Talk:Caligula (film)/Archive 1

I deleted the category "Sexually explicit films" because this was the only article in the category and the category itself had no description. I also added the "Cult films" category, because this is a cult film. (Ibaranoff24 02:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

Can we please not delete the talk page? It has contained discussions about versions of this film, category discussions, questions the facts on the runtime of this film and other things. Rather than have someone ask them again or recat this page as explicit film, the old talk should be left. JayKeaton 20:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That may be so, but of these "discussions" are grossly misinformed. Emlodik (forgot to sign) 08:21, 16 May 2007

:So? -- megA (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Could we get a plot summary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.247.107 (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.167.112.67 (talk) 12:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Right now the lead says, "Caligula remains the only major motion picture to feature eminent film actors (Sir John Gielgud, Peter O'Toole, Malcolm McDowell, Dame Helen Mirren) in a film with graphic and explicit sex." This was in 1999, but is no longer true. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/may/17/cannes2004.film This movie] is from 2004, and I know of others (that I can't think of off the top of my head) that are fairly recent. I'd like to change it to the "first major motion picture to feature...". Does anybody have a source that states this explicitly, and maybe the name of the second film in this category? Even if not, I think it's safe to say that X and Y both exist, so X isn't the only one. I'll change it in a week if there's no problems. NJGW (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

CAN PEOPLE PLEASE STOP SAYING THAT THE ALLEGED 210 MINUTE VERSION WAS SHOWN AT THE CANNES FILM FESTIVAL?!?!?! I am sorry for using all capitals, but this is getting very annoying! It was a CLOSED PRIVATE SCREENING that just HAPPENED to occur in Cannes while the famous festival was full swing.

It was censored in several countries, an original runtime of 156 minutes was reduced to 105 (1981 release) & 102 minutes (1999 release) in the U.S. and 149 minutes (1981, since out-of-print.)

:If the censored version was so sickening, I am wondering what is in the other half of the movie. Anyone seen the uncensored version? Kowloonese 01:12, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

:: I unwittingly got a 156 minute version from Netflix. I never looked up the film beforehand and had no idea how graphic it would be. Well, I knew it was graphic, but not that graphic. Basically it's like a good historical drama featuring hardcore sex. See the IMDB page about the film's rating for ideas of what's included. I don't think any of it was gratuitous; in my view the point of the scenes is to display depravity. 24.21.10.30 (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does the word "depraved" in the plot synopsis link to "deprivation"? It says "depraved," not "deprived." Those are two completely different words. I suppose a link to "depravity" would make sense, but certainly not "deprivation."

71.77.52.3 (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Several of the popular culture references are to Caligula the emperor not specifically this movie (the Smiths, Two and a Half Men). They should be moved to the Caligula page.

A sentence in this article's lede claims that "It was the first major motion picture to feature both eminent film actors and pornographic scenes." What about "Last Tango in Paris" (1972)? Bigturtle (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Although strong for its time, LTIP depicts simulated sex as opposed to the real thing depicted in Caligula. The porn stuff does not directly feature the lead actors, but nevertheless the claim is correct - the film featured eminent actors and pornographic scenes. IOf you wanted to be clearer (and less POV about what constitutes pornography), I guess you could change "pornographic" to "unsimulated sex"TriumFant (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on Caligula (film). Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=712311185 my edit]. You may add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.malcolminterviews.comlu.com/guccione80.html

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Caligula (film). Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=792876441 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/20130508132720/http://www.visioniproibite.it/film-censurati-vietati-minori-cinema/19-caligola-1979-tinto-brass-1a-parte to http://www.visioniproibite.it/film-censurati-vietati-minori-cinema/19-caligola-1979-tinto-brass-1a-parte

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

At 21:23 in of the 2hr 36min version, there is a woman shown with 3 eyes and two faces. What is she supposed to be? This is supposed be based off of Roman history, not Roman mythology, right?? 96.228.59.187 (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Why were mentions of the previous alternate edits of the film, such as the Imperial Edition, or the effort of Tuschinski to restore Brass's version, removed from the page? Negovan's version especially wouldn't exist without Tuschinski's aborted effort. 24.64.102.26 (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)