Talk:Brokeback Mountain

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Moncrief (talk | contribs) at 17:08, 8 April 2006 (→‎Small plot point). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconFilm Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Former discussions
(please consult before starting new topics)

More on award listings

In order to save space, I also propose that we use a compressed listing format, listing all awards for one association on a single line. Rather than:

Boston Society of Film Critics:

  • Best Picture
  • Best Director (Ang Lee)

Central Ohio Film Critics Association:

  • Top 10 Films
  • Best Lead Performance (Heath Ledger)
  • Best Screenplay

Chicago Film Critics Association:

  • Best Screenplay (Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana)
  • Best Score (Gustavo Santaolalla)

Critics' Choice Award:

  • Best Picture
  • Best Director (Ang Lee)
  • Best Supporting Actress (Michelle Williams)

Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association:

  • Top 10 Films
  • Best Picture
  • Best Director (Ang Lee)
  • Best Screenplay (Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana)
  • Best Cinematography (Roberto Prieto)

Director's Guild Awards:

  • Director of the Year Award - Theatrical Motion Picture

European Film Awards:

  • Best Director (Ang Lee)

Florida Film Critics Circle: [1]

We could have instead the following, which takes up one third the vertical space:

Nohat 07:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one seems to object (or care), I'm going to go ahead and reformat the awards thus. Nohat 02:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support this change. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the more compressed format. I would also like to suggest cutting many of the award listings altogether. Brokeback Mountain has a lot of awards and nominations, and I don't see the benefit of listing every small regional film award it managed to pick up. Especially not since this article is rather overlong already. Wikipedia readers may want to know that Ang Lee won the Oscar for Best Director for Brokeback Mountain, but I doubt many would care that he won the same title from the Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association and Florida Film Critics Circle. KGiles 05:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review response

In response to the peer review for Brokeback Mountain, I have changed the section headline "Reviews" to "Critical reception" and will be tidying the inline citations. In order for this article to continue along the path of progress, footnotes have to be created. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the words of Rossrs (which was submitted to the peer review page):
"The awards list is excessive. In a year, nobody is going to care about most of them. Perhaps even sooner than that :-) Suggest breaking it off into another article and keep the major awards as part of a section here."
I agree. Something has to be done about the section. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of this paragraph?

Can someone tell me what this paragraph means?

Journalist and political pundit Andrew Sullivan speculates that the Catholic Church now sees the power of the film as a threat in that it might lead Catholics to see the "affliction" of "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" from Church teachings as "deep-seated homosexual love" or "deep-seated human love" instead.

It makes it sound like the "Church teachings" of the Catholic Church have deep seated homosexual tendencies. I didn't know church teachings could have orientations themselves. -- Andrew Parodi 06:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misinterpreting the (admittedly cumbersome) sentence. The way I read it, the "deap-seated homosexual tendencies" are seated in the homosexual person, not in the church teachings. Sullivans point is that if people view homosexual feelings in terms of love rather than lust, they may be more accepting of the lifestyle. --djrobgordon 07:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I figured. But I wasn't sure. It is a very confusingly worded sentence. I think it may need a rewrite. I'll work on the rewrite, if there are no objections. I won't tinker with the words in quotations marks, but that words the connect them. It's a good point that this paragraph makes, but the point isn't articulated very well. -- Andrew Parodi 20:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's my rephrasing of the paragraph:
Journalist and political pundit Andrew Sullivan speculates that the Catholic Church now sees the power of the film as a threat that may change the perspective of Catholics. Sullivan speculates that Catholic officials fear that the film might lead Catholics to rethink whether homosexuality is truly an "affliction". Further, Sullivan speculates that perhaps Catholic officials fear that the film may encourage Catholics to view homosexual love as emanating from "deep-seated human love" rather than being a love based purely on sexual acts.
If anyone can improve upon this, please do. -- Andrew Parodi 21:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For whats it's worth I think the Catholic quote belongs in a different article, it doesn't directly contribute anything meaningful to the Brokeback article. --Hetar 05:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And what article would that be? I find this paragraph to be one of the most interesting paragraphs in the article and quite meaningful. -- Samuel Wantman 05:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That the statemnt is interesting is not being contested. However, it primarily deals with the Catholic church's view of homosexuality, not the film itself. For these reasons I feel it would be more appropriate in an article relating to homosexuality or the Catholic church. Also, upon further consideration, if Mr. Sullivan is "speculating" this quote really has no place in an encyclopedia article at all. --Hetar 08:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who introduced the word "speculate." I did so merely as a means of giving variation to the words being used in that paragraph. I doubt that Sullivan, or anyone, can do any truly "scientific" work to determine whether Brokeback Mountain is encouraging Catholics to view homosexuality as being more founded on love than on sex. In the context of political commentary about such matters, all anyone does is "speculate." If this reference is removed, then we'd better go to Rush Limbaugh's page and remove a great deal of what he is quoted as saying, as well as Michael Moore's page, et al., because there is a great deal of speculation in their statements as well. -- Andrew Parodi 12:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piped links

