Talk:Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act and Notting Hill (film): Difference between pages

(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
Zen-master (talk | contribs)
 
 
Line 1:
{{Infobox Film
==References==
| name = Notting Hill
| image = NottingHillRobertsGrant.jpg
| caption = The film's poster.
| producer = [[Duncan Kenworthy]]
| director = [[Roger Michell]]
| writer = [[Richard Curtis]]
| starring = [[Julia Roberts]]<br>[[Hugh Grant]]<br>[[Rhys Ifans]]<br>[[Emma Chambers]]<br>[[Tim McInnerny]]<br>[[Gina McKee]]<br>[[Hugh Bonneville]]
| music = [[Trevor Jones (composer)|Trevor Jones]]
| cinematography = Michael Coulter
| editing = Nick Moore
| distributor = [[Music Corporation of America|MCA]]-[[Universal Studios|Universal]]<br />[[PolyGram Filmed Entertainment]]
| released = {{flagicon|UK}} [[May 21]], [[1999]]</br>{{flagicon|USA}} [[May 28]], [[1999]]
| runtime = 124 min.
| budget = $42 million
| gross = $116 million
| language = [[English language|English]]
| website = http://www.notting-hill.com/
| imdb_id = 0125439
| amg_id = 1:179536
}}
'''''Notting Hill''''' is a [[1999 in film|1999]] [[romantic comedy film]] set in the [[Notting Hill]] district of [[London]], [[England]], [[United Kingdom|United Kingdom]], that was released on [[May 21]] [[1999]]. The [[screenplay]] was written by [[Richard Curtis]] who had previously written ''[[Four Weddings and a Funeral]]''. It was produced by [[Duncan Kenworthy]], and directed by [[Roger Michell]]. The film stars [[Julia Roberts]], [[Hugh Grant]], [[Rhys Ifans]], [[Emma Chambers]], [[Tim McInnerny]], [[Gina McKee]] and [[Hugh Bonneville]].
 
Bookshop owner William Thacker's world begins to turn upside down after the world's most famous actress, Anna Scott, visits his store. Later, Will knocks his orange juice into Anna as she passes him in the street. After she gets changed at his house, Anna surprises Will with a kiss. The pair then begin a relationship, but encounter numerous problems on the way.
*[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=438&invol=59 DUKE POWER CO. v. CAROLINA ENV. STUDY GROUP, 438 U.S. 59 (1978)]
 
The film was well received by critics, and charted well at the box office, becoming the highest grossing British film yet released. The film won a [[British Academy of Film and Television Arts|BAFTA]], and both won and was nominated for several others.
 
==Plot==
'''[[Talk:Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act/Alltalk|Talk Archive: All (614K)]]'''
[[Image:Notting_Hill.jpg|thumb|left|200px|Will and Anna together on a date.]]
William Thacker is the owner of an [[independent bookstore]] which specializes in [[travel writing]] in [[Notting Hill, London, England|Notting Hill]]. Witty, cultivated and handsome, he has not been coping well with his divorce and is currently sharing his house with an eccentric [[Wales|Welsh]] wannabe artist named Spike. One day, Thacker encounters world famous [[Hollywood]] actress Anna Scott during her trip to London, when she enters his shop to purchase a book. Shortly thereafter, the pair accidentally collide in the street, causing William to spill his orange juice on the both of them. He offers his house, which is just across the road, as a place for Anna to get changed. She accepts and they repair to his abode. Having got changed, Anna surprises Will with a kiss. She makes sure that Will does not tell anyone about it, and leaves.
 
Days later, Will asks Spike if he has any messages. Spike has trouble writing down, or remembering any messages left for Will, but does recall "Some American girl called Anna" calling a few days previous. Anna is staying at the Ritz, under a pseudonym, and asks Will to come and visit her. When he arrives, Anna's room has become the centre for a press day and as a result, Will is mistaken for a member of the press. He has to interview every single cast member of Anna's new film ''Helix'', even though he has not seen the film himself. Will does get to talk to Anna, and invites her to his sister Honey's birthday party.
'''[[Talk:Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act/Talk1|Talk Archive: One]]'''
 
There, at Max and Bella's house, Anna feels at home with Will's circle of friends, putting up a good case for the "last brownie". The pair go on several dates, to the cinema and to a restaurant. Anna invites Will back to her hotel room, only to find that her American boyfriend, although Anna asserts that they have broken up, but Will has to leave anyway. Some time later, Anna arrives on Will's doorstep, hoping for a place to stay. Some degrading images of her have been leaked to the press and she needs to hide out. The pair bound once again, with Will helping Anna learn lines for her new film. That night, the pair sleep together for the first time. In the morning, Will is stunned to see a throng of reporters at their doorstep, it seems that careless talk by Spike down at the pub the previous night had alerted the media to Anna's whereabouts. She leaves in a hurry, and William decides once and for all to forget her.
'''[[Talk:Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act/Talk2|Talk Archive: Two]]'''
 
Later, Anna returns to England to make another film. She invites Will to the set of the film, he listens to the sound recording whilst Anna is busy filming. He overhears her telling her co-star that Will is "just some guy", and leaves. The next day, Anna comes to the bookshop once again, hoping to resume their love affair, but William turns her down. Will consults his friends on his decision, leading him to realize that he has just made the biggest mistake of his life. He and his friends search for Anna, racing across London in Max's car. They reach Anna's press conference before she leaves for the [[United States]], and Will successfully persuades her to stay in England with him. Anna and Will get married, with the film concluding with a shot of Will and a pregnant Anna sitting on a park bench in Notting Hill.
'''[[Talk:Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act/Talk3|Talk Archive: Three]]'''
 
