Talk:Forrest Gump/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Cheated

Is it fair to decisively say that Paramount "cheated" Groom? It certainly looks that way, but as far as I can recall there was never any court decision or even a lawsuit.--Feitclub 23:30, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

  • "cheated" is just completely loaded. Even if there was a court decision, it isnt NPOV. -- sidd
  • Was it one of those reverse-Enron situations where the accountants do tricks to make the movie have close to zero profit? That happened with Spider Man IIRC. If there is a Wikipedia article on that phenomenon, it would be worth linking to (I'd create one if I knew what to call that phenomenon.) The funny ironic thing about this is that it takes the naivete of Forrest Gump to get a deal for a share of the profits rather than the gross... --Bletch 21:10, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The critisism seems blatantly POV. Unless a more accurate source other than "some people" can be cited, it should be removed.--The_stuart 22:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Moving to talk until it can be backed up with cites.

Some have criticised the portrayal of Gump's friend Jenny, whose activism during the 1960s and experiments with alternative lifestyles and intravenous drugs through the upheavals of the 1970s end with her death from an "unknown illness" (symptoms are indicative of AIDS), while Gump and their son survive. In their view, this aspect of the film was an attack on the positive changes that occurred at that time and the alternative of Gump himself as empty nostalgia for a golden age that never really existed.

<<Under Forrest Gump#Plot summary of the movie, a statement says "..., and he carried his wounded platoon ??? to safety during a battle in ...." Is something missing in this sentence?
H Padleckas 21:56, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

tenses

Someone with some time please edit the review to fix up the lapses in tense.>>

Revised Plot Summary

I have just completed some work on the story of Forrest Gump. I attempted to make the writing easier to follow, whilst also trying to deal with the issue of the tenses. Moreover, I have added the final two paragraphs to the story, which I felt was necessary to replace the somwehat brief ending which was evident before. As I'm English, I have written this using, if you will, 'true' English; I understand that this is an American film, so if anyone feels like they want to change it from English to what is considered acceptable American-English, that's fine. I Hope I've helped out a bit.--allthesestars 22:31 (BST), 26 May 2005

While I think that it's likely Jenny's disease was HIV or AIDS is there any actual evidence from those involved with the film that that is infact her disease? I mean, if she had AIDS or HIV wouldn't she have given it to both Forrest and their son, Forrest Gump, Jr. ?

Bubba Gump Shrimp Co.

Can someone create an article on this real-life restaurant/delivery service? Sure it sells merchandise based on Forrest Gump, but it does exist. Also, just wondering, but was it based on the movie, or did it come first? --Geopgeop 09:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It was based on the movie, founded in 1996, according to [1] --Cfitzart 11:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Lt. Dan

How did he live to see forrests wedding after he made peace with God? For a man with no legs swimming deeper into the ocean, I dont think his surivival would occur! RealG187 16:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely you do not think that the makers of this movie intended to portray that Lt. Dan just continued swimming forever off into the sunset as the scene fades. When he said he made peace with God, he is referring to the "showdown" during the hurricane and the survival of himself and the boat and in turn thanking forrest for saving his life. And further on in the film after Forrest left to stay with "mama" until she died, Forrest says that he never went back to "shrimpin'" with Lt. Dan again. Thus telling you Lt. Dan was still alive.

Connection to The Idiot

Perhaps someone should discuss the similarities between the two, and possible inspiration.

Sounds a little original-researchy, but what did you have in mind?.--68.102.156.139 02:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

More focus on the book?

I know the film is more well-known and popular, but I think the article should focus on the book equally and not equally. It's relegated to second place. Uthanc 09:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

If you have the time to, go ahead and do it. I've read the book, but its been soo long I don't have the foggiest what's different and what's what. Sorry :(

Uberpesh 19:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear on your logic. If the film is more well-known and popular, the article should focus on the film over the less-well-known and less-popular book. Powers 18:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Uthanc. 222.126.76.205 19:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought common practice in such cases was to split the reference between book and film (and character?) and have a disambiguation page at Forrest Gump to let users select which they wished to view. Or if the film is really most popular (which I think is likely), then it should be at this location and an italic statement at the top should say "For the book, see Forrest Gump (book). For the literature and film character, see Forrest Gump (character)."—This unsigned comment was added by Edonovan (talk • contribs) .