To Moncrief: please see the piped links guidelines. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Eternal Equinox: Having a year linked to a "year in film" article seems to be the norm in film articles. Having the year it is released linked to "year in film" does not seem out of line with the guidelines. Certainly, if it bothers you, you could have changed it to "released in 2005" which would not have been an easter egg. -- Samuel Wantman 21:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Samuel Wantman. You are being silly, EE. Moncrief 21:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
November, a featured article, displays the wikilinks 2004 in film and 2005 in film in parenthesis, and not within a piped link. In the words of Wikipedia:Piped link: Please note that links to "year-in-x" articles (such as 2003 in film) should be labeled accordingly, and not with just the year. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), Wikipedia:WikiProject Music standards, Wikipedia talk:Music standards archive 1 and Talk:Bad Religion for discussion and further details on this. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see your most recent edit Moncrief. You can revert if you feel the need to. By the way, no, it does not bother me; it is violating the Wikipedia guideline and I am only attempting to ensure that barriers are not crossed. Now, it's time to do something about that holy-out-of-this-world trivia section. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So rather than remove it, fix it, and then we'll all feel like we are working together! -- Samuel Wantman 21:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried earlier to take a crack at putting all the trivia into relevant sections, but my changes I thought were not ideal, so I didn't make them. I would suggest changing the section "Filming locations" to just "Filming" and incorporating the anecdotes about the filming into that section. Also, add a section called "Cast and crew" with the anecdotes about people who were and would have been involved in the making of the movie. The Bush and O'Reilly comments can go somewhere in the "Critical reception" section, and the bit about release in China could go into a new section called "Release", which might be expanded to include more information about the release(s) or lack thereof. The trivium about the soundtrack can be removed as far as I'm concerned. Nohat 23:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the images lacking fair use rationale were removed from the article. They can most certainly be restored once the rationale is completed. See Wikipedia:Images. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star-crossed

i suyppose the concept of "star-crossed lovers" is vague to you if you havne't read Shakespeare latelyHank chapot 06:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friends, thank you for understanding that this movie is really an update of Romeo and Juliet, it's a wonderful movie, but the only difference is the lovers are male and the families are the wider society.Hank chapot 05:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that is a MAJOR, MAJOR difference. This film is actually very specific to the subject of closeted gay people, and the "star crossed lovers" angle is one played up by the filmmakers so as to attract the widest possible audience. I feel for the people trying to come up with ways to promote this story to middle America, but I don't think Wiki should play along with that. "A star-crossed lovers story," besides being a weak way of describing anything, unfairly simplifies this movie.
What is so great about the film is its truthfulness and subtlety; when I saw it, from all the hype and Ang Lee's own comments I was expecting something so much more obvious, like a gay Titanic ("a classic romance," bollocks). It's hardly even a love story, because they, or Ennis at least, can't allow themselves to love. There is always a self-hatred in there. Because of the film's high quality, I doubt it will work so well as a preaching tool to open people's minds. A homophobic person might well see it and come away even more convinced of their intolerant worldview; after all, Jack and Ennis' actions lead to nothing but misery for everyone. They value their love above all else. This makes them like Romeo & Juliet. But the essential difference is that they are adults with families. And because it's a gay love, society allows NO accepted outlet for it. Society has deluded them into wanting what they can't have-- the normal family-- and into trying to create it. But they can't fight their natures, so they destroy both themselves and the "traditional" family. Although it's obvious Twist is closeted from the beginning, it's up in the air whether Ennis is "gay" in the inborn sense. But it's clear he is in love with Jack. A clinical right wing appraisal of their actions would show them selfishly sacrificing everything to their lust. This is in fact a more accurate reading than the film's supporters will admit to. It's weird, the disapproving fundamentalist takes on this film (of which Stephen Hunter provided by far the best) seem to nail it better than the attempted liberal ones that miss the point. It's not a nice love story. It is all about sex, lust, and the destruction of families. Because living that kind of lie is all that society, and society's strictures as ingrained inside these men, particularly Ennis, will allow them. Brokeback Mountain is too realistic to provide an argument either way for "gay is good," it will just solidify existing views. But it's could be an argument that gay marriage is good for society. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.151.122.18 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Unprotect?

Considering the degree of vandalism to some articles on Wikipedia, it seems rather odd tha this one has been protected for a few juvenile changes tonight. Enough people have their eye on this article that I think it can be safely unprotected - as long as we aren't shy about blocking repeat vandals. Moncrief 07:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note posted at 20:15 (CST), 5 February 2006: Oh, I see that either the davecullen.com forum people or some other don't want any other Brokeback Mountain (movie and/or short story) forums or discussion groups listed here. My Yahoo Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BrokebackMountain_Story_GayDiscussion/ was removed.

I removed the yahoo group. I'm tempted to remove the davecullen group as well. If there is a discussion group linked, I don't think it should be an age restricted group that requires membership before you can see any postings. The problem with linking any discussion group is that if one is there, all the others want to be posted as well. -- Samuel Wantman 19:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also removed it one of the times it was posted. I don't think it's appropriate to have links to Yahoo groups that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Would it be OK linking to a whites-only group? Then there's the whole issue of the group not being open to anyone unless they register and give out personal information. I'm glad to see you've removed the spoiler from the home page, though. eaolson 04:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Matthew Shepard style gay bashing episode"

I think this should be taken out of the plot summary, because it's very ambiguous how Jack actually died. Ennis imagines the worst, but that's not necessarily what happened. Whoever wrote it is presenting their personal interpretation as fact, which is maybe Original Research.

