Talk:Love Actually

Both Sides Now - multiple 2000 Joni recordings

• "Both Sides, Now" (4:32) Released 1967 * Song by Joni Mitchell from the album Clouds

There are at least two different "2000" recordings of Joni singing BSN:

• studio recording version on BSN album (recorded 1999) released Feb/Mar 2000 - track 12, 5:45
• single released 2000 (exact same as album track?)

"Both Sides Now" will also be the first single serviced from the project. It goes to triple-A, jazz, adult standards, and NPR stations Feb. 15. (jonimitchell.com/library/print.cfm?id=633)

• live performance April 6, 2000 version:

"In tribute to Mitchell, the TNT network presented an all-star celebration at the Hammerstein Ballroom in New York City on April 6, 2000. Mitchell's songs were sung by many performers... Mitchell herself ended the evening with a rendition of "Both Sides Now" with a 70-piece orchestra.[94] The version was featured on the soundtrack to the movie Love Actually."

• The last part of this article lede sentence therefore may be mistaken:

"She re-recorded the song in a lusher, orchestrated version for her 2000 album Both Sides Now; this version was subsequently featured on the soundtrack to the 2003 film Love Actually."

There are at least three appearances of BSN song associated with the movie Love Actually (2003): the inclusion within the movie (1:25); featured within a bonus extra on the movie DVD (about 2min); on the movie soundtrack album (track 9, 5:46).

• movie inclusion:

Both Sides Now * Joni Mitchell

1:25 Karen gets the CD as a present. She puts on this song and cries in her room. Meanwhile Mia tries on the necklace in her room.

These three may or may not be identical. Do they all actually derive from the TNT April 6, 2000 performance, not the BSN album studio track?-71.174.190.122 (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Long plot and the need to reorganize article

The plot section of this film article is excessively long. It is far in excess of the 400-700 words recommended by the WP:FILMPLOT guidelines. It is close to 2000 words depending on how you count. The plot section contains excessive details that are not even related to the plot, such as the "Story association" section. I tagged the Plot section using Template:long plot. My effort to tag this article has been reverted more than once by editors who have not followed the simple rules and explained their revert with an edit summary or any explanation as to why this film article is not following the film plot guidelines.

The WP:MOSFILM guidelines give examples of very complicated films such as Memento (film) and an anthology film Pulp Fiction both of which went from having very very long plot sections to eventually following the guidelines. Those examples include a section called "Story structure" which is similar to the "Story association" section used in this article. It would be a good first step to make that into a separate section not part of the Plot section. The background information about the character Rufus having being originally intended as an angel is not plot, it is background production information. I attempted to make this change too, and I made it in as a small edit separate edit with a clear edit summary about what I was doing.

The guidelines don't make it clear but there is wiggle room for anthology films and some film articles have much longer than usual plot summaries but there doesn't seem to have been any attempt to keep the plot length of this article concise. In a more generous counting of the plot length, excluding the "Story association" section, and the Rufus section, not including the words to make the subheadings, and removing the actor names, the plot length still comes in at a hefty 1,475 words. If an an anthology film with a non linear structure like Pulp Fiction can follow the guidelines there's no reason why this article can't at least try. It isn't unreasonable to suggest this article should be able to more than adequately summarize the plot in under 1000 words.

There are great many things that could be trimmed. The first paragraph of prologue could go almost entirely. It is enough to explain that the featured song is a Christmas variation of "Love Is All Around", the detail that it was originally by "The Troggs" is can be explained elsewhere or left to the wikilink. [There s too much ... skipping ahead.] It is as if this article is trying to have the longest plot section possible, the detail "Karen's brother, David (Hugh Grant)," is a not an essential plot detail, and it is a detail that most other film articles would quickly mention in the Cast/Characters section. Natalie could more succinctly be described as "part of the household staff" her newness and lack of seniority are not essential details either, and if the previous sentence absolutely needs to point out that David (Hugh Grant) is only recently elected then it is already implicit that all the household staff are new to him. These are only a few examples.

I think this article could be a much much better. I reiterate my suggestions to not merely shorten the plot but more importantly reorganizing the article to move non plot information to other sections (which can be expanded so long as they are properly sources). -- 109.76.146.164 (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

No comments? I understand people are busy this time of year but I gave it two weeks and not one single comment. It only took minutes for the tag to be removed from the article, but after all this time still no one has made any effort to explain why this article is not following the WP:FILMPLOT rules, or why the plot section includes so much information that is not even plot. I will tag the plot section as too long again unless there is some discussion. -- 109.78.238.236 (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

As was stated here Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Anthology the plot length for this article is acceptable. You can take the lack of response as a WP:CONSENSUS for the current plot section. WP:IAR also applies. MarnetteD|Talk 19:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:FILMPLOT is written with a standard movie in mind, where the movie has a single plot line that can be accurately summarised in a few hundred words.