That seems fair. I believe that's what's done with A Series of Unfortunate Events. Powers 02:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, so not quite the same thing. But it still models seperating the book from the film. Powers 02:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Perfect solution Liu Bei 04:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
If you would like to split the two articles, definitely go for it! ^_^ grafikm_fr 12:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I generally support splitting film adaptations from the plays or books that they are based on. Just curious thought, is there anything in this article about the book? savidan(talk) (e@) 18:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the split. - R_Lee_E (talk, contribs) 01:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the split although this article hardly has anything to do with the book in it, to make a succesfull split there would have to be alot of work put into the book page. Woldo 01:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the split tag, since I think it's more meant for articles that are too long or that have sections that are well-detailed enough to stand alone. Right now, the discussion is for creating a brand new article (almost) that focuses on the book only. When that happens, awesome. But for now, this article is mostly movie-oriented, and its length is just fine. --Crisu 00:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
move to Forrest Gump (film) -- Shane (talk/contrib) 01:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Books suck, movies are better, u see more and takes less time.. RealG187 16:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Added spoiler quote

I added the 'Your best friend could get shot' under quotes. Though should I have posted it under Trivia? [[Uberpesh|Uberpesh 19:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone with the IP 169.231.20.165 vandalized the quote with anti-war propaganda. 'Sometimes when people go to Vietnam, they go home to their mommas without any legs. Sometimes they don't go home at all. That's a bad thing. That's all I have to say about that'. I fixed it to what is supposed to say Uberpesh 13:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Vietnam War rally

In that scene in Washington at that anti-Vietnam War rally, is that guy in American flag decal shirt who's speaking up on the stage, and tells Forrest to talk about the war, Abbie Hoffman? Because I'm almost positive it is, but I don't know how to fit in in the synopsis. VolatileChemical 23:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah he's wearing a flag shirt and Abbie Hoffman is listed in the credits. Go for it. -Tristan

Btw, Forrest gets his medal before the rally, since his mother fainted after Forrest shows his wound to the President. That was why Forrest was wandering around D.C. in the first place. Uagent 09:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the Lieutenant Dan Band the same Dan Band from Old School?

Just curious.

I believe not. --Crisu 00:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

i doubt it cause in the book lieutenant dan is sadi to be from connecticut —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.231.178 (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

what, no criticism?

For a movie with a huge conservative undertone to it, i find unusual to not find any type of criticism about the movie. eg: poor jenny's ultimate sin was to try to change the world throughout all decades, so she basicly dies for being a liberal, while good ol conservative forrest, he lives and becomes rich. In fact if im not mistaken, Forrest Gump was elected one the worst movies to ever win an oscar for bestpicture (along with rocky, wich was number 1).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.215.173.173 (talk • contribs) .

There probably is some. What could be added to this article is a paragraph summarizing all the cricitism with reference links to news articles within it. --Crisu 00:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
what's wrong with you punk? you punks always come and attack things, don't try to use intelligent words, you just said you're a liberal and wanna change the world and the movie made you cry, sure you had to make the remark of being the worst bla bla bla because you're a stupid agressive lowlife punk. i mean, the film is really good and i'm sorry, people who DO live like jenny always get fucked in the end, i hope you don't start vandalising the page and adding your point of views on the criticism. just read the book, gump is a pothead in the book, the book sucks ass. and you are such a stupid heartless punk that didn't noticed forrest the good old conservative has everything and does everything and bla bla bla but HE'S NOT HAPPY 'cause he doesn't have the girl, life still sucks doesn't matter what you do or have if you don't have the loved ones close to you. got it? GOT IT? and also, the most beatiful things of life for him are the stars and sunset, besides he's nice to people BECAUSE HE WAS TOLD TO by his mom, and he's not RICH 'cause he uses his money to HELP PEOPLE. you people just don't get it. go murder yout mom stupid anarchist! too ad hominem but jesus that's the only way this people understand. i'm so pissed off i don't care you guys giving me loads of crap, you just can't cover your sickness with fancy words sometimes!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.34.87.120 (talk • contribs) .
What the f***? Seriously. Medication and therapy strongly recommended.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.253.57.75 (talk • contribs) .
Yup. I think we have a WP:NCR violation here, people. --GunnarRene 18:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Nevertheless, even a movie one disagrees with politically can still be a good movie on its own terms (Birth of a Nation, or Nazi and Soviet propaganda films). I'm not sure FG (the movie) is wholly conservative anyway. Gump himself is totally apolitical, he just doesn't understand the issues. The Vietnam War comes across as a waste of lives, hardly a "conservative" view. Many of the famous people Gump meets end up dead from an assassin's bullet - hardly a message that would cheer the NRA.