Also, the short story predated Shepard's murder, so if the implication was that the story was influenced by that other Wyoming gay tragedy, that's completely wrong.

I agree. I've removed discussion about the ending of the film. -- Samuel Wantman 19:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. Good edit. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both wrong. Please go back and watch the movie. During the flashack scene, the one of the men brandishing the tire iron is the man Jack met out with his wife (with a beard) who invited Jack to his cabin on the woods. It is highly doubtful Ennis knew what this person looked like or could image his appearance to this degree of accuracy. The face of the victim is also Jack. What can be inferred from this scene is that Jack went and met this person only to walk into a trap to entice amd murder him because he was gay. We are being shown a flashback of what really happened, not Ennis' imagination. The entire movie reverberates with the Matthew Shepard incident. The movies opens with Ennis recounting a story of his father bruttally murdering two gay men, he lives in fear of it, and it happens to Jack. It's a notable theme in the movie, and one clearly put their intentionally by the writers and director. Waya sahoni 03:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are the one who is wrong. The film has nothing to do with the Matthew Shepard case.
Never said it did, I said Matthew Shepard-like. Go read it kiddo. 67.177.11.129 03:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if you actually read into the scene, it is never explicitally said, "This is how Jack died". It is not known whether this is his imagination, or flashes of the actual event. That's the beauty of it, it's up to the viewer on how they read it. But more broadly, yes, it's possible (if not probable) that Jack was assaulted which led to his death, but it's not the place of a Wikipedian article to say so.

Why not? Wikipedia articles say all sorts of things. 67.177.11.129 03:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because Wikipedia, at best, has to keep a NPOV. čĥàñľōŕď 03:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be for the filmakers or a film essay.

The film essay specifically says this is the case. I doubt you've read it. 67.177.11.129 03:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That greats. But Wikipedia isn't the place for essays. čĥàñľōŕď 03:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I find an allusion to Matthew Shepard case in the article to be misrepresenting the plot of the story and additionally, not a worldwide applicable comparasion čĥàñľōŕď 03:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, wrong. The short story was modified, the director used the Shepard incident to garner attention and allegory to boost sales and audience attendance. 67.177.11.129 03:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then please provide a reputable NPOV source that says so. That is a completely POV statement because how do you know what the director intended unless he said so in a interview? And have you read the short story? I have and the possibility of Jack being bashed is alluded to with the reference to Ennis thinking that someone got to Jack with a tire iron. This is suitably referenced in the movie because its shown in flashes and not explicatly shown or said. čĥàñľōŕď 03:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original short story does make it clear that Jack died as a result of an attack because he was gay. While it is not clear in the film, it is clear in the book, so I think it did happen, and can be included in the article. It may be that the person who attacked him in the film was the guy he met with his wife. I didn't pick up on that detail when I saw it, but if that was the case then I think it further supports inclusion. Having said that, I don't think that a comparison with Matthew Shepard is appropriate. This is partly because we're talking about fiction, not real life events, and because there is no evidence to suggest that the events influenced the fiction. It's also POV because it conjures connotations of all the emotion that went with the Matthew Sheppard case, and there is no actual relationship between the incident in the story and the real life incident, other than the fact that it was an attack on somebody who was gay, resulting in his death. - They're just my thoughts. -- Adz|talk 04:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Although I didn't get the impression from reading that book that it was explicit that he died that way (since it described Ennis's thoughts, rather than the events itself) however, the fact that he was almost certainly assaulted is worthy of inclusion. čĥàñľōŕď 04:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added a section which I hope meets folks approval. I relate strongly to this film. I am a married man with children and grandchildren, but in my youth in Texas, I met a cowboy from burnet Texas in my mid-twenties who was married (he was a year younger and a lot better looking that Jack Twist), and although I am not gay, something happened and we had an intense and powerful secret relationship that lasted for almost a year with secret rendevous into the Texas hill country with "hunting trips" (although we made our cover and always made sure to bring back a deer for his wife). His wife found out about us when she intercepted a love letter he wrote to me. I have never had such a relationship since and have never admitted it, but over the years, he has sent me letters telling me about his kids and I have felt that same longing. Not for the sex, which was secondary, but the intense emotional high we shared together which I am unable to explain. We were incredible friends, but I recognized we needed to stay away from each other, and we have since. He does call me and asked about a year after we broke up if he were to leave his wife, if I would move in with him. I declined, and I have had a rich and happy life, but I always wonder what would have happened had I continued the relationship. I guess I'll never know, but something inside of me told me my fate was not to live him, but to marry, father children, and settle down as a married man. I think about him over the years and I do miss him, and I know he feels the same, but I won't allow my life to end up like "brokeback mountain". Waya sahoni 05:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was a brave admission and I applaude you for your courage. And likewise, I applaude your contribution to the article, it's a nicely put way of summarising the end of the film. čĥàñľōŕď 05:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what was in the short story or even in the script. What was presented to us was an ambiguous scene that was never clarified. It could be that the director / editor intentionally changed the scene from the original story to be ambiguous, knowing that it would have greater impact; or it could be someone had something particular in mind that answered the question. It doesn't matter what the intent was, because it is not objectively solved in the film. Any interpretation of the scene in my mind violates NPOV because we simply cannot say what actually happens in the context of the story, because the final scenes that made it into the film do not have a clear answer on this. Interpreting the scene is up to the viewer, even if the director or other crew had thoughts of their own. TAsunder 23:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree. Our interpretation would be POV. However, we could cite others who have discussed the scene and present an overview of the various interpretations. That would be NPOV. -- Samuel Wantman 23:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea. I have talked to a couple people who weren't even aware that it was ambiguous. Presenting the idea to people would be worthwhile. TAsunder 00:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack's death is ambiguous, though I think it's safe to assume that the official reason given for his death is inaccurate at best. But I don't think that the bearded man is the one who invited Jack to spend the weekend at his boss's cabin. It's pretty clear that he and Jack had an affair, so it's unlikely he participated in his murder. Exploding Boy 07:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It's pretty clear that he and Jack had an affair, so it's unlikely he participated in his murder."