==Cast and characters==
'''[[Talk:Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act/Talk4|Talk Archive: Four]]'''
*'''[[Julia Roberts]]''' as '''Anna Scott''': A world famous film star. She meets Will whilst filming in Notting Hill, when she comes into his book shop.
*'''[[Hugh Grant]]''' as '''William Thacker''': Owner of a travel book shop in Notting Hill, who has recently divorced his wife. He meets Anna Scott when she comes in looking for a book.
*'''[[Rhys Ifans]]''' as '''Spike''': Will's strange Welsh flatmate, who dreams of being an artist. He is described by Will as "the stupidest person in the world".
*'''[[Emma Chambers]]''' as '''Honey Thacker''': Will's ditzy younger sister, she is a huge fan of Anna Scott.
*'''[[Tim McInnerny]]''' as '''Max''': Will's best friend, who Will often stays with. He and Bella host Honey's birthday party.
*'''[[Gina McKee]]''' as '''Bella''': Max's wheelchair bound wife.
*'''[[Hugh Bonneville]]''' as '''Bernie''': A failing stockbroker and a friend of Will. He fails to realise who Anna Scott is upon first meeting her.
*'''[[James Dreyfus]]''' as '''Martin''': Harry's assistant at his bookshop.
*'''Richard McCabe''' as '''Tony''': A failing restaurateur, whose restaurant the group often attend.
*'''[[Dylan Moran]]''' as '''Rufus''': A thief who attempts to steal from Will's bookshop. Despite being caught on the CCTV he professes his innocence, and conceals the stolen book in his underpants.
 
[[Alec Baldwin]] makes an uncredited appearance as Anna's American boyfriend.<ref name=variety>{{cite web|url=http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117907270.html?categoryid=31&cs=1&p=0|title=Notting Hill|accessdate=2007-05-19|date=[[1999-04-30]]|author=Elley, Derek|publisher=Variety}}</ref> [[Sanjeev Bhaskar]] has a cameo role as one of the loud and offensive men in the restaurant Anna and Will attend.<ref name=bfi>{{cite web|url=http://www.bfi.org.uk/features/ultimatefilm/chart/details.php?ranking=95&cc=on|title=95: NOTTING HILL|accessdate=2007-05-19|publisher=British Film Institute}}</ref> A young [[Mischa Barton]] makes a brief appearance as the [[child actor]] whom William interviews for ''Horse & Hound'' magazine.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/you/article.html?in_article_id=449705&in_page_id=1908|title=Mischa Barton: Little Miss Sunshine|accessdate=2007-05-19|date=[[2007-05-12]]|author=Gordon, Jane|publisher=The Mail on Sunday}}</ref>
'''[[Talk:Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act/Talk5|Talk Archive: Five]]'''
 
==Production==
'''[[Talk:Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act/Talk6|Talk Archive: Six]]'''
===Development===
Richard Curtis spoke at length as to how he originally came up the idea for the film.
{{cquotetxt|When I was lying sleepless at nights I would sometimes wonder what it would be like if I just turned up at my friends' house, where I used to have dinner once a week, with the most famous person at that time, be it [[Madonna]] or whomever. It all sprang from there. How would my friends react? Who would try and be cool? How would you get through dinner? What would they say to you afterwards? That was the starting point, the idea of a very normal person going out with an unbelievably famous person and how that impinges on their lives.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.notting-hill.com/behindscenes/index.html|title=Behind-the-Scenes|accessdate=2007-05-22|publisher=Notting Hill.com}}</ref>}}
 
''Four Weddings and a Funeral'' director [[Mike Newell (director)|Mike Newell]] was approached for the film, but rejected it to work on ''[[Pushing Tin]]'' instead. He did later admit that in commercial terms he had made the wrong decision, but did not regret it.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://efilmcritic.com/feature.php?feature=78|title=The man who told Notting Hill to 'sod off'|accessdate=2007-05-21|author=Chris Parry|publisher=eFilm Critic}}</ref> The film's producer Duncan Kenworthy then turned to Roger Michell, stating that "Finding someone as good as Roger, was just like finding the right actor to play each role. Roger shone out."<ref name=production>{{cite web|url=http://www.notting-hill.com/behindscenes/index.html|title=About the Production|accessdate=2007-05-22|publisher=Notting Hill.com}}</ref>
'''[[Talk:Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act/Talk7|Talk Archive: Seven]]'''
 
===Casting===
'''[[Talk:Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act/Talk8|Talk Archive:Eight]]'''
Julia Roberts was the production team's "one and only" choice for the role of Anna, although Michell and Kentworthy did not expect her to accept the part. She did however take the role, with her agent citing it as "the best romantic comedy she had ever read".<ref name=production/> Roberts herself commented that after reading the script she decided she was "going to have to do this".<ref name=dreamteam>{{cite web|url=http://www.notting-hill.com/behindscenes/index.html|title=A Romantic Comedy Dream Team|accessdate=2007-05-22|publisher=Notting Hill.com}}</ref> The decision to cast Hugh Grant as Will was unanimous, as together Grant and Curtis had a "writer/actor marriage made in heaven". Michell stated that "Hugh does Richard better than anyone else, and Richard writes Hugh better than anyone else", and that Grant is "one of the only actors who can speak Richard's lines perfectly".<ref name=production/> The casting of Hugh Bonneville, Tim McInnerny, Gina McKee, Emma Chambers and Rhys Ifans as Will's group of friends was "rather like assembling a family". Michell explained that "When you are casting a cabal of friends, you have to cast a balance of qualities, of types and of sensibilities. They were the jigsaw that had to be put together all in one go, and I think we've got a very good variety of people who can realistically still live in the same world."<ref name=production/>
 