I agree the movie has a neocon agenda. Very Leo Strauss. I recommend watching "Forest" after watching "Born on the 4th of July." I think "Forest" is an attack on "4th" and Oliver Stone.

I don't know about the film being neo-conservatist. If one were to see a hidden message in this film, that would be slightly Strausian as he remarked that people are always hiding hidden messages in things that only the 'elite' can understand, however, this is an interpretative theory which cannot be proved and although you can apply Strausian interpretation to this to see it as neo-conservatist, you can apply it to pretty much anything. However, at a stretch I can see how the slow gump making it well through life can be seen as neo-conservatist (given the fact that they advocate that less educated people are easier to rule), however, the main aim of neo-conservatism is to focus people against an enemy (usually one that doesn't exist or is exagerated) so that America can acheive it's 'true goal' of bringing democracy to the world and civilising everyone. In this film there is no enemy and America's true destiny doesn't come up. In fact, judging from the way in which the vietnam war was presented (did you ever see any vietnamese soldiers?) and the entire point of the war from Gumps perspective was lost (Gump didn't seem to understand why they were there), I would say this could be regarded as against certain neo-conservatist beleifs. However, this was probably not the authors intent...or was it?

are you serious that was the best movie ever and what problem do you have with a good person getting good things he tries to protect Jennie from herself and even gives her his medal of honor for fighting in the military, do you just got some sort of problem with people who are good hearted. Jennie was living sinfully more than anything else, she was in pornography, did every single drug, she was on a destructive path not a trying to do good for the world path. She was lost metaphorically and picked up by some bad people who sent her in a bad direction. Can you honestly tell me you feel Jennie was a better person than Forrest. He helped everyone he meet the best way he knew how. Exile 11:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

0.0 i havent even seen this kind of rhetoric in the socialism page. iv never sought political meaning in forest gump, i think its more about psychology then politics anyway, the simple minded versus the complex minded hmm..ever thought of that one? and that jenny dies has nothing to do with her 'liberal' lifestyle. and that shes messed up is due to her, uhm, overaffectionate father, not an open mind. in fact, it is her open mind that makes her so perfect for forest. and forest gets rich for being different from anyone else and acting outside of 'normality', theres nothing conservative about that. truly, seeking all this political meaning is pointless, thats not the theme of the movie at all· Lygophile has spoken 23:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha. Oh, Geez. Stop making everything so political. It's not a political movie. It's a movie for entertainment. Lighten up.

This is not a flaming contest

This last bit of tripe will be removed shortly. This isn't the forum to criticize the film's alleged conservative bias (although it seems to have attracted just as much criticism for having a liberal bias). At any rate, the film touches many hotbuttons for polarized political opinions, but it should be discussed for its artistic merits instead. Best to let it stand as a great film adaptation of a good novel, that broke cinematic ground on many fronts, and left a deep impression on many who saw it. Landroo 01:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's legitimate to discuss the political aspects of the film, since this was a genuine source of controversy. Perhaps we need some actual quotes from reviews which touch on the politics.

Exile 11:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Filming

This movie was filmed a large part in South Carolina, but it wasn't even mentioned in the categories. Only two portions of the film were filmed in North Carolina, but five portions (including the "vietnam" area) were filmed in South Carolina. This is notable, and other films should be added to this category, but none are. Here is a link [2] to other places this movie was filmed. If anyone wants to fill them in, go ahead. 130.127.78.152

Trivia

Did you notice that the planes dropping the napalm in Vietnam were F-4 Phantoms?

Did you notice that grown up Forrest runs the same way as young Forrest?

Did you notice that each of Lieutenant Dan's relatives look exactly like him?