Um..that makes it MORE likely. Ever heared of a person so driven by self hatred that he kills another man that represents what he "hates." Theres alot of incidents where a man kill the other man whom he had sex with because he couldnt live with what he did. User:Cunstar

I think it's a stretch at best. Exploding Boy 22:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is all speculation one way or the other. Without citations, none of this is relevant to the article. -- Samuel Wantman 03:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup controversies

I've tagged the controversies section for cleanup, because at the moment it reads like a long diatribe of problems specific groups have had with the film. Yes, there was a lot of controvesy surrounding the film but surely it can be put in a more succinct and clear format. čĥàñľōŕď 03:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it reads more like "Here's a long list of problems these people had with the film, because THESE PEOPLE SUCK!" It does have a bit of a hostile tone to it, and it does focus almost entirely on the groups that have obvious problems with the subject matter of the movie, and thus a tad of a "shame on them" feel to the notations. It also overlooks some critics who have cited that they have no problem with the homosexuality, it's the cheating that they can't stand. Personally, as a bisexual, I'm a little disgruntled that the alternative sexuality community thinks this is the best they can do as a banner to fly over themselves as a great movie. Cheating is cheating, even if you're doing it because of your sexuality. -RannXXV 23:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheating is cheating is true, but there are circumstances where the social climate of the time required them to get a wife and settle down. At the time, it's what you do. And yes, there is a certain amount of bisexuality to the characters. However, loads of films that are romance/drama films deal with cheating and infidelity. Wasn't Rose from Titanic cheating on Caledon Hockley with Jack? I don't think this particular film needs to singled out because "Shock horror, people cheat with other people". It seems that this in particular is singled out because it has a homosexual context and somehow people think it give weight to the homosexual sterotype of Promiscuity -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 00:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. It's still lying to the women involved, and putting them at risk to a certain extent. I'd say Rose wasn't cheating as her involvement with the man in question was not sexual or even confirmed, and was forced on her by others rather than chosen by her. The characters in Brokeback Mountain did make the choices (to be involved with those women), and they did lie. I think we could do better for something to represent us than making excuses for the characters being liars and cheats. -RannXXV 01:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At risk to what? Anyway, this isn't the place for such a discussion. Yes, they did cheat on their wives, but loads of real-life people do. I don't think it's Wikipedia's job to place moral values on the film. The world isn't perfect and neither are homosexuals (well, any more so than heterosexuals). -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 01:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point to start with, though, was more along the lines that all the controversies focused on groups that disliked it purely for the homosexual content, and there's little to no mention of anyone disliking it for other reasons. I'm only aware of a couple on blogs, and I'm a little fuzzy on where they fit in with being considered for inclusion in Wikipedia. -RannXXV 02:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are POV and rarely fit into the inclusion of Wikipedia. In terms of the controversy section, I think it is way way way too long and that's why I tagged it for cleanup. -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 02:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't reviews and opinions on a film (which is basically what the controversy section is about) POV by their very nature? I mean, a film critic by definition gives their opinion of a film, and thus every film review and opinion of it is POV. -RannXXV 02:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but not everyone's opinion is note-worthy to put in the article. That's why I propose reducing the length of this section because this article is about the film itself. We don't need to go into a long diatribe about every reviewer/blogger/groups problem with the film. -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 03:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Controversy section is way too long already (I'm going to try cutting it down in a minute) without adding "representation" for every possible reason someone might dislike the film. As far as I know there was no large-scale, organized protest about adultery in Brokeback Mountain, abd there's no reason to mention that some individuals didn't approve of that part of the story. We might as well say that some people thought the movie was too long, or that some people just don't care for love dramas. KGiles 04:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the cleanup tag. I've been over this whole section in a few sweeps and done any copyediting that appeared necessary to clean it up. The section no longer needs cleanup. If there is anything wrong with it now (and it seems fine to me), it's something else. Metamagician3000 08:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