===Filming===
== Grok this - Supreme court said the risk is substantial ==
Curtis chose the setting of Notting Hill for the film as he lived there and knew the area well, stating "Notting Hill is a melting pot and the perfect place to set a film".<ref name=___location>{{cite web|url=http://www.notting-hill.com/behindscenes/index.html|title=Notting Hill, the place, the movie ___location|accessdate=2007-05-22|publisher=Notting Hill.com}}</ref> This left the producers with a challenge of having to film in a heavily populated area. Kenworthy noted "Early on, we toyed with the idea of building a huge exterior set. That way we would have more control, because we were worried about having Roberts and Grant on public streets where we could get thousands of onlookers." In the end they decided to take the risk anyway and film in the actual streets.<ref name=___location/> Michell was worried "that Hugh and Julia were going to turn up on the first day of shooting on Portobello Road, and there would be gridlock and we would be surrounded by thousands of people and paparazzi photographers who would prevent us from shooting". The ___location team, and security forces prevented this, as well as preventing problems the presence of a film crew may have caused the residents of Notting Hill, who Michell believes were "genuinely excited" about the film.<ref name=___location/> The film's ___location manager Sue Quinn described her job of finding suitable locations and getting permission to film there as "a mammoth task". She said
{{cquotetxt|The major problem we encountered was the size of our film unit. We couldn't just go in and shoot and come out. We were everywhere. Filming on the London streets has to be done in such a way that it comes up to health and safety standards. There is no such thing as a road closure. We were very lucky in the fact that we had 100% cooperation from the police and the Council. They looked favorably on what we were trying to do and how it would promote the area.<ref name=___location/>}}
Quinn and the rest of her ___location team had to send letters to thousands of people in the area, promising that they would donate to each person's favourite charity, resulting in over two hundred different charities receiving money from the film project.<ref name=___location/>
 
The film's production designer was [[Stuart Craig]] who was pleased for the chance to do a contempory film, stating on the film "we're dealing with streets with thousands of people, market traders, shop owners and residents which makes it really complex".<ref name=___location/> Filming began on [[April 17]] [[1998]], in both West London and at [[Shepperton Studios]].<ref name=production/> Will's bookshop was situated on [[Portobello Road]], which was one of the main areas in which filming took place. Other places within Notting Hill where filming took place included Westbourne Park Road, [[Golborne Road]], [[Landsdowne Road]] and the Coronet Cinema.<ref name=___location/> After filming for a period of six weeks in Notting Hill, filming moved to the [[Ritz Hotel]], where filming had to take place at night, the [[Savoy Hotel]], the Nobu Restaurant, the [[Zen Garden]] and [[Kenwood House]].<ref name=___location/> One the film's final scenes takes place at a film premiere, which presented difficulties for the production team. Michell wanted to film the scene in [[Leicester Square]], but the request was declined due to huge problems that fans attending a [[Leonardo DiCaprio]] premiere had caused the police. Through a health and safety act, the production received permission to film and constructed the scene in just twenty-four hours.<ref name=___location/> Interior scenes were the last scenes to be filmed, with them taking place at Shepperton Studios.<ref name=___location/>
So no more saying the risk doesn't exist and pretending as though it doesn't exist. The supreme court said the risk is substantial, and that's that. Any other qualification of the risk will need a better source than the Supreme Court. (none exists) So until one of you files a suit and takes it to the Supremes, your going to have to live with "Substantial risk" [[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]] 17:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 
The film features the [[1950 in art|1950]] [[Marc Chagall]] painting ''[[La Mariée]]''. In the story, Anna sees a print of the painting in William's home, and later gives him what is presumably the original. According to director Michell in an article in ''[[Entertainment Weekly]]'', the painting was chosen because screenwriter Curtis was a fan of Chagall's work, and because ''La Mariée'' "depicts a yearning for something that's lost." Producers had a reproduction made for use in the film, but had to first get permission from the painting's owners as well as clearance from the British [[Design and Artists Copyright Society]]. Finally, according to producer Kenworthy, "we had to agree to destroy it. They were concerned that if our fake was too good, it might float around the market and create problems." The article also noted that "some experts say the real canvas could be worth between $500,000 and $1 million."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,273720,00.html|title=Flashes|date=[[1999-06-11]]|accessdate=2007-05-20|author=Joe Dziemianowicz; Clarissa Cruz|publisher=[[Entertainment Weekly]]}}</ref>
The supreme court said (as has been in the article for some time):
''Private industry responded to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 with the development of an experimental power plant constructed under the auspices of a consortium of interested companies. It soon became apparent that profits from the private exploitation of atomic energy were uncertain and the accompanying risks substantial. Although the AEC offered incentives to encourage investment, there remained in the path of the private nuclear power industry various problems - the risk of potentially vast liability in the event of a nuclear accident of a sizable magnitude being the major obstacle. Notwithstanding comprehensive testing and study, the uniqueness of this form of energy production made it impossible totally to rule out the risk of a major nuclear accident resulting in extensive damage. Private industry and the AEC were confident that such a disaster would not occur, but the very uniqueness of nuclear power meant that the possibility remained, and the potential liability dwarfed the ability of the industry and private insurance companies to absorb the risk. Thus, while repeatedly stressing that the risk of a major nuclear accident was extremely remote, spokesmen for the private sector informed Congress that they would be forced to withdraw from the field if their liability were not limited by appropriate legislation. ''
 
===Music===
Music for the film was composed by ''Four Wedding and a Funeral'' composer Trevor Jones.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.filmtracks.com/titles/notting_hill.html|title=Notting Hill|accessdate=2007-05-23|publisher=Filmtracks.com}}</ref> Several additional songs written by other artists appeared on the film's soundtrack. These include [[Elvis Costello]]'s [[cover version|cover]] of the [[Charles Aznavour]] song "[[She (Charles Aznavour song)|She]]", as well as [[Ronan Keating]]'s specially recorded cover version of "[[When You Say Nothing at All]]", the song reached number one in the British charts.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/soldonsong/songlibrary/whenyousaynothingatall.shtml|title='When You Say Nothing at All'|accessdate=2007-05-21|publisher=BBC}}</ref> Originally, Charles Aznavour's version of the song was used in the film, but American test screening audiences could not understand it. Costello was then brought in by Richard Curtis to record a cover version of the song.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/395140.stm|title=Elvis alive and well in Notting Hill|accessdate=2007-05-23|author=Darryl Chamberlain|date=[[1999-07-20]]|publisher=BBC News}}</ref>
 