Lastly, Lieutenant Dan's Revolutionary war counterpart was infantry The Civil War guy was a flag bearer The WWI guy was Infantry The WWII guy was infantry at Normandy.

crooked as a.......

in the movie Forrest said on the schoolbus "Momma said it's shaped/crooked as a question mark"

is "politician" what he says in the book (because he is allegedly more cynical) - 203.205.122.196 22:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

It's stated in the movie during the scene where Forrest is being fitted for the braces. Later on, he says that his mother told him it was a crooked as a question mark. Uagent 09:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

he does not have leg braces in the book, that whole part was thought up during the scrrenplay

US Army Rank

I just saw the movie, and it occurred to me that Forrest has a rank of Sergeant on his uniform, even though in the book he was a PFC and I doubt he was a Sergeant in the film.Delta Spartan 02:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this as well. I thought he was a PFC in the film. --MasterA113 20:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Forrest was both PFC and a SGT if you pay close attention to the detail, while in Vietnam letters Gump received by Jenny say PFC Gump, then later on when he starts playing ping pong, he eventually does have SGT rank; it isn't explained of course but take a close look it is there. from 07:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Happygilmor 07:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)uNT.[Happy]

Movie Plot section of this article

It seems to me as if the info given in the "Movie Plot" section of this article is pretty much the same as that given in the article Forrest Gump (character), though it may be worded somewhat differently. I wonder if the plot should be summarized briefly here, with a notice just below the header: "Main article: Forrest Gump (character)." Or should the articles be merged? Roxtar 03:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've chosen the "main article" option; the plot here is cut down now. Roxtar 02:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Partly in response to the notice that the plot summary was overly long, & partly because most of the info is the same as what is told in Forrest Gump (character) (even if told in different words), I'm doing again what I did a few months ago--CUT THE PLOT DOWN. Roxtar 22:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"Differences from the novel" section should have spoiler warnings

The section of the article titled "Movie Plot" has spoiler warnings around it. I notice that the section "Differences from the novel" doesn't have any spoiler warnings around it, even though it reveals quite a few details of the movie's plot. I think it should have spoiler warnings added to it as well.

Someone keeps messing with the "Differences in the novel section." The character is not called "Doug Gump" in the book.

The edit to Doug began on March 21. No one challenged it until tonight and several anon IPs have changed the name to different ones. Unless a source is provided, recommend stay with what was posted. Morenooso 04:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The source is the actual novel. As well as the rest of this entries, which do not mention a "Doug" name.

What happened to the hollywood accounting section?

There was major controversy that the Forest Gump book author Winston Groom didn't any back end points from Paramount for the movie due to Hollywood accounting practices. This was a major scandal since the film was such a financial and critical hit. The movie entry should have links to hollywood accounting from both the Forest Gump book and movie articles. Mention should be added to he author's wikipedia entry as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.107.18.132 (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Gump/Pulp Fiction Parody

I remember seeing a parody of Forrest Gump called 'Gump Fiction', where the actors were just acting out select scenes from Pulp Fiction, only putting in Forrest or Bubba in with Travolta and Jackson. Has anyone else seen this? Personally I thought it was hilarious, and am wondering if it has any relevance in Misc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.166.197.239 (talk) 05:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

REPLY: Yes, this is a skit from Mad TV. You can see it here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dymb0SvHCnY.VarunRajendran 01:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Paramount and the author - contested information

Following an WP:OTRS complaint I have temove the following from the lead:

" although Paramount claimed it was a commercial failure and did not pay Groom his share of the profits.Marshallinside article on Hollywood accounting As such, Groom has refused to allow the novel's sequel, Gump and Co., to be filmed, stating that he could not in good conscience sell the rights to film the sequel to a failure. "

  1. The first claim is sourced, but pretty badly. If it is true, and the complainer convincingly claims it is not, then there must be much better media sources. Replace this only if you can find undisputable ones. It seems incredible that paramount could make such a claim
  2. The claim about the sequal is unsourced. Again, if this were true there would be huge media coverage. Find it, or keep both out.

--Docg 10:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Two actors played young Forrest Gump

I just checked and both tonight's edit (just prior to this post) and the earlier correction are both listed at IMDb as playing young Forrest Gump. Could another editor confirm and make the right edit listing both. Morenooso 01:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you might have been confused since Michael Humphries plays Forrest as a boy at the start of the film while Haley Joel Osment plays his son "little" Forrest at the end of the film. --T smitts 16:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Forest Gump and Zelig

I thought "Forest Gump" was a big-budget movie, (probably) inspired by Woody Allen's 1983's "Zelig" in which an ordinary person gets to meet filmed images of famous people in the past thanks to special effects. I am sure many other people, (who have seen both movies), feel the same way. Shouldn't "Zelig" be metioned in the article? 204.80.61.110 17:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Tom Hanks' Younger Brother