  • The fact that neither Jake Gyllenhaal or Heath Ledger are not gay is not "Trivia". One doesn't need to be gay to play a gay character. The fact that not a lot of people involved in the production were LGBT is covered elsewhere in the article. And the legal standing of Sodomy and Adultry in fictional setting is not trivia. It's a movie, not real life. Sodomy and Adultry were illegal in a lot of states during that period. Should we put that in the trivia of every film set back then? čĥàñľōŕď 05:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sodomy and Adultery being illegal could explain why many people felt the need to hide their homosexuality in 1963 Wyoming...however your "it's a movie, not real life" statement is duly noted. I would ask, are Bush's comments in a speech about this movie to be considered trivia? It seems irrelevant...but then again...I'm not a Bush-hater so what do I know....I'm merely posting and discussing in order to "test" the WikiBias that seems to exist. When people look back on this movie 10-20 years from now, do you think a possible Trivial Pursuit question might be: "What were Bush's comments about Brokeback Mountain when asked if he had seen the movie?" Enlighten me.... Jeravicious 09:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Sodomy and Adultry were illegal isn't mentioned in the storyline, but it conforms with social attitudes to homosexuality at that time. So while, yes, Sodomy and Adultry were illegal at the time in which the film was set, since the film doesn't deal with the legal issues of homosexuality it hardly seems relevant. I do agree that Bush's comments seems not even that noteworthy considering he doesn't say for or against the film. Just sounds like another off-the-cuff Bush comment. So, yes I agree it should be removed. čĥàñľōŕď 09:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
if Sodomy and Adultery were considered legal at the time, would that be considered trivia-worthy?....just wondering. I think it's interesting (perhaps even trivia worthy) that no gay actor was cast in this movie...considering it would help out the cause of homosexuals if they were given more parts....but maybe you're right and it's not relevant... Jeravicious 09:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Homosexual aren't a cause. They're people. And unless you actually interview and ask everyone single actor on the movie you can't say categorically that no actors were gay. And even then, it's not that relevant to the movie as a whole. čĥàñľōŕď 10:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good call...Homosexuals are people...thanks for enlightening me. And I didn't say that "no actors were gay"....In the trivia section, I said:
"In fact, no openly gay actor was cast in a lead role for the movie"
To me it seems somewhat relevant. It would suprise people if they cast whites in the lead roles for a MLK movie...I see a comparison...but that's just me. Jeravicious 12:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No offence, but I don't agree with that comparison. Race and Sexuality are hardly the same. You don't need to look the part of a gay man (well, not that Jack and Ennis are explicitly gay) you just need to act it. Straight actors play gay actors and vice versa all the time. I would however find it somewhat interesting if no-one on that set was homosexual at all, but I a) highly doubt it b)would find it difficult to prove. čĥàñľōŕď 12:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. I just found it interesting that "no openly gay actor was cast in a lead role for the movie". Notice I used the term "openly". I guess I'm the only one that found it interesting. No worries. Jeravicious 12:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter anyway, since it's already mentioned in the critical reception section -- "A few other gay commentators and bloggers have written disapprovingly about the fact that, in what has been widely hailed as a "breakthrough" film for gay cinema, neither of the film's two lead actors, nor its director, nor its screenwriters is gay." čĥàñľōŕď 04:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chanlord, I believe the Bill O'Reilly trivia entry and his comments are not relevant or "trivia-worthy" either and will remove them. Anyone have objections? Jeravicious 10:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it doesn't belong in the trivia section, however, it should be noted or summarised in the controversy section. čĥàñľōŕď 10:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, this article requires a good copy-edit and several references and inline citations. Anyone care to help? —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where else other than enveloping its own section can the trivia be placed in the article? —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers

There is nothing wrong with having a brief description of the movie in the opening paragraphs. In fact, this is very common. The Godfather says it is a Mafia movie that takes place in from 1945 to 1955. Sometimes the articles have a fairly detailed description of the movie. Here is the opening paragraph of Casablanca which is a featured article:

Casablanca is a 1942 film set during World War II in the Vichy-controlled Moroccan city of Casablanca. The film was directed by Michael Curtiz, and stars Humphrey Bogart as Rick and Ingrid Bergman as Ilsa. It focuses on Rick's conflict between, in the words of one character, love and virtue: he must choose between his love for Ilsa and his need to do the right thing by helping her husband, Resistance hero Victor Laszlo, escape from Casablanca and continue his fight against the Nazis.

Saying that Brokeback Mountain is about a same-sex relationship is as much of a spoiler as saying that Titanic was about a love affair on a big ship that hits an iceburg, which begins...

Titanic is an Academy Award winning 1997 dramatic film released by Paramount Pictures and 20th Century Fox. The bulk of the plot is set aboard the ill-fated RMS Titanic during her maiden voyage in 1912.

Please discuss this here. -- Samuel Wantman 02:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The relationship between the two characters isn't just part of the plot, it's central to the movie. (Full disclosure: haven't seen it yet.) This claim seems tantamount to claiming that revealing that Dorothy visits the Land of Oz in The Wizard of Oz is a spoiler. After the amount of press that's surrounded this movie, is it likely that anyone will be going into this movie not knowing that the two characters have a relationship? It would be virtually impossible to have any description or discussion about the movie, other than listing the actors' names and the box office receipts, without being able to discuss it. eaolson 03:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC}

Put it unde plot, ie spoiler 03:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC) --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hank Chapot (talk • contribs) .