==Reception==
Well, apparently the definitive view of the supreme court was that:
===Critical reaction===
''the uniqueness of this form of energy production made it impossible totally to rule out the risk of a major nuclear accident resulting in extensive damage....[but]... Private industry and the AEC were confident that such a disaster would not occur...the risk of a major nuclear accident was extremely remote''
The film was meet with generally positive reviews, scoring an 85% "Cream of the Crop" rating at [[Rotten Tomatoes]].<ref name=rt>{{cite web|url=http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/notting_hill/|title=Notting Hill (1999)|accessdate=2007-05-21|publisher=[[Rotten Tomatoes]]}}</ref> "Variety's Derek Elley said that "It's slick, it's gawky, it's 10 minutes too long, and it's certainly not "''Four Weddings and a Funeral'' Part 2" in either construction or overall tone", giving it an overall positive review.<ref name=variety/> Cranky Critic called it "Bloody damned good", as well as saying that it was "A perfect date flick."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.crankycritic.com/archive99/nottinghill.html|title=Notting Hill|accessdate=2007-05-19|publisher=Cranky Critic}}</ref> Nitrate said that "''Notting Hill'' is whimsical and light, fresh and quirky", with "endearing moments and memorable characters".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nitrateonline.com/1999/rnottinghill.html|title=Notting Hill|accessdate=2007-05-19|author=Savada, Elias|date=[[1999-05-28]]|publisher=Nitrate}}</ref> In his review of the film's DVD John J. Puccio noted that "The movie is a fairy tale, and writer Richard Curtis knows how much the public loves a fairy tale", calling it "a sweet film".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dvdtown.com/reviews/notting-hill/739/2|title=Notting Hill <nowiki>[Ultimate Edition]</nowiki>|accessdate=2007-05-20|author=John J. Puccio|publisher=DVD Town.com}}</ref> Desson Howe of the [[Washington Post]] gave the film a very positive review, praising Rhys Ifans peformance as Spike.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/movies/reviews/nottinghillhowe.htm?movieslede=y|title='Notting Hill': Easy to Love|accessdate=2007-05-21|date=[[1999-05-28]]|author=Desson Howe|publisher=[[Washington Post]]}}</ref> James Sanford gave ''Notting Hill'' three and a half stars, saying that "Curtis' dialogue may be much snappier than his sometimes dawdling plot, but the first hour of "Notting Hill" is so beguiling and consistently funny it seems churlish to complain that the rest is merely good."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.interbridge.com/jamessanford/1999/notting.html|title=Notting Hill|accessdate=2007-05-21|author=James Sanford|publisher=Kalamazoo Gazette}}</ref> Sue Pierman of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel stated that "''Notting Hill'' is clever, funny, romantic - and oh, yes, reminiscent of ''Four Weddings and a Funeral''", but that the film "is so satisfying, it doesn't pay to nitpick."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www2.jsonline.com/enter/movies/reviews/may99/m.nott28052799.asp|title='Notting Hill' is perfect romantic fit for Roberts, Grant|accessdate=2007-05-21|date=[[1999-05-27]]|author=Sue Pierman|publisher=Milwaukee Journal Sentinel}}</ref> [[Roger Ebert]] praised the film, saying "the movie is bright, the dialogue has wit and intelligence, and Roberts and Grant are very easy to like."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19990528/REVIEWS/905280301/1023|title=Notting Hill|accessdate=2007-05-21|date=[[1999-05-28]]|author=Roger Ebert|publisher=Chicago Sun-Times}}</ref> Kenneth Turan gave a good review, concluding that "the film's romantic core is impervious to problems".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-movie990527-6,0,7251334.story|title=Notting Hill|accessdate=2007-05-21|date=[[1999-05-28]]|author=Kenneth Turan|publisher=Calender Live}}</ref> [[CNN]] reviewer Paul Clinton said that ''Notting Hill'' "stands alone as another funny and heartwarming story about love against all odds".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/Movies/9905/27/review.notting.hill/|title=Review: Julia, Hugh a perfect match for 'Notting Hill'|accessdate=2007-05-21|date=[[1999-05-27]]|author=Paul Clinton|publisher=CNN}}</ref>
 
Widgett Walls of Needcoffee.com gave the film "three and a half cups of coffee", stating that "the humor of the film saves it from a completely trite and unsatisfying (nay, shall I say enraging) ending", but criticised the film's soundtrack.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.needcoffee.com/html/reviews/nhill.html|title=Notting Hill (1999)|accessdate=2007-05-21|publisher=Needcoffee.com|author=Widgett Walls}}</ref> Dennis Schwartz gave the film a bad review with a grade of "C-" citing "this film was pure and unadulterated balderdash".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sover.net/~ozus/nottinghill.htm|title=NOTTING HILL|accessdate=2007-05-21|date=[[2000-11-29]]|author=Dennis Schwartz|publisher=Ozus' World Movie Reviews}}</ref>
all depends how you quote it, eh?
 