It says in the trivia section that Tom Hanks' real life younger brother protrayed Forrest Gump in a couple of scenes, does anyone know which scenes he is in rather than Tom Hanks? I watched the film last night looking for any differences in the older Forrests but I can not tell-they must REALLY look alike.TammiMagee 09:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have since found out that his brother acted as his running double in some scenesTammiMagee 09:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In the scene where Forrest is running being chased by the bullies in the pickup truck, Tom Hanks is the one running in camera view. When he turns down the field and the camera follows the pickup truck, Tom Hanks runs off screen and his brother is the one that then comes in to the camera view way off in the distance as the camera pans around as the pickup truck turns off the road into the field. This gives the viewer the impression that Forest (Tom Hanks) REALLY ran fast across the field. 164.214.1.54 18:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Significance of Feather

Someoen should put in the significance of the feather, that Jenny was praying in the cornfield for God to make her a bird so she could fly free and now she can.

Well, simply, she's always wanted to be a bird. But if you could, you may watch the audio commentaries to avoid original research. Alientraveller 19:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Weird Al Song

Shouldn't there be a mention of it somewhere? Socby19 23:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Socby19

A real story or just a fiction

Can anyone tell me Forrest Gump is a real person or he's just a creation for a novel book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happyland86 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

He's fictional.~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 20:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Split Film and Book?

also under discussion in Film Project —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 14:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Should the film and the book be split into separate articles? It seems like there are enough differences between them to consider them separately, particularly as the book has a sequel and really can not get full coverage in this article that is dominated by the movie. AnmaFinotera 04:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • (copied from Film project talkpage) I think that the book and the film should have separate articles to allow both articles to develop independently. There are enough differences, and will be more as the articles develop (eg. critical reception). --BelovedFreak 12:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think they should be split into seperate articles. As Belovedfreak just said, there are definetly enough diffrences.Grango242 19:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • They definitely ought to be split. I was shocked to see that the novel didn't have a separate article. The film is certainly the more notable of the two, but the book is certainly notable enough to warrant an article, per the notability guideline for books. The mere fact that the movie was made makes the book notable. faithless (speak) 22:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Differences from novel

I believe this section is relevant and should be kept. It does need a lot of clean up (list to prose, no need to point out every little instance, etc), but the article should note that the film is very different from the novel, and if possible note why (if citable sources can be found). This is part of the production details and history of the film, and is generally a standard section for movies based on books, especially where there are major changes made. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but I see no need for a WP:NOR violation. Besides, when someone seriously wants to revise the article to GA-standard, then a couple of paragraphs could be all done to describe why the main changes were made. Alientraveller (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Work is being done on the article, as I and other FilmProject folks find time. I can see your point on the NOR violation, so would a section with just a short summary and an expand tag be a good compromise? AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I've not read the book myself, and it's always more productive to start again then to salvage really. Alientraveller (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I've put in the new section. Unfortunately, I only had access to a snippet of one article that discusses Groom's reaction to the changes, but hopefully that is a good start? AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The last part was deleted because it had no source. If put back up it needs to be sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.24.55 (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Forrest gump.jpg

Image:Forrest gump.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 06:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Bubba Gump Shrimp

Doesn't the man on the bench next to Forrest say Bubba Gump Shrimp Corporation, not Company? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.24.127 (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

he does say bubba gump shrimp corporation

-Ben —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benadamspears (talk • contribs) 04:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Running Time differences

What's the reason behind the different running times for Europe (136 minutes) and North America (141 minutes)? It's probably worth mentioning in the article, I'd count that as a deleted scene or censor change or similar. --Riche (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

i believe, the longer running time for North America is because the system, NTSC has a faster speed than PAL. i do not think it has anything to do with a deleted or censured scene, like Temple of Doom, which knocks something like 2 mins off the UK version Kilnburn (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The refresh rate has nothing to do with the running time.--Loodog (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes it does. Cinema film has 24 frames/second. The PAL system has 50 half-pictures per second, so theoretically 25 fps. To have an easy conversion from film to PAL, the film is sped up by that one frame. The calculation is as follows - originial running time (141 min.) in seconds mutiplied by 24 fps = total framecount of the film -> then divided by PAL´s 25 fps gives the new running time of 2256 seconds... thats roughly 136 minutes. As this is only a 4% speedup this is the common method for all film-PAL conversion and a lot more convenient than NTSC conversion as NTSC runs at an odd number of ~29,9 fps. Vandervahn (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Groom/Paramount "dispute"

