Talk:Blue Movie

Proper Title?

Should the article title be "Fuck" or "Blue Movie"? It's pretty clear that Warhol's title was Fuck, and it screened at the Factory as such. It was only changed to "Blue Movie" when it screened in a shortened version elsewhere that the title was changed to avoid censors. (IMDB notes) It's been released commercially as "Blue Movie", but I think that's the shorter version anyway. Anyone else have thoughts on this? Girolamo Savonarola 21:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I know this only adds to the confusion, but heres another link to consider => "http://www.allmovie.com/movie/v134514" -- Urthogie 19:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate this isn't exactly a scholarly answer, but maybe this article is better where it is for the simple reason that we already have another article called Fuck. I notice this article is already neatly disambiguated from there. AndyJones 20:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Were it to be retitled, I would presume it would be Fuck (film), no? How hard would it be to re-edit the disambiguation, really? Girolamo Savonarola 21:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Another related thought is that maybe it would be a good idea to link to Pornographic movie from the top of this article? AndyJones 20:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. I think I'll add a notice. Getting back to the point, though, which title has the better claim? Girolamo Savonarola 21:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't adding actual content to the article be more valuable than arguing about the title? If there's no content, who cares what it's called? —Wahoofive (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

bule movie

P 103.9.226.39 (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

FWIW - yes - *entirely* agree - more content has now been added to the "Blue Movie" article - (compare => "old" 22 February 2006 version vs "new" 18 June 2016 version) - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Documentary

To add to the title confusion: there is now a documentary called Fuck about the word. We need to sort this out so we can decide which of these two should have Fuck (film). Or maybe they could be Fuck (1969 film) and Fuck (2006 film). Also, after I made Fuck (documentary), someone else made Fuck (film) from a Redirect to Blue Movie into an article about the documentary. Cigarette 02:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wolfram Alpha interpretation

Apparently if you use "fuck" as a variable in Wolfram Alpha, it asks you if you want it to interpret it as "Blue Movie". Fun trivia fact. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28fuck%29*1%2B1 75.142.48.182 (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Budget

Did this movie really have a $30,000,000 budget? I think for the time that $300,000 would be stretching it - so it was probably around $30,000. Can anyone confirm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.159.16 (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - Seems the film budget may have been about $3,000 - based on IMDb - hope this helps - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blue Movie. 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/20151027085125/https://www.warholstars.org/news/october2005.html to http://www.warholstars.org/news/october2005.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

• 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) 13:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

What does wide release mean?

Article says, "It is the first adult erotic film depicting explicit sex to receive wide theatrical release in the United States." What does this mean? When I look at the Wikipedia article on wide release https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_release, it says, "In the American motion picture industry, a wide release (short for nationwide release) is a film playing at the same time at cinemas in most markets across the country." But I don't think Warhol's movie achieved this amount of exposure, did it? Greg Dahlen (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Greg Dahlen: - seems the film played theatrically in at least New York City, NY and Berkeley, CA at the time, according to noted references in the article - the film may have played elsewhere also - nonetheless - this might be sufficient to be notable as described, and somewhat worthy of the word "wide", since no other such film had played theatrically anywhere in the country at the time afaik - let alone on the east coast and west coast - most such films may have only played privately, and not at all theatrically, instead - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)