''Notting Hill'' was placed 95th on the [[British Film Institute]]'s "list of the all-time top 100 films", the results of the list were based on estimates of each film's British cinema admission level.<ref name=bfi/>
The only time the supreme court judgement used the word substantial in a relevant way was in the quote above ''profits from the private exploitation of atomic energy were uncertain and the accompanying risks substantial.'' Deconstructing this sentence it says either (1)the risks accompanying private exploitation of atomic energy were substantial, or (2) the risks accompanying profits from the private exploitation of atomic energy were substantial. The supreme court statement is entirely consistent with the view that there are no risks associated with atomic energy, only with private exploitation of it. It is entirely consistent that the risks are financial rather than radiological. Now, I think the court meant all the risks, of whatever sort. But it does not say there is a substantial risk of a nuclear accident. In fact, taken overall it says that private industry believed that profits would be small, accompanied by a remote possibility of being wholly bankrupted, and that as a business proposition this did not make sense. [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 17:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 
===Box office performance===
:Not so fast there - Mr. quote parser. The Supreme court asserted that "it was clear .. that the risk was substantial" but it only quotes the Industry (they of little bias) as "being confident" that the risk was remote. There is a world of difference between assertions made by the industry and facts asserted by the Supreme Court. I have never challenged as factual that the Industry claims to be safe. You can print that in bold letter at the head of every paragraph - I don't give a damn. But what the Supreme Court ITSSELF has found to be factual - is that the risk is substantial. I will insist that wherever the risk is quantified that the Supreme court's qualification be used - and not as the (see-no-danger) crowd would have it that we sweep "substantial" under the rug and pleasure ourselves by reporting only the facts consistent with our bias. [[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]] 21:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The film had its world premiere at the [[Odeon]], Leicester Square on [[April 27]] [[1999]].<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/329426.stm|title=Notting Hill premieres in Leicester Square|accessdate=2007-05-23|date=[[1999-04-27]]|publisher=BBC News}}</ref> The premiere received media attention in the British tabloid press, as Julia Roberts attended sporting unshaven arm pits.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/series/field/stories/mclaren02.html|title=Letter from Notting Hill|accessdate=2007-05-23|date=[[2002-12-20]]|author=Leah McLaren|publisher=Globe and Mail}}</ref> ''Notting Hill'' charted well at the box office, earning $116,089,678 as its overall domestic gross, with a worldwide gross of $363,889,678, losing out to ''[[Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace]]''.<ref name=boxoffice>{{cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=nottinghill.htm|title=NOTTING HILL|accessdate=2007-05-20|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]}}</ref> It totaled $27.7 million over its opening weekend, breaking American box office records,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/358820.stm|title=Notting Hill has The Force|accessdate=2007-05-23|date=[[1999-06-02]]|publisher=BBC News}}</ref> and making it the biggest ever opening for a romantic comedy film at that point, beating previous record holder ''[[My Best Friend's Wedding]]''.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=1046&p=.htm|title=Weekend Box Office|accessdate=2007-05-20|date=[[1999-06-02]]|author=Brandon Gray|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]}}</ref> ''Notting Hill'' made another $15 million the following week,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=1048&p=.htm|title=Weekend Box Office|accessdate=2007-05-20|date=[[1999-06-07]]|author=Brandon Gray|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]}}</ref> but then began to lose out.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=1053&p=.htm|title=Weekend Box Office|accessdate=2007-05-20|date=[[1999-06-21]]|author=Brandon Gray|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]}}</ref> One month after its release, ''Notting Hill'' lost its record for highest grossing opening weekend for a romantic comedy film to ''[[Runaway Bride (1999 film)|Runaway Bride]]''.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=1065&p=.htm|title=Weekend Box Office|accessdate=2007-05-20|date=[[1999-08-03]]|author=Brandon Gray|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]}}</ref> It was the sixteenth highest grossing film of 1999,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=1999&p=.htm|title=1999 DOMESTIC GROSSES|accessdate=2007-05-20|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]}}</ref> and as of May 2007 is the 104th highest grossing film of all time.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/?pagenum=2&p=.htm|title=WORLDWIDE GROSSES|accessdate=2007-05-20|publisher=[[Box Office Mojo]]}}</ref> At the time, it had become the highest grossing British film of all time.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/431153.stm|title=Notting Hill breaks film record|accessdate=2007-05-23|date=[[1999-08-26]]|publisher=BBC News}}</ref>
 
===Awards===
::I checked the entire judgement for occurrences of the word substantial, and the only relevant mention I found was this paragraph above. It does not say what you claim it says. In fact it literally says as I discussed above. The entire paragraph is reporting the views of the industry: so if you would have it that the merely the industry is claiming it is safe, then it is also merely the industry maintaining there is substantial risk. I understand this apparent paradox as meaning that different risks are referred to. The high financial risk, and the low risk of an accident. The financial risk may have absolutely nothing to do with any nuclear risk at their plant: There is the tiny issue of borrowing billions of dollars to build a plant which you may then not be allowed to use for no reason within your control. [[User:81.7.59.14|81.7.59.14]] 10:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)([[User:Sandpiper]])
''Notting Hill'' won the Audience Award for Most Popular Film at the [[British Academy of Film and Television Arts|BAFTA]]s in 2000,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0855372.html|title=2000 British Academy of Film and Television Awards|accessdate=2007-05-22|publisher=infoplease.com}}</ref> and was nominated in the categories of The Alexander Korda Award for Outstanding British Film of the year, and Best Performance by an Actor in a supporting role for Rhys Ifans.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/662167.stm|title=Bafta nominations in full|accessdate=2007-05-22|date=2000-03-01|publisher=BBC News}}</ref> The film also won Best Comedy Film at the [[British Comedy Awards]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.britishcomedyawards.com/pastwinners99.html|title=The Past Winners 1999|accessdate=2007-05-22|publisher=British Comedy Awards}}</ref> The film's soundtrack won Best Soundtrack at the [[Brit Awards]], beating ''[[Star Wars - Episode I: The Phantom Menace]]''.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/entertainment/2000/brit_awards/625884.stm|title=Brits 2000: The winners|accessdate=2007-05-22|date=[[2000-03-03]]|pblisher=BBC News}}</ref> The film won Best British Film, Best British Director for Roger Michell, and Best British Actor for Hugh Grant at the [[Empire Awards]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.britishtheatreguide.info/news/library/soft/blwh-022000.htm|title=What are they doing?|date=2000-02-20|accessdate=2007-05-21|publisher=British Theatre Guide}}</ref>
The film received three nominations at the [[Golden Globes]], in the categories Best Motion Picture - Comedy/Musical, Best Motion Picture Actor - Comedy/Musical for [[Hugh Grant]], and Best Motion Picture Actress - Comedy/Musical for [[Julia Roberts]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thegoldenglobes.com/welcome.html?movie/notting_hill.html|title=Notting Hill|publisher=TheGoldenGlobes.com|accessdate=2007-05-22}}</ref>
 