I don't believe in multiple reverts. I will wait for someone who agrees with me to revert your pursuit of insisting this is a spoiler. If you have reasons, state them. -- Samuel Wantman 03:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the article. eaolson 04:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted it back. I like the previous description. Waya sahoni 07:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well! This is quite odd. It looks like you both made the same revert. If you look at the history this edit shows that text already reverted, yet the next edit shows it being reverted. I don't understand what happened. --Samuel Wantman 08:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Samuel Wantman. I don't believe that it would hurt the article. A portion of the plot does not qualify as "spoilers". —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is terribly odd. I don't understand what happened with that revert. And, Waya sahoni, what is with the unsubstantiated accusation of copyright violations? eaolson 15:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a question about this at Village pump (technical) -- Samuel Wantman 22:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops! It appears that Waya sahoni put the text back in the plot section, and eaolson put it in the opening paragraph. So there is nothing odd. -- Samuel Wantman 10:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wyoming, United States

Do we really need to specify that the movie is set in Wyoming, United States? It's not like there's another Wyoming, and I can't imagine that anyone who's heard of this movie doesn't knows it's set in the US. But whenever "United States" is edited out, it gets put back in again. Can anyone present a good reason why the country needs to be included? "Wyoming, United States' fictional Brokeback Mountain" seems like a clumsy phrase to me. I think "Wyoming's fictional Brokeback Mountain" reads better and conveys all the necessary information. KGiles 00:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One may not know where Wyoming is located. The United States is not the most important nation in the world, therefore we cannot assume everyone will be aware of its location. "United States" should be included in the article. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I don't think people are as stupid as you do. One need not have ever heard of Wyoming to be able to figure out that an American-made film based on a story by an American author and starring two guys in cowboy hats is probably set in the US. If someone actually was confused as to where Wyoming might be, they could simply click on the Wyoming link and learn all about it. Other articles for Westerns don't insult the intelligence of their readers by explaining that US states are actually in the US. (See Dances with Wolves, The Missing, The Outlaw Josey Wales, etc.) Even the Brokeback Mountain article mentions Texas without specifying "Texas, United States." If you're just looking to make some political point about the US not being "the most important nation in the world" then this is the wrong place to do it. It's also an ineffective technique, as sticking "United States" into articles where it isn't necessary looks more like an overpatriotic attempt to promote the US than anything else. That said, whoever changed the line in question from "Wyoming, United States' fictional Brokeback Mountain" to "the fictional Brokeback Mountain in Wyoming, United States" did manage to reduce the clumsiness of the phrase. I still think it's stupid and awkward to specify the country, but at least it doesn't read quite as badly now. KGiles 18:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with KGiles about this. If anyone doesn't know where Wyoming is, they can and should click on the link. -- Samuel Wantman 20:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The article for an American made movie (Memoirs of a Geisha, for example) would surely include "Japan" (Kyoto, Japan). We should not assume that everyone is familiar with the states of the US, and given that the movie was filmed in Alberta ("Canada") and there appears to be considerable confusion about that particular fact, I think it's reasonable. Exploding Boy 21:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's considerable confusion about what particular fact? I haven't seen that anyone is actually confused as to which country Wyoming is in. But I think Samuel Wantman's edit looks good and should clear things up for anyone who thinks Wyoming is a Canadian province or something. The general setting of the American West probably does merit mention in the opening paragraph anyway, since "Brokeback Mountain" has gained attention for being the first major Western genre film in several years. KGiles 04:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KGiles, I never said that anyone was stupid. I merely stated the truth: not everyone is going to know where Wyoming is located. Yes, I agree with Exploding Boy. If "United States" is not required next to "Wyoming", then there is certainly no need to have "Canada" next to "Alberta", correct? :) —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I've given you the impression that I am opposed to ever mentioning the names of countries. I am opposed only when doing so is both unnecessary and awkward. I don't feel it's necessary to explain to people that Alberta is in Canada, but at least "The film was shot primarily in Alberta, Canada" is short and simple. "The two young men meet in 1963 on a sheep herding job on Wyoming, United States' fictional Brokeback Mountain" (which was the original sentence I objected to) is hideously clumsy. But as I say above, I think Samuel Wantman's latest revision looks good, and I hope it makes everyone here happy. KGiles 04:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried a different approach. The opening paragraph now states the locale, so we don't have to add the US to Wyoming or Texas. -- Samuel Wantman 00:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet we still have to add "Canada" to "Alberta"? Personally, the logic is confusing so I will be removing "Canada". —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The logic I am using is that ugly, clumsy writing should be revised. The questionable benefit of telling people what country Wyoming is in does not outweigh the fact that the original sentence I objected to was awkward and overlong. "The film was shot primarily in Alberta, Canada" is both clear and brief, so I don't care if the country name is included or not. I have no special agenda with regard to country names. My chief concern is good writing. One of Wikipedia's biggest flaws is that the quality of writing is often quite low, and I think we all need to try to do a better job in that regard. KGiles 00:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Samuel Wantman for attempting to compromise the situation, however, this edit does not explain that Wyoming is located in the U.S.; it states that the film attracted criticism and praise in the nation. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My later edit does make that clearer. The way I read the sentence clearly puts the location of the film in the US. -- Samuel Wantman 22:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to interpret it this way though. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand. I interpret "The film depicts a sexual and emotional relationship between two men living in the American West in the 1960s and 1970s." to mean that the film takes place in the western part of the US, so when Wyoming is mentioned later, you infer that Wyoming is in the US. How do you interpret it? -- Samuel Wantman 22:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian companies willingness to assist with the project

