shop in real life, next to a butcher. One or two doors down from the butchers is an office for Richard Curtis' production company.
The real Travel Bookshop had a sign in its window saying "We're almost famous." It would sell non-travel books when it fitted in with a theme. For example, selling Martin Amis' London Fields when doing a Notting Hill theme. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TAnthony (talk • contribs) 22:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Profit[edit]

Does anyone know of how much money the film made at the box office? Could someone please find out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.69.6 (talk • contribs) 5 September 2006

IMDB.com says $116 million, I'll add that in ... TAnthony 23:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA[edit]

The really long quotes in the text are hard to follow, so I set off the one in "Filming" with cquote. The others at the end of "Casting" and "Filming" are borderline. This seems fairly complete according to WP:MOSFILMS. I'm not really sure what "losing out to Star Wars" means in the "Box office" section. The lead sentence says that it won a BAFTA, "and both won and was nominated for several others." This is unclear, as it implies it was nominated for a other BAFTAs and won a few. Likewise "...the request was declined due to huge problems that fans attending a Leonardo DiCaprio premiere had caused the police." What problems? When? Why is this related? Assuming these issues will get fixed, seems GA quality to me. Gimmetrow 01:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made all of the fixes you have suggested, aside from the other quotes, which I think are fine. Thanks for the review! Gran² 05:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. On the "fake premiere" sentence, how about: "Police had found the fans at a recent Leonardo DiCaprio premiere problematic, and the police were concerned the same problems might occur at the staged premiere." Gimmetrow 14:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's better, so I've implemented it. Gran² 14:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too Much Detail[edit]

The article's well written, but gives away too much of the film's detail. Even though this film is not that recent (1999), I think there'd still be people wanting to see the film who're just looking to this article for some info.

I personally would take out some of the parts of the article that gives away the ending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.96.176 (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sorry but if you don't want spoilers, then don't read the plot section. Gran² 07:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Walking through the seasons"[edit]

To show the passing of a year's time, William is seen walking past outdoor markets, with the weather changing every few yards. In "winter", it not only is "snowing", but the street is covered in white. I've never been to London, but I know it is very unusual for it to get accumulating snow. I've seen pictures of large date palms growing in London. 207.210.134.83 (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The accumulation of snow shown in the scene is relatively modest, and certainly less than was experienced in Notting Hill in, for example, January 2009. It is not particularly unusual for there to be a light accumulation in Central London, though often unsustained for more than a few hours. It is snowing today (16/12/09) as it happens, but melting on contact with the ground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oinky (talk • contribs) 12:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I would say that there has been another brief snowfall in Central London this afternoon, leaving an accumulation as night falls very similar to that depicted in the film.Oinky (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps[edit]

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Lampman (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notting Hill House Prices[edit]

I'm not sure the comment on house prices is helpful. Average prices rose in Notting Hill between 1999 and 2006 by roughly 100%, but this was not untypical of London as a whole. In any event, by the time of the film's release, Notting Hill was already a relatively expensive part of London. Indeed I can recall that one of the criticisms of the film at the time was that if Hugh Grant's character owned a house in Notting Hill and could afford to live as he did despite his bookshop being loss-making then he presumably was independently wealthy and thus the apparent gap between his circumstances and those of the film star Anna Scott was not as great as the audience was supposed to think.Oinky (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've haven't been watching this article closely enough, I didn't notice that had snuck in. I've removed because it isn't realy relevant. Gran² 14:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cast[edit]

Omid Djalili is listed as having a cameo role, however, the definition of a cameo role is "a brief appearance of a known person in a work of the performing arts" (taken from wikipedia.) At the time of the film's release he had only been on the stand up scene for a few years. This is more an example of the small roles jobbing actors play before 'hitting the big time' for example Robbie Coltrane in 'Flash Gordon' or Courtney Cox in Springsteen's 'Dancing in the Dark'95.146.6.51 (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very true; ammended. Gran² 23:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Notting Hill (film). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927220058/http://www.britishcomedyawards.com/pastwinners99.html to http://www.britishcomedyawards.com/pastwinners99.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Notting Hill (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Notting Hill (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20000929002132/http://www.jsonline.com/enter/movies/reviews/may99/m.nott28052799.asp to http://www2.jsonline.com/enter/movies/reviews/may99/m.nott28052799.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Notting Hill (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Some tags on it need resolving. Every sentence in the Reception section contains a lengthy quote so some paraphrasing is needed. Not familiar with the plot so someone else should tighten this. AIRcorn (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delisting per above. AIRcorn (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Holiday[edit]

Clearly the movie is a remake of Roman Holiday, in particular the last press conference scene, which is virtually the same. But Curtis denies it, which I find a bit strange.

Plot point[edit]

The third graph reads:

"At a restaurant the next day, Will and Anna overhear four men at a nearby table discussing her, first praising and then disparaging her and equating actresses to prostitutes. Will confronts them, then she introduces herself and calmly insults the stunned sextet."

Which is it -- four or six? -- Marcus Rugman (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Production section Nicole Kidman quote[edit]

The fourth paragraph of the "Production" section reads:

Nicole Kidman fought to get the role of Anna Scott, but she was told that she wasn’t talented enough.

Reading the referenced article from People magazine provides the following quote:

"...I really wanted the role that Julia Roberts played in Notting Hill. ... Yeah, I did. But I wasn't well known enough, and I wasn't talented enough."

I don't read this, nor the article's headline of "Nicole Kidman Reveals She Wanted Julia Roberts' Role in Notting Hill: 'I Wasn't Talented Enough'", as Nicole Kidman suggesting she was told that she wasn't talented enough, more that she was providing her own rationalization/suggestion as to why she did not get the role at that stage of her career. Without the idea of being told that she wasn't talented enough, I feel like even including this part in the Wikipedia article is no longer necessary, but would love any other feedback. Thanks all. PZootie (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]