That is not this movie. Love Actually is a 2h15 movie with several different plot lines that interact and interweave. You just cannot summarise a movie like that in that short a summary.

If you think it can, I urge you to watch the movie yourself (if you haven't yet) and create a proposed shorter summary in your own user space. Otherwise you're asking people to do something which nobody (apart from yourself) even thinks is possible.

All things considered, I personally think the plot summary does an outstanding job at summarising the movie, and apart from the bits that could perhaps indeed be moved to the 'production' section there is very little, if anything, that could be removed. Yoe (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

That was wrong then and still wrong now. Maybe you can argue LOCAL CONSENSUS but you need to build consensus. Wikipedia doesn't allow you to use the lack of engagement as consensus. This article was and still is is disorganized and the plot is excessively long. At least show some good faith and move the non-plot details out of the plot section (Christmas angel specifically). -- 89.101.195.102 (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction has a plot summary within the guidelines and it is is a cop-out that this article doesn't even trying to improve the bloated plot section of this article. -- 89.101.195.102 (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Guidelines have been linked to. If you don't like them you are free to try and change them but WP:CONSENSUS holds that they are not "wrong" until they are changed. As to your second post see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. MarnetteD|Talk 18:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

This is absurd, you are one ignoring the WP:FILMPLOT guidelines on the weakest grounds, but claiming your exceptionalism has to be disproved, but not bothering to even show local consensus for ignoring the larger consensus that decided the rules and successfully applied them to films longer and more complex than this.

You aren't even making the smallest effort to show good faith by moving the unsourced alternative "Christmas angel" plotline out of the plot section to Production. This article could be much better. -- 89.101.195.102 (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Your lack of AGF is apparent with each post you make and your statements show a WP:IDONTLIKEIT mentality. WP:CONSENSUS already exists for this article. MarnetteD|Talk 18:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The lack of improvement to this article disappointed me before and still disappoints me now. This C Class article is ossified by inaction and you keep asserting everything is fine. -- 89.101.195.102 (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Claudia Schiffer cameo

@MarnetteD: Why did you undo the edit about the Claudia Schiffer cameo? By what criteria do you establish that some content is "(not needed)"? --MirelesJ (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Your ping did not work because you did not sign your post. The item is not sourced so it is WP:OR as it stands. It is cute but not really part of the plot. You might mention it with a source in the production/cast section. MarnetteD|Talk 22:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Additional sources

• Pereira, Alyssa (2015-12-14). "'Love Actually' script editor reveals lots of the film's secrets and fun facts". Houston Chronicle. San Francisco Chronicle.

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Is there a better term?

Regarding this edit Shivertimbers433 has a point that, since they aren't seen filming the scenes, body doubles isn't the right description to use. OTOH I'm not sure that stand ins is the right term either. They aren't going to replace the main actors if they get sick or can't film for some other reason. I think there is a term for this kind of job but I can't think of it at the moment. If anyone else can think of it then we can update the page. If not I'm okay with leaving it as it is as well. MarnetteD|Talk 21:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

This is exactly what they were doing. From stand-in, "a person who substitutes for the actor before filming, for technical purposes such as lighting and camera setup". Stand-ins usually don't replace the actual actors on camera. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah - my mistake - I was only thinking of stand in in relation to stage acting. Thanks for pointing this out Shivertimbers433. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 23:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

'Stand-in' is the term used in the 'Interconnections between the Love Actually characters' graphic. -- Jmc (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Controversy

On the NPR radio program on Christmas Eve 2023, it was mentioned that the film has become controversial due to, i.a., stereotypes. Should this be added (with examples cited by second sources) to the reception section? Kdammers (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

There have been dissenting opinions all along, those who loved this film really loved it but the critics were always mixed. It would be good to first make the Reception section more balanced and include more analysis from contemporary critics who disliked it at the time and the specific faults they saw in it. After that maybe you could write a little about the Legacy (pro and con) of this film but I would not present it as Controversy or {{Criticism section}}. It is nearly an annual sport at some publications to repost their old reviews tearing down this film but it isn't new. The 20th anniversary of the film resulted in various articles but this was mostly repeating and rehashing the same old complaints, so again it is probably best to go back to what the top critics were saying at the time and not get distracted by recent bias. -- 109.79.169.204 (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Opinions have always been mixed, take for example the 2003 LA Times review of Love Actually from Kenneth Turan "think of “Love Actually” as a box of fine chocolates filled with a variety of centers. All are tasty, no small thing, but some are tastier than others. And while some quickly become cherished favorites, others make you wonder: “What were they thinking with that one?”". (Didn't find what I was actually looking for but I did find that it premiered in September at Toronto (interview with Curtis) and a 2003 interview with Bill Nighy.) -- ~2025-43070-44 (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)