The text says that "the willingness of production companies in Canada to assist with the project" was part of what motivated Ang Lee to film in Canada. This is too obvious to require stating--if they had been unwilling to assist with the project, he couldn't have shot there--unless the implication is that American companies were unwilling to assist. If this is true, then it should be stated directly, rather than implied. I'm going to remove the sentence. Babajobu 02:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the statement that "many predominantly Catholic countries" have banned the film? Name them. Until then, I'm taking the sentence out. Babajobu 02:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No no, the Alberta Film Development Corporation is a public company funded by the provincial crown. It is far from insignificant that this form of support was available in Alberta Masalai 02:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

I'm working on fleshing out the plot to give it more context and adequately detailed the events in the film -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 02:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to revert your changes so quickly, but I think you went too far in detailing the events of the film. Actually, now that I look through the history it seems that Diego Moya was the one who went too far. I can understand that you wanted to better explain the information he added about the movie's ending, but between the two of you I think far too much has been given away. Even though there's a spoiler warning I don't see any reason for revealing several major plot twists. It's boring for people who've already seen the movie and ruins things for people who haven't. I think the earlier version that explained the premise and early events of the film contained enough information, so I've removed everything that describes the ending. We can discuss the matter here. If the consensus is that it's appropriate and necessary that the article describe how Brokeback Mountain ends then I'll go along, but I didn't want to leave major spoilers up until it's been discussed. KGiles 03:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree. I do think we can better explain the circumstances of the beginning of the movie though -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 03:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What changes do you suggest? It seems like a pretty good summary to me, but there probably is room for improvement. KGiles 04:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is standard practice on Wikipedia that after a spoiler warning plot description is not restricted with regard to spoilers.--Patrick 11:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that, but that doesn't mean we should have spoilers just for the sake of having them. It would be difficult to discuss a movie like The Crying Game in much depth without giving away a major plot twist, but I don't see how the Brokeback Mountain article benefits from having every detail of the movie's ending laid out. If the consensus is that this information is needed in the article then I won't object, but the issue does need to be discussed. KGiles 15:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be so wordy, but I've just looked around more at other movie articles and the Wiki suggestions for movie articles. They do suggest giving some description of the ending, so we just need to decide how much should be revealed. Personally, I'd support including something about Jack's death and saying that it's not clear whether it was an accident or murder. I'd be hesitant to go into great detail for anything after that. Maybe just something like "A visit to Jack's parents helps Ennis to gain emotional closure." (It could probably be said better than that, but that's my general idea.) KGiles 16:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel very silly for posting so much today, but after thinking about this some more I've changed my mind. I've restored the information about the ending that I removed before. I also moved the first paragraph from the plot section (describing the basic premise of the film) above the spoiler warning. This way readers who don't want spoilers can still get a general idea as to what the movie's about, and readers who do want spoilers can have them. Does this seem like a good compromise? We may still want to discuss exactly what needs to be in the plot description, but I feel better about detailing the ending in the spoiler section now that there's a short non-spoiler section. KGiles 17:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel even more ridiculous for having to post here again when no one else has said anything, but apparently my post above did not strike people as a good enough justification for moving the spoiler tag. Here's what the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films page says about "Plot" sections: "It is best to describe the basic premise of the film in a couple of sentences at the beginning of this section, and then start a new paragraph going into more detail about the plot of the film, including the ending. Separate these two descriptions of the storyline with the template {{spoiler}}, which will warn readers of the article not to proceed if they do not want the film spoiled for them." So it's not just me, Wiki standards also suggest that a general description of the film's premise precede the spoiler tag and detailed plot description. KGiles 07:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed that you reverted the surnames of the protagonists to their first names. This is incorrect English and I will be reinstituting my previous edits. The spoiler tag can be placed wherever it is supposed to be; I won't argue with policy. —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is "correct", and in which sense? You could also go to Titanic and edit it into the love story of Dawson and DeWitt Bukater, or change Casablanca to tell the story of Blaine and Lund, or Gone with the Wind with Butler and O'Hara, or that old triangle involving Pendragon, Of the Lake and... what was her surname again?... What about the most moving romance ever written, Shakespeare's Montesco and Capuleto? :-P
This is a romantic movie, not a news report. I vote to leave it at Jack and Ennis. (Though I will not make the change until there is consensus). Diego 16:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is perfectly correct English. It is not the most formal style of written English, and were Jack and Ennis real people then I would agree that they should be referred to by their surnames. However, they are fictional characters. In both the film and the original short story they are most commonly referred to by their first names alone, so I think this style is appropriate for the plot description. KGiles 00:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is it fine to use first names, alternating usage can help break up the repetitiveness (bordering on tedium) of constantly using the last name in the plot. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 00:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's anyone's call. This is, after all, a free encyclopedia. —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike when talking about real people (in which case it is standard practice to use last names only), it is standard practice to talk about characters in movies and books using their first names only, not their last names only. Exploding Boy 23:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

I've rewritten the lead section a bit. The "controversy" sentence made it sound as if setting the movie in the American West was causing controversy. I haven't really heard much talk about "controversy" lately, personally. Perhaps that's blown over. How about just leaving discussion of any such controversy until later in the article. eaolson 04:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Active voice vs. common usage

I realize that it's a general 'rule' that active voice is preferred over passive, but the phrasing in the lead, "frankly depicts" still feels awkward and clumsy. I'm willing to believe that it feels that way because the phrase is so infrequently used compared to the alternate (though passive) version "a frank depiction." Google says the passive[3] is far more commonly used than the active.[4] Personally, I think this is the exception that proves the rule - the passive but familiar is better than the active but awkward. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 16:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Something like "The film presents a frank depiction of..." would sound better to me. KGiles 17:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bareback Mountain

Well, it had to happen. The gay porn flick Bareback Mountain has been released.... Exploding Boy 02:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it's already covered at Wikipedia.

No reference should be made to the fact that Bareback Mountain was initially used to refer to this very mainstream movie? (To the point that the original Bareback Mountain article was a redirect to Brokeback Mountain). The following sentence was included in a previous version of the article, and deleted afterwards:

the title Bareback Mountain has been used by some pundits when referring to the mainstream film and presumably originated in the context of comments on blogs and discussion boards.

Diego 18:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth noting on the Bareback Mountain page but not the Brokeback Mountain page. Primarily, I think this should be about the movie and frankly, literring references about the gay porn version of the film is going to look that well (or add much useful information to the article). Besides tonnes of other films have porn movie versions of them, but aren't worth mentioning in the main article. -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 13:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the porn flick version isn't as relevant on its own. But Bareback Mountain has been used to describe the original movie as well, something which hasn't happened to other mainstream movies (how many call Cameron's film Titanic tits, vs how many call this one Bareback Mountain?)Diego 15:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And that fact is highly relevant, but it's relevent to the Bareback Mountain page, not the Brokeback Mountain page. The last thing this page needs is a link to the gay porn version of the film. -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 11:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The general practice is to make links to related articles. As long as the Bareback Mountain article is not deleted (e.g. because of insignificance), a link seems appropriate.--Patrick 15:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Until such time as other films have their pornographic versions in See Also, I won't agree to have Bareback Mountain in the See Also. It doesn't add anything significant to the article, and frankly I find it a poor standard to set in that a film that related to gay issues automatically links to their gay porn version. -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 16:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a compromise, I've moved the parodies and spoofs into a separate page (they didn't belong to the porn film article, anyway) and linked to it. This way we have just an indirect link to the porn.
While I don't appreciate the cultural impact of the movie to be enough for a separate article (yet), but the information that Bareback Mountain applied to the mainstream movie is relevant, and since the main article is already too long and since you don't want this link in the main article, this should suffice. Think of it as a bet for the future impact. Diego 18:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you imagine, John Wayne & Clint Eastwood as the leading actors in Brokeback Mountain? John Wayne: "Well I'm not gonna kiss ya, I'm not gonna kiss ya; like hell I'm not" and Clint Eastwood: "Go ahead, make me gay". GoodDay 19:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links

I think we should try to keep the external links to a minimum, in keeping with Wikipedia not being a collection of links. As such, I've removed the link to the brokebackmountain2005.com forum. There is very little activity at that site, and virtually all the forum entries are by the owner. This site has been in and out of the article a lot, and every time it's removed, 82.135.167.37 adds it back. eaolson 03:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I have also deleted this entry and others. I invite the anon to discuss this here. -- Samuel Wantman 07:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as do I. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that 85.206.164.9 attempted to add this site again, and it's removal sparked a short revert war. eaolson 00:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a web directory. Is the Rules here? So how you dicide? So lets keep link just to official website. (Unsigned comment added by 85.206.164.9 on 18:31, February 21, 2006)

Please, sign your comments by adding ~~~~. If you do think that some of the links irrelevant, we could discuss it first. --tasc 00:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, Please you are adding all this link??? Could you explain me please! Thank you ! Wikipedia is not a web directory. Rules or not? Or I'm trying to add external ling to "King Kong" website?

  • Brokeback Mountain rides away with four BAFTAs
  • Brokeback Mountain review at PinkNews.co.uk
  • "The Ultimate Brokeback Guide" at DaveCullen.com
  • Reviews of Brokeback Mountain at Rottentomatoes.com
  • Reviews of Brokeback Mountain at Metacritic.com
  • DGA Makes 'Brokeback' Director Ang Lee Official Odds-On Favorite for Oscar
  • An interview with Heath Ledger on the film
  • Author Annie Proulx's Official Website
  • The Official annieproulx.com Discussion Forum
  • Brokeback Mountain Discussion Forum
  • Author Annie Proulx discusses the origins of her 'Brokeback Mountain' (Associated Press, December 15, 2005)
  • 'Gay cowboy movie' a cultural sensation (San Jose Mercury News, December 16, 2005)
  • 'It's very brave of them' - A gay radio host's critical look at the press surrounding the making and showing of the film (The Advocate, December 13, 2005)
  • "Chick-Flick Cowboys" - (Newsweek.com article on Brokeback's success in mainstream America. January 20, 2006)
  • "A Picture of Two Americas in Brokeback Mountain" - essay in