Talk:9 to 5 (film)

Title

I've never seen this title ever written out in long form. Is there some evidence for calling it anything other than 9 to 5? I mean, just look at the picture of the movie poster at the top of the article. If spelling out the title was just a way to disambiguate, then we should probably move the article to 9 to 5 (film) CzechOut ^{talk | work} 03:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh, okay, I guess I should've looked at the movie poster. I guess it does say there NINE TO FIVE. Still, the relative size of the two titles kinda lets you know what the preferred title is, doesn't it? I mean, I know that IMDB lists it as such, but I gather that's simply because of an even greater need to disambig on their site. More modern versions of the DVD don't have "Nine to Five" on the front cover at all, preferring a stylized logo of "9 to 5". I still think that most people, when looking for this thing, will find it odd to note that this article is called "Nine to Five" when articles about the theme song and TV series use "9 to 5". CzechOut ^{talk | work} 03:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

During the opening credits of the movie itself, at 0 m 44 s, the title is NINE TO FIVE. Not 9 to 5. --Rosenzweig (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:9 to 5 moviep.jpg

Image:9 to 5 moviep.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) 04:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Adult Cinema Parody

Added information about the X-Rated parody, 8 to 4, released in 1981. Generally I wouldn't list such parodies, but this was quite a new phenomenon in the early 1980s, and this parody was shot on film and played in proper cinemas, so I feel it's worthy of a mention. I've included it under "popular culture."

I see someone has deleted the above mentioned adult parody. As usual, whoever did it did not explain why. Many other films have sections relating to their place in popular culture, including adult take-offs, so why should this film be any different? If you feel it's not appropriate SAY SO. You're not above the rest of us! If no one can come up with a good reason not to include it in the next couple weeks, I'm adding it back in. --HillbillyProfane (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Pat Rosnick?

According to this article:

Fonda revealed that she is also an executive producer on the project, while Rashida Jones and Pat Rosnick have been attached to write a script.

And this is borne out by the cited reference. But I don't think there is a writer named "Pat Rosnick". It looks like all of the July 2018 articles are based on a single source, which misspelled Pat Resnick's name. All of the February 2018 articles (e.g., https://deadline.com/2018/02/9-to-5-reboot-rashida-jones-pat-resnick-dolly-parton-jane-fonda-lily-tomlin-1202304453/) based on the initial announcement say Pat Resnick, not Rosnick, is co-writing with Rashida Jones. Even many of the July 2018 articles (e.g., https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-9-to-5-sequel-is-coming----because-little-has-changed-for-working-women-2018-07-27) refer to "Pat Rosnick" as "original film co-creator", which describes Pat Resnick. Also, there's nobody in the WGA named Pat or Patricia Rosnick, and nobody with that name with an IMDB entry.

So, I'm going to fix the spelling, and add one of the February references that gets it right. --157.131.170.189 (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 23 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move. Unanimous. Sources use current form of title. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 06:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

---

9 to 5 (film) → Nine to Five (film) – The title form was first mentioned, above, in 2007 and the article's lead sentence states, "9 to 5 (listed in the opening credits as Nine to Five)". Film websites, such as American Film Institute Catalog, British Film Institute, TCMdb or AllMovie also list it as Nine to Five. Primarily, however, the article title should reflect the film's on-screen title. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: Announcement of this discussion appears at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME/WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:CONSISTENT with the existence of 9 to 5 (TV series) and 9 to 5 (Dolly Parton song), both derived from this film. The AFI lists sourced in the article use "9 to 5". -- Netoholic @ 06:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Titles are depicted in the manner indicated by the productions in question. Thus, in these comparable examples, we have each production using its own form: Twelve Angry Men (play), "Twelve Angry Men" (Westinghouse Studio One), 12 Angry Men (1957 film), 12 Angry Men (1997 film) and "Twelve Angry Men" (Hancock's Half Hour). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The TV series and song are completely irrelevant here, however film posters [1] and dvd releases [2][3] are not. Plenty of reliable sources for both forms. PC78 (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this good faith RM. The numeral-title works best per common name and accuracy (9 to 5 refers to hours as portrayed on mechanical or electric time-keeping devices back in the old days when humans, as shown in dioramas now, would arrive at work at a reasonable 9 in the morning and leave, while the Sun still shone, at 5 in the afternoon). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Xain36 (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

This film has always been billed as 9 to 5. The preview and all the movie posters show it as such. The words are only in the credit section of the posters because they are required to do so. Roxannatice (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

For the record, here are the opening credits for the 1980 film Nine to Five. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

That's the problem with interpreting primary sources vs. using secondary sources. Those opening credits list JANE FONDA and other cast in all caps, does that mean we have to follow it? A lot of old film credits use roman numerals to represent the year of copyright, do we follow that? -- Netoholic @ 03:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not a matter of uppercase / lowercase typography, but of the title itself. In similar disputes, the actual content of film titles as depicted in on-screen credits, has transcended all other sources. The previously submitted examples regarding varying-title remakes of 12 Angry Men / Twelve Angry Men serve as confirmation. Moreover, if additional confirmation for Nine to Five is still requested from secondary sources, the above-indicated links to its respective entry at such key resources as AFI, BFI, TCM and AllMovie should provide it. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

addition to see also (?),

addition to see also (?), It is nice to see things link together in a coherent way. Watching a program on TV (Independent Lens, 9 to 5: The Story of a Movement) I was noticing "9 to 5" associated with "womens workplace equality". It seems like some association should be made (at the very least - see also) between this film comedy and the "womens workplace equality - 9 to 5" and "March 8, International Womens Day".50.34.36.205 (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Let's settle the title issue for once and for all…

The title of the film is unquestionably Nine to Five, with the words spelled out. This was the intent of the parties involved, and it wasn't until marketing folks got involved that it became anything different. No matter what film review sites, DVD vendors, or even other Wikipedia articles might state, the title does not replace words with numbers.

The proof? The absolute, most reliable citation there is? The registrations with the United States Copyright Office. Those records clearly show that the screenplay, the film, the hit song, and the soundtrack all reflect the same title. The film registration even goes to far as to identify the film explicitly as, "a motion picture entitled Nine to five based on the screenplays entitled Nine to five".

Of course, you could add in things like the shooting script and the publicity photos for evidence, and even the movie poster shows it spelled out below the stylized logo. But those copyright registrations should be all you need.

If a move request is ever reissued or revisited, these indisputable sources should be relied upon and the article moved. The Wikipedia article about the song should remain where it is, however, as the song was released uniformly using the numeric title. 2601:3CA:204:F860:4DEB:52C8:7CB0:F598 (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

cult classic?

the opening blurb describes this movie as a cult classic. it's possible I've forgotten the definition of a cult classic, but this film doesn't seem to fit much of the definition I thought was generally accepted. 2601:601:1281:3540:1548:D11E:E3A9:EAC0 (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

“Cult classic” is a pretty moveable target. I did a quick check and it was pretty easy to find sources that call it a cult classic, which is the more important point. We should not be going around deciding what is and is not a cult classic, and we should not be making statements like “some consider it…” without addressing who considers it a cult classic (see WP:WEASELWORDS). — HTGS (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)