==References==
== Supreme Court is unassailable source ==
{{Reflist|2}}
 
Until someone can truump the Supreme Court - I am going to argue that their findings of fact are supreme and unassailable. If we go to arbcom because I insist that the version of the truth held by the Supreme Court be maintained - then we go. [[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]] 22:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 
:We have a consensus Intro. Your proposed intro explained very little about Price-Anderson. [[User:Simesa|Simesa]] 00:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
::what is the issue? The supreme court ruling was included before, and is now. The only issue seems to be that you wish to leave half of it out, altering its meaning. [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 10:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
:::Well then. Why don't we just include the entire decision then? I'm of the mind that a summary of what they said was permissible. I don't like listing all of the points or some of the points like we did. Summarize it. This article is not about the decision. It's about the Act. Keep it as short as possible. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 11:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 
::::I agree - it ought to summarized - not watered down. The act asserts the risk as being "substantial" now how do we get from that to this idea that the risk is insignificant? Won't wash with me, and I suggest it won't wash at arbcom. [[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]]
:::::The arbitration committee does not decide content disputes. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup>/<small>[[User:Katefan0/Poll|mrp]]</small> 16:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::Yes. If an arbcom case was ever opened on this matter, it'd be on user conduct, not this article per se. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 16:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 
The issue seems to be just the one paragraph. It was already in the article in its entirety before, it just didn't say it was quoted from the supreme court. Ben wished to add points from this paragraph to the section listing supreme court conclusions. I realised that actually all his quotes were from this one paragraph, and that it was already there. So how is it a problem to have this entire paragraph-everything ben wanted to include- in its entirety in the section listing views of the supreme court. Ben, if you think the meaning is altered by quoting the entire paragraph, then I can only think the proper meaning is exactly as the supreme court wrote it. If you do not think the meaning is changed by quoting the entire paragraph, what is your objection to it?
woohikity, this article is about the decision. My reading of the judgement is that it supports the act. It is a respected body and deserves to be heard. I do not object to Ben putting in a clear explanation of what other organisations have said in separate sections. Without rebuttal, so long as they accurately quote the source. It becomes a bit silly if we have several sections, each one cross-referring to an opposite POV from someone else. I am of the view that there is a significant body of opinion which does think this act is abominable, and it is fair to say so. Unfortunately, the supreme court did not say that.
 
Ben, are there other sections of the judgement saying different things which you would like to include as well? [[User:81.7.55.187|81.7.55.187]] 17:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[[User:Sandpiper]]
 
By the way Ben, i read what you posted on [[talk:Hubbert peak theory]] ''Conservation and Alt Energy are not likely to support the same levels of over consumption, but let's be honest - wind turbines are being built with less subsidy than nuclear plants, and nukes are part of the cheap energy reality. So we can and do have sources of energy which while they may not be fully competitive, are nonetheless, so closely competitive that the effect of losing one and coming to depend on the other is trivial. It's like losing GM, and having to depend on Hyundai. There's a difference, but far closer to a matter of preference than a calamity. Benjamin Gatti 06:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)'' Ben, do I take it you think nuclear power is as near in cost to convential power sources as makes no difference? [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 17:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 
:Yes, even with the reseach subsidies, and Price Anderson, Wind energy, wave energy, and yes Nuclear energy are all close enough in cost that the increased reliance on any one of them would not threaten our current standard of living. That is a far cry from saying which of the three is more competative in a very close race, or that they are so close that it makes no difference. In the context of Bubbert, the emphasis is on a sudden disruption in our way of life being vaused by the end of cheap oil. My point is that wind is close to nuclear, and nuclear is competative with natural gas, and so in the end, even alternative energies are not so much higher in cost that we can justify irrationa fears in connection with the disruption of cheap oil (note that cars are a horse of a different color). [[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]] 20:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 
==great==
A revert war. I think that's the only thing we had avoided. Oi vey. I wish I had never gotten into this mess. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 16:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 
Serious and well intentioned people are just the worst, aren't they? [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 17:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 
:Well I've learned alot. There are just times when I wish I had told katefan0 (who first told me about this back in June) "no thanks". :) --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 17:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 
== Capitalisation ==
 
Hi Ral, I reverted Constitutional challenge to Constitutional Challenge. However, I think I figured out what you were getting at. I checked a few articles and heading capitalisation varies, probably because no one else knows exactly the preferred style either. I havn't changed it back again, because under the circumstances it didn't seem a good plan to generate yet another edit. (and it is on my list of things to investigate) [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 18:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 
== "Does not adequately protect the public" is incomplete ==
 
I interpret critics to be arguing the act was designed with the purpose of protecting the nuclear industry at the expense of the public so "does not adequately protect" is incomplete or the opposite/wrong way of thinking about this. I believe they are saying "is detrimental to public safety". [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 18:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 
:from my own point of view, i have not progressed sufficiently far with this to analyse exactly what the critics have claimed. One of the acts stated aims was to protect the public, the other to encourage nuclear power. It is arguable that the act improves the public's position as compared to no act, even though it might still be criticised as inadequate. The supreme court upheld that it did adequately protect the public. Perhaps another interpretation of the criticism is that anything furthering the existence of nuclear power is creating a grave risk to the public, which might more accord with your suggestion.
 
