Talk:Kramer vs. Kramer

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kramer vs. Kramer 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: 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 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 Low-importance).

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Quote[edit]

The Quote section is too long - I think it should be moved to Wikiquote. -- Ozzykhan 21:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Films inspired[edit]

Success achieved by the movie led to the remake of this film in many different languages. Akele Hum Akele Tum was one of those. its a movie made in hindi, and the movie was a big hit in the Hindi Film Industry popularly known as Bollywood. Amir Khan and Manisha Koirala played the lead roles, and and the movie was directed by Amir's cousin Mansoor Khan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.189.244.246 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Oscar posters 79.jpg[edit]

Image:Oscar posters 79.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 insure 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) 20:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

The lead is bad. This movie is not really a courtroom drama, and it is more about the evolution of the father-son relationship than it is about the divorce. The lead reads like it was written by a kid. Should probably be re-written. Tad Lincoln (talk) 06:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ending of the film[edit]

I have just removed the following line from the article regarding Streep saying "How do I look" at the end:

(an unscripted, out of character line by Streep, asking Hoffman how she looked, unaware the camera was already rolling - the director liked the reality of the moment and kept the shot[1])

In fact, this script: [2], if authentic, seems to suggest the line was scripted. Also, I'd be a bit suspicious of the IMDB citation used above anyway, as it points to the movie trivia section, which I think pretty much anyone can add to, without rigorous citation requirements.

If anyone has evidence to the contrary, that the line was in fact unscripted, then the line can be put back.

Thanks — SteveRwanda (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your link is dead this one [3] supports your claims and has the benefit of indicating the script revision Robopologist (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Legal inaccuracies"[edit]

This is an inappropriate topic to be so prominent. Kramer vs. Kramer is a movie. Are we to hold court on every inaccuracy committed by the movies? This section, in my opinion, should be omitted, and if it's deemed necessary (which I don't believe it is) it could be addressed in a less formal way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banditteeth (talk • contribs) 08:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree: this section should be removed, or at least greatly cut down. The contentions are mostly not valid: - It is debatable whether Billy would be called to the stand in an appeal and debatable to what extent his opinions would have counted, but that misses the point. What happened was that Ted's attorney warned him of the possibility, recognising that that would be the only chance Ted might have to reverse the decision. That was reasonable advice in the circumstances and quite plausibly led Ted to decide against an appeal. Furthermore, custody hearings have always been highly individual and unpredictable and "most legal opinions" (assuming it were possible to harvest them, which seems unlikely) cannot determine what might have happened in Ted and Joanna's appeal, had it occurred.

- The "tender years" assumption was absolutely in the mainstream in the mid-1970s, when the book, on which the film was based, was written and when the action therefore can be considered to take place. The ruling was totally plausible for its time. It wouldn't happen now (probably!) but that is hardly a legal inaccuracy of the plot! That would be like criticising a film about slavery in the 19th century because it's illegal now!

- In the trial scene, Joanna's lawyer constantly objects to Ted's lawyer but meets with little support from the judge. The judge wants to hear Joanna's answer on the key point of whether she has been a failure and her lawyer gets the message and stops objecting. Attorneys aren't completely stupid and they do know that it doesn't pay to antagonise a judge too much. It may be dramatised for effect - being a movie, not official courtroom footage - but basically it hangs together perfectly well.

- Anyone who has ever been in a custody hearing should know that process is far from perfect: nothing in the Kramer case stretches credibility, unfortunately, especially when intelligent allowance is made for the needs of cinema.

I would vote for the section to be deleted, as it adds nothing apart from unsubstantiated and generally unconvincing personal opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmfox (talk • contribs) 15:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You put that ice cream in your mouth and you are in very, very big trouble" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect You put that ice cream in your mouth and you are in very, very big trouble has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 15 § You put that ice cream in your mouth and you are in very, very big trouble until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]