After reading about the supposed legal issue that had prevented a sequel being made, I checked out the footnoted reference for more info- and the article cited specifically says, at the bottom, that Groom insists there was no dispute and that, even if there were, Paramount could have made the sequel at any time, since it owned the rights. So, I've removed that info from the page since the source of that info has issued a correction. 216.194.4.134 (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

IQ of 75 - Citation Needed

I just removed the Citation needed at IQ of 75, as this is a clear statement in the movie itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.190.230 (talk) 07:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"Tom Hanks as Forrest Gump: determined at an early age to possess an IQ of 75, he encounters many historical figures and events throughout his life."
It's unclear to me how Tom Hanks' IQ is relevant to the article.24.4.132.165 (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not talking about Tom Hanks' IQ; this is a confusing sentence with poor puncuation. What it means is to say "Tom Hanks as Forrest Gump," meaning that this is the movie ad thingie (can't think of the word). There should be an opening quote after the colon and before "Determined," which should be capitalized, I think.4.68.248.130 (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
"the movie ad thingie" - aka "trailer", perhaps? FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

I am planning to add a few more important characters to the cast list. I also want to expand on the themes section. I wanted to talk more about the feather theme. I also wanted to add in a few famous quotes from the movie. Another thing I wanted to talk about is some of the historical events in this movie and how they really happened vs. how they happened in the movie.Griffis Ryan (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't, until you've learned the art of NPOV and how not to put your signatures throughout articles. - Dudesleeper / Talk 18:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello. On the subject of the feather, what are the chances that it's presence is a tip of the hat to Richard Bach (Illusions)? 70.127.209.197 (talk) 11:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Lance M. [termsmith@aol.com]

Famous people

I think that the Article seriously needs a list of famous people Forrest meets in the movie, such as JFK and Elvis. I am sure It would be a good addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.75.167.246 (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

But it's already mentioned in the Plot. Wildroot (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I also think that such a celebrity list would be a great addition. (@ Wildroot: And no, such a list is not already there!) Joe Gatt (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is John Lennon not mentioned?

The plot shows other historical events, yet it doesnt mention Forest meeting one of the most famous people in rock and roll history, and inspiring the song "Imagine"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.68.2 (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

UM yeah, he met both John Lennon, and Elvis Frickin' Presly, thats DAMN note worthy.. 206.75.167.246 (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone else notice that the John Lennon reference was a "two-fer", since immediately following the Dick Cavett scene, Lt. Dan recieves a rather obvious dose of "Instant Karma"? Just wondering...I reference it whenever someone mentions the Forrest Gump "Imagine" sequence, since I've always gotten the biggest kick out of it. Gets me every time...216.227.1.236 (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)anon.

HIV

so jenny presumably has and died of HIV which she contracted years before so does that not mean that forrest and possibly his son has contracted the virus as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.27.180.2 (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why he was sad at the ending of the movie. --217.120.78.212 (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
She only slept with him once, the chance of catching HIV from female-to-male vaginal sex would be absolutly tiny. Likewise for a newborn child with modern medicine. So I don't think he's sad at the end because he thinks hes going to die of AIDS. J1812 (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Its also ambigious as to whether she got it from IV drugs etc...( see the scene where she nearly jumps off a balcony) or from being a nurse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.163.55 (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The book says she died of Hepatitis C. Thismightbezach (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Funny that I just saw the above comment immediately after I updated Jenny's character description to include hep C as a possibility. The disease isn't explicitly mentioned in the movie, but it fits - hep C isn't typically spread through sexual contact, only blood/blood transmission. I opted to include it as a "possibility" in the character description because the movie departs from the novel in so many ways that I'm not sure the novel should be considered cannon within the context of the movie. Chrisbrl88 (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

In further support of the above editors, there is no cited evidence that the film makers intended Jenny's statement "I have some kind of virus, and the doctors don't, they don't know what it is, and there isn't anything they can do about it" to specifically mean HIV/AIDS. It can be noted that Jenny's March 22, 1982, movie death occurs seven full years before the deadly Hepatitis C virus was identified in two articles published in the April 1989 issue of Science (per Hepatitis C#History). As to questions of why neither Forrest nor Forrest Jr catch it can also be consistent with Hep C, which is predominately transmitted via drug use in the US, is rarely passed from mother to fetus and sexual transmission is uncommon (see Hepatitis C#Transmission). Jmg38 (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Conflict with the author POV