Ah, i see this is further to a proposed change to the slightly wobbly consensus view of the first paragraph. So my POV would be that I do not support changes at this time, but am open to persuasion based upon exactly what the critics have said. However I doubt very much the 'federal body' claimed the act was 'detrimental to public safety', and reserve that the paragraph overal must not overstate criticisms of the act. [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 20:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 
 
:Touche' - Indeed my objection to the current intro includes this complaint. The Federal body described it openly as a subsidy to investors - but unlike plebian editors, does not necessarily equate "subsidy" with "criticism" - and certainly did not go so far as to say that it did not protect the public. Subsidy (like Scheme) is a neutral word which may or may not be used critically. But the editors here tend to put a great emphasis on the connotation of words given their most pedestrian (and oh so often misunderstood) use. [[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]] 20:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 
:I suggest that we quit pretending to have a "consensus version", until we in fact do have. [[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]] 20:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 
::Well we actually do. IIRC it was agreed to by me, Simesa, katefan0 and I think Sandpiper...or he agreed with most of it anyway. The only person not to agree was you Ben. Consensus is not 100% approval. 4 or even 3 to 1 can be considered a consensus. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 21:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
:::It was agreed by me too. It needs improving, but that is about exact wording not meaning. people keep hacking at it (simesa, i see what your comment about 'problematic results from courts' was meant to mean, but I would have to argue it is criticism of the american legal system which deserves to be discussed later, as it was once upon a time)[[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 21:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 
:Good point about any nuclear power could be interpreted as a grave risk to the public, I just interpreted the old intro to be understating or mistating the critics' view. If the point/title of the act is "nuclear industries ''indemnity'' act" how can the public possibly be protected in a civil law sense? My "public safety" phraseology is perhaps is a little too much and should be mofified, but "adquately protecting the public" is an inaccurate or opposite way of interpreting what critics are saying I believe. Perhaps we need a couple of sentences to succinctly paraphrase what each critic is saying instead of trying to find some generic, and potentially watered-down, consensus criticism? [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 20:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 
'Bear in mind that legal protection is not the same as "safety" One suggests a recourse to damages as "protection", while "safety" would appear to refer to preventative measures designed to prevent an accident in the first place. My family is protected against my deat by life insurance, but I am not more safe as a result. [[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]] 20:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 
:Well, it could be argued that because the nuclear industry has a civil get out of jail free card they are much less likely to be diligent when it comes to safety. Though I agree "public safety" is a little too much and we should change it to something like "critics argue it eliminates or lessens civil protections and recourses the public would normally have after an accident" or some such. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 21:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
::"Does not adequately protect the public" IMO is fine for the intro. Zen argues that it's incomplete, but of course it's incomplete. It's the intro, it should hit the high points -- it doesn't need to be and shouldn't be complete. The article can (and does) later elaborate on just how its critics think it's flawed. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup>/<small>[[User:Katefan0/Poll|mrp]]</small> 21:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 
actually, i think we need two sentences like a hole in the head. We have enough difficulty with just one. If you indemnify something, then you keep it from harm: in this instance you protect companies from being sued into bancruptcy, but you do it by creating a fund (probably considerably larger than the companies own resources, $10 billion) which will compensate any victims. So while the company is protected, the victims are also more protected than otherwise. Further, since all the money comes from the companies (but not just the one concerned), it is self-financing, just like ordinary insurance. Quite clever, really. Also, it alters the law to make suing easier. The rest of the intro is a bit negative already, as it were to balance the negativity around.
 
The issue of whether this makes a company less safety conscious is addressed by firstly the observation that they are likely to be out of business anyway if something serious happens at their plant, and secondly that the act has absolutely nothing to do with safety regulations, inspections,licensing, criminal penalties or fines for breeching regulations. [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 21:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 
:I changed it to clarity the lack of civil recourse point. Also, after I've thought about it when I said "incomplete" I actually mean "mistated" as in "the critics' views were being mistated". What is wrong with "critics argue it was wrong to eliminate or lessen civil protections and recourses that would normally be available after and accident"? To resolve an interpretation of critics views I think we are going to have to examine them more closely. Kate, a suffict summary is good except when it's misleading. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 21:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
::"Does not adequately protect the public" is not misleading. Your version rather is, as it isn't as inclusive as the shorter version. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup>/<small>[[User:Katefan0/Poll|mrp]]</small> 21:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 
::The point of the sentence is really to make it clear in the introduction that criticism exists. Trying to make it exact makes it very hard indeed to make it short. Write it under criticisms. The problem with your suggestion 'critics argue..lessen' is first whether they do, and secondly whether this is a sensible and widely held criticism which makes it worthy of mention in the introduction. Also, as said before, the supreme court held it did not 'lessen', which would inevitably mean you would ahve to mention that in the introduction as well. [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 21:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 
:::If the point of the act is to give the nuclear industry ''indemmity'' at the expensive of the public then of course the public isn't "adequately" protected, they are in fact less protected than they would be absent this act, right? "Adequately" implies that act was actually trying to protect the public would would be an incorrect assumption, right? The summary of criticism should succinctly connote just how fundamental the criticism is, right? [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 21:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
::::ah, no. The whole point of the act is to give companies limited indemnity without harming the public at all. The magic of insurance, what this act really does (also mentioned into the intro) is create a mutual insurance company funded by all the reactor companies. It makes all the companies liable for a failure by any one of them. [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 22:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 
==I'm asking for protection again==
Here we go again. We've now had 8 reverts in the last 24 hours. We're heading for a slew of 3RR violations. I'm going to ask for protection again. Both Sandpiper and I are lost because we have too much going on here. Let's slow down again. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 21:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 
:Ok, sorry, I didn't realize there were so many editors that were so keen on presenting the critic's view the old way. Let's try to resolve the disagreement(s) on the talk page. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 21:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 
::Zen, you are entering a hornet's nest here. I'd strongly suggest trying to read some of the archives or ask Sandpiper for help in getting up to speed, since he's relatively new to this too and just got up to speed himself. Otherwise, you are going to get lost and not necessarily add to the discussion. I mean we're in our 2nd mediation. We've literally had 4 protections. We have 500K of chat. Just a bit complex. :) --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 21:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 
:::Summarizing critics' views shouldn't be this contentious. If people think my change is too long we can shorten it, but "does not adequately protect the public" seems to errantly imply that act was trying to protect the public, which is false right? [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 21:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
:::some pages I know, you post a suggestion and come back a week later to see if anyones noticed, and no one has. Needs a day here for everyone to catch up (this is a world spanning debate, I think. Wonderful to get foreigners involved in things they had never heard of before). And before I get another edit conflict, I think it would be correct to say the secondary aim of the act was to protect the public. That was a stated aim, and once again was confirrmed by the supreme court both in intent and effect. read the article, its has quite a few facts.[[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 21:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 
::::Yes zen, you really have to get up to speed here. Not being critical, but as a new person to this mess, you have no idea what we've been debating for the last 6 months. Hell, I barely know and I've been involved since (almost) day 1. Read the archives and get up to speed. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 21:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::Zen, no, it's not false -- and in any case, it's not a valid argument with which to support the wording you seek. Protecting the public was one of the two main stated reasons Congress enacted the thing in the first place, those being to enable the creation of a private nuclear power industry, and to protect the public by creating a pool of funds from which damages would be paid in the event of a nuclear accident. Some critics argue that it does NOT protect the public, but that's only one view. The creators of the law clearly disagreed, so we can't argue that "does not adequately protect the public" is wrong because it's "false." That's passing judgment on a point of dispute, which [[WP:NPOV]] compels us not to do. &middot;[[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup>/<small>[[User:Katefan0/Poll|mrp]]</small> 21:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 
Back to my protection request. The complication is that we have 3 people who patrol the protection page and they include me and kate. *sigh* We just need a cool down period. I don't want anyone to violate the 3RR...yes...even Ben. I'd rather not have to complicate things any more than they are. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 21:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 
Do critics generally agree the public has been protected by the act? If I am the only one then I digress. It would be accurate to state that because of the act the public is forced to seek redress and compensation for damages over a certain amount from the government, not from the industry, right? Would it also be accurate to state that the normal right to be able to civily sue the industry that harmed someone in an accident was removed by this act for the nuclear industry, right? [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 21:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
:The intro already covers all these points. &middot; [[User:Katefan0|'''Katefan0''']]<sup>[[User talk:Katefan0|(scribble)]]</sup>/<small>[[User:Katefan0/Poll|mrp]]</small> 22:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 
::Not as comming from critics and not directly nor explicitly. If because of this act the public has less rights and avenues for recourse in the advent of an accident we should state that directly, rather than watering it down with "does not adequately protect the public". What does "Instead of problematic resuls from claims in state cours..." mean anyway? Who exactly is alleging whatever is being alleged is "problematic"? That seems like the pro industry position to me (a caveat should be added for NPOV). [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 22:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 
==Yay us==
Just created archive #8. We are at 614K and 160+ headings of archived talk. And we've settled basically zip since this started. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 21:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 
:Don't get me wrong, I take this seriously, but I laughed my head off when I read this one.[[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]]
 
::I do too but I felt like lightening up the mood a bit would be helpful. Plus. It's damn funny. :-D That is the amazing thing about all of this. If you look back at archives 1 and 2, it's basically the same issues we're dealing with now. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 22:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
:::I thought it might be. Serious, concerned people. [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 22:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
::::For different reasons though. Simesa, katefan and I just want the article to be NPOV. Ben is more concerned about the article sounding too pro-nuclear. Like I've said all along, we don't have a "side" really. Personally, I agree with Ben's views on nuclear and the Act. But the article needs to be NPOV on the point even if I'm personally not. Anyway. I'm wingeing on. --[[User:Woohookitty|''Woohookitty'']]<sup>[[User talk:Woohookitty|(cat scratches)]]</sup> 22:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 
== come on ben! ==
 
==External links==
Ben, you wrote:
{{wikiquotepar|Notting Hill}}
*[http://www.notting-hill.com/ ''Notting Hill''] official site
*{{imdb title|id=0125439|title=Notting Hill}}
*{{rotten-tomatoes|id=notting_hill|title=Notting Hill}}
*{{metacritic film|id=nottinghill|title=Notting Hill}}
*{{mojo title|id=nottinghill|title=Notting Hill}}
 
[[Category:1990s Romantic comedy films]]
''while exposing the public to the substantial risk of a catastrophic nuclear incident. Instead of the fair outcome in state courts, the Act substitutes a preferential resolution process and establishes''
[[Category:1999 films]]
[[Category:British films]]
[[Category:English-language films]]
[[Category:Films set in London]]
[[Category:Films shot in Super 35]]
 
[[de:Notting Hill (Film)]]
If it wasn't for the fact that some people might construe it as an insult, and insulting people is considered bad form her, but under the clear understanding that it isn't meant to be insulting, come on Ben, youre just taking the piss! [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 22:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
[[fr:Coup de foudre à Notting Hill]]
[[it:Notting Hill (film)]]
[[nl:Notting Hill (film)]]
[[ja:ノッティングヒルの恋人]]
[[no:Notting Hill (film)]]
[[pl:Notting Hill (film)]]
[[pt:Notting Hill (filme)]]
[[fi:Notting Hill]]
[[sv:Notting Hill (film)]]