Jump to content

Talk:Brokeback Mountain: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Undid revision 355653586 by 97.87.25.42 (talk)
Line 130: Line 130:


{{done}} --[[User:JokerXtreme|JokerXtreme]] ([[User talk:JokerXtreme|talk]]) 10:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
{{done}} --[[User:JokerXtreme|JokerXtreme]] ([[User talk:JokerXtreme|talk]]) 10:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

BareBack moutain is a disgusting movie about two homosexual cowboys. They enjoy going to the mountains to frolic through the woods in there underpants, while eating chocolate pudding...and listening to Billy Ocean.

Revision as of 02:26, 13 April 2010

Former featured article candidateBrokeback Mountain is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 2, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 8, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 18, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
June 7, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article candidate
Archive
Archives
  1. November — December 2005
  2. January 2006
  3. January — February 2006
  4. February 2006 — May 2006
  5. May 2006 — September 2007


The Bighorn mountains are not in eastern South Dakota

That's all I got. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.145.54 (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I changed the location to Wyoming where it really was set. A careful examination of any map will show you that not only are the Big Horn Mountains not in eastern South Dakota; there are no real mountains at all in the whole state. There are the Black Hills in Western South Dakota, but they could never be confused with the Big Horns. And there are obviously no mountains of any kind on the Great Plains of eastern South Dakota. The Big Horns are in Wyoming and southern Montana

MStrike32 (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary

The plot summary had been tagged as overlong, which at nearly 1600 words was a bit of an understatement. I've trimmed back by effectively reverting to a much earlier version [1] which describes the plot without getting sucked into detail. --Tony Sidaway 01:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You made the plot too short, I disagree with your edit entirely. I check wikipedia for movies plots all the time, especially in this case, when the movie is popular and about a controversial topic. I'm never going to watch it myself, so a long summary is fine. Smooth0707 (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current version is now about 900 words. Thanks, that's pretty good work. --Tony Sidaway 04:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the tag you placed on Plot Summary, i'm just not convinced its neccessary. There are lots of articles with long movie plots and even less in the article. I count about 880 words here, while for example Back to the Future has about 840 and X-men (film) has well over 1,000. Another movie I just picked at random is The Big Lebowski, with almost 1,000 words as well. It seems the me that this tag is used poorly on wikipedia, and often indiscriminately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smooth0707 (talkcontribs) 15:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The plot length was updated by MovieMadness, to roughly 710 words, which works for me. Smooth0707 (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can count words and say "this one is too long, that one is too short", but there is a level of unnecessary detail to longer summaries. For instance on The Big Lebowski which you mention there is a lot about what happens to the rug and its replacement. This does actually feature in the film but is really only a mcguffin for the plot. In fact the correct way to treat the rug in the Wikipedia plot summary of that film would be to simply state something like "Damage to Jeffrey 'The Dude' Lebowski's rug and his subsequent attempts to obtain a replacement are the mcguffin that brings The Dude and his two bowling buddies, Walter and Donny, into contact with his namesake." The rug doesn't need to be mentioned again. Not even the fact that Maude steals it back. Various subplots can be ditched or compressed. The point is to capture the essence of the plot rather than to give a scene-by-scene account of what happens (which is unfortunately what most of our articles about works of fiction do at present). --Tony Sidaway 06:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary - style revision

In the 4th paragraph of the plot summary, could the "Although Ennis hadn't realized it..." be changed to "Unbeknownst to Ennis..."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.220.154 (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually better to use plain language. "Unbeknownst" is an archaism often used by journalists but hardly ever encountered in real life. --Tony Sidaway 04:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with the part which says "Unable to be open about their relationship, Ennis and Jack end up meeting only for infrequent fishing trips." As far as I understand, Jack was willing to expose their relationship to a certain extend. That can be seen in the previous line when Jack talks to Ennis about them living a live together in a ranch. So, saying that both of them were unwilling to expose their relationship seems contraditory and not unaccurate to me. Ennis was the one who was not willing to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyboytoy (talkcontribs) 15:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larry H. Miller incident

In addition to the photo I cropped and uploaded for the Larry H. Miller article, the same photographer has released a a handful of other related photos of Miller and the pro-Brokeback protesters (most of which are dressed in appropriate costume). All of these are available under the creative commons attribution 2.0 license, so take your pick. — CharlotteWebb 13:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Turner lawsuit

Will anyone object if I remove this? It seems a very minor issue of minimal relevance to the movie itself particular since it involved one single incident, and one lawsuit basically by one defendent. Nil Einne (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed it, I agree, I don't think it meets Wiki's notability criteria. Unless the case receives significant media attention, it doesn't belong here. smooth0707 (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Meme Listing

This page is in the internet meme catagory, but I can't find any reference to them anywhere. The fact I can't think of a related meme doesn't count for much, but if there is one that is notable enough to be included it probably should. If there isn't, shouldn't the page be removed from the catagory? Morgrim (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ang Lee -- Taiwanese

Can someone scrub the reference to Lee being Taiwanese in the second paragraph? I don't see any other articles where the director was prefixed by an nationality and/or ethnicity. He is a naturalized US citizen, so that reference is not technically correct anyway.--24.22.237.86 (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this article can't be unprotected (for whatever reason), then is an Administrator willing to make changes like this one? 203.213.45.170 (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wedding Banquet

I'm surprised that this article has no mention of The Wedding Banquet (1993), Lee's first film to deal with homosexuality. I'm sure there must be several reliable sources that make this connection. Does anyone know what section this tidbit would be appropriate in? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not been mentioned because it is not relevant: this article is about Brokeback Mountain. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Producers

Diana Ossana James Schamus Sariadia (talk) 06:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these are already named in the article. Do you have a question or a comment? --Jayron32 06:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the film is based entirely upon Annie Proulx's short story "Brokeback Mountain", could we not - out of respect to Ms. Proulx - link to the article Brokeback Mountain (short story) in a way that acknowledges this connection? For example, "This article is about the motion picture. For the short story upon which it is based, see..., or ...For the original short story, see.... Saying that the story and the movie are simply "of the same name" suggests that they are not connected and that their shared name is a coincidence. UranianPoet 01:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by UranianPoet (talkcontribs)

I changed it to "the original short story", if that's more helpful. DonQuixote (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} Inside, hanging on a nail pounded into the door, are the two shirts with a postcard of Brokeback Mountain tacked alongside. Now, Jack's shirt is tucked inside of Ennis's. Ennis carefully fastens the top button of Jack's shirt, and with tears in his eyes mutters, "Jack, I swear..." while slowly straightening the postcard, before closing the door and walking away.

Should be...

Inside, hanging on a nail pounded into the door, are the two shirts with a postcard of Brokeback Mountain tacked alongside. Now, Ennis's shirt is tucked inside of Jack's. Ennis carefully fastens the top button of Jack's shirt, and with tears in his eyes mutters, "Jack, I swear..." while slowly straightening the postcard, before closing the door and walking away.

Mattalexx (talk) 08:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]