I have concerns about the conflict with the author section and its POV. The way it is written is very supportive of the author and condemning of the film companies with words like "absurdity" and phrases like "belied by the fact," "to add insult to injury" and "had to sue to get anything at all." This language needs to be cleaned up. either way (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so what's the studio's POV? I couldn't find any articles supporting their actions from an ethical or even practical standpoint, could you? Groom is frequently sited as a prime example of the way Hollywood accounting is used to cheat individuals out of money. His case is taught in schools. He's listed on Wikipedia's own Hollywood accounting page (And I didn't write it-- but did provide a citation). Groom ultimately won in the court of public opinion and in actual court, which called the treatment of him "unconscionable". At what point does "unconscionable" cease to be POV and become encyclopedic? Don't get me wrong, I am happy to work with you. If you want to reword things without changing or omitting the facts, be my guest. This is Wikipedia, after all.Pisomojado (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

whaat the hell...?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.135.243.2 (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

I nominated the article at GAN after expanding the article. If you have not significantly contributed to the article, consider reviewing it at WP:GAN. Good job to everyone that has contributed to the article in the past and hopefully it passes. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

GA pass
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

The article looks great, great work to all who were involved! Nicely sourced, written and great info! Wildroot (talk) 04:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

And it passed, good job everyone. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


Article Title

Why is this article at Forrest Gump? Since the book came first, shouldn't this be Forrest Gump (film)? Emperor001 (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There was a discussion, now closed, about moving this article, at Talk:Forrest Gump (disambiguation)#Requested move. Station1 (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Footnote errors

Footnotes 17 to 21 are bad links!

Joe Gatt (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "bad links", they seem fine to me. - Kollision (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
17-21 are from DVD special features so there is nothing to link to. The material cited can be found within on the DVD. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Palmer, William J. (2009). "The New Historicist Films". The Films of the Nineties: The Decade of Spin. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 26–31. ISBN 0230613446. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs) 02:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Gump and Co?

There's an edit on here about a sequel movie called Gump and Co. being released in 2012 but there is no source and I can't find any information. Does anyone know anything about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.37.188 (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Grammar correction (Cast - Tom Hanks)

Please replace "Hanks revealed in interviews that after hearing Michael's unique accented drawl, he incorporated it into the older characters accent." with "Hanks revealed in interviews that after hearing Michael's unique accented drawl, he incorporated it into the older character's accent." 144.132.132.115 (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for catching that. You can edit the article if you think further improvements/corrections can be made. For help, see our introduction to editing. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Percentages in first line

Can these even be quantified? It seems like a pretty ridiculous claim to me, and so I shall remove them if no source can be found for them. Lord British (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Political interpretations

In the opening paragraph - a CNN Crossfire debate is referenced as debating "whether the film promoted conservative values or was an indictment of the counterculture movement of the 1960s." - I didn't see this debate but if it occurred as described they would have debated the same side of an issue because an indictment of the counterculture movement is another way of promoting conservative values. Please fix.

Also, an obvious point should be made while discussing whether the moving promotes conservative political values. While the movie certainly sets up Forrest Gump as a hero and clearly a clean cut representative of conservative values - it also portrays this hero as an imbecile and with it the values he represents. I suppose that is the death of irony alluded to in the article. I happen to think the movie is a brilliant portrayal of precisely that political dichotomy that characterized the 1990's. A jaded and battle weary liberal movement critical of paternal and hierarchical value systems against a naive and traditional conservative movement that makes up for its shallow simplicity with earnest enthusiasm that doesn't seem to quit. Don't know if that comment can be worked into the article but I am happy to have put it out there for consideration. GimpeltheFool (talk) 00:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Funny joke or coincidence ?

When Dan mocks Forrest's plans to enter the shrimping business (as he promised Bubba), he also say « ... I would be astronaut » (not sure of the original version as I watched the french version). The year after, Gary Sinise and Tom Hanks played astronauts in Ron Howard's Apollo 13.

I don't believe it is pure coincidence...

Hugo2504 contributors to fr.wikipedia.org --88.163.90.159 (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Gump's unit in Viet Nam

In the scene where Gump and Bubba report to 2LT Dan in Viet Nam the sign at the base indicates the unit. Right after the ice cream scene in the hospital, during mail call, one can read the addresses on Gump's returned letters he wrote to Jenny.

PFC Forrest Gump RA 40203078 4th Platoon, A Company 2nd Battalion, 47th Infantry APO (Army Postal Office), San Francisco, California 96602

The mail-pieces are very authentic (I am retired USPS and once served as a Unit Mail Orderly). The military adviser to the movie was a "god damn genius" (quote from Drill Sergeant). I found no error in authenticity of uniforms, etc for the period; outstanding attention to detail (I was in the army from 1971 to 2001), and I have seen the movie many times (Turner Classic Movies, TCM on TV).

Perhaps a very brief mention of Gump's unit in Viet Nam are in order (?). In Wiki Gump is mentioned in 9th Infantry Division (United States) and 47th Infantry Regiment (United States) . Only problem is...the only reference I can find is the movie alone. Well.. there is one other problem ...a conflict of interest... from 1978 to 1981 I served in HHC, 2nd Bn. 47th INF. (Raiders) 3rd BDE. (Go Devils), 9th INF. DIV. (Old Reliables) at Fort Lewis, WA. That's right mates, I served in Gump's old outfit. So I must recuse myself, and leave it up to some other "god damn genius" (quote from Drill Sergeant) to do the edit if need be. Ex Virtute Honos Tjlynnjr (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC).

Gump's unit is also mentioned here: Forrest Gump (character) Tjlynnjr (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC).

I would have to take exception to the authenticity of the uniforms in the scene at the Lincoln Memorial in that I was there as a young soldiers in the Spring 1968 during that march on Washington. In that LBJ was still the president, it had to be the ’68 march although the next one was late Summer ’70 when Nixon was president and I was lucky enough to have just gotten back from an extended tour in Vietnam for that one but this time I was stationed on the Memorial Bridge. That movie scene was filmed in late 1993 by which time I was a full colonel at the Pentagon and was jogging on the Mall when I stumbled into the scene. I noticed the soldiers were wearing name tags on their uniforms and a few other incorrect details from ’68. I stopped and located a person with a megaphone who appeared to be setting up the shot and I told him I had been there at the ’68 march and we had been instructed to remove our name tags from our uniforms for obvious reasons so if he wanted to be historically accurate he would have the tags removed. I was a little surprised at the response I got which was: “I don’t give a damn about historical accuracy. There won’t be 10 people in the whole country that see this movie that will know the difference.” With that I just jogged off and forgot it. I would also mention that the Park Policeman that pulls the plugs out of the PA system during the scene was a friend of mine, a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel and Vietnam Vet named Stillwell.The-Expose-inator (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the anti war demonstrators in '68 weren't instructed to remove their name tags. Were the extras you saw on the set of the movie playing anti war demonstrators? Why were you instructed to remove the tags? If you broke out some violence on the demonstrators, apparently a documented practice in those days, you couldn't be identified by name? 98.164.64.98 (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Article Title

Why does Forrest Gump direct to here? Shouldn't it direct to the novel's page since the book came first, or perhaps to a disambiguation page where one can be directed to the book or film's article? Emperor001 (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

NM, just saw the link explaining why.Emperor001 (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Box office bomb?

I'm not an expert in box office tracking, but I don't think that earning 678 million dollars on a 50 million dollar budget could ever be considered a bomb. In the box office section of the article, at least as of August 19, 2016, clearly states that this film lost 62 million dollars. This section has no reliable sources that back up this claim, so I think the article either needs a reference, or it needs to be corrected, if it's false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.160.39.128 (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Please review the section. It is clearly stated and sourced how the loss occured. Additionally, the phrase "box office bomb" is not used.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 16:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Was a line altered?

There is a youtube video of a Spanish subbed version where he clearly stays "Life is a like a box of chocolates" and the text sub even agrees with this. However the same scene in the normal English version says "Life was a like a box of chocolates"So was there an alteration to the film or was their more then one version? Not fromt he angle it is clear this is NOT from the making of part of the DVD.--2606:A000:7D44:100:F0D3:1F4E:FA7D:7810 (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

studyforrest project section

The last section, on a German research project that users the movie, feels disjointed and unconnected from the main subject of the article. Is this necessary to have in this article? Maybe it could be incorporated elsewhere, or spun off into its own article? Ganesha811 (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I concur. A research project based on cognitive effects of the German-audio version of the film does not seem to fit. This is probably considered "trivia" at best. It is not notable in relation to the movie itself. Closetsingle (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I removed the section. It is basically trivia and giving it a separate section is WP:UNDUE. It did get a bit of attention in the German media so a one line mention under "Reception" might be warranted, but not a whole section. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Forrest_Gump/Archive_1&oldid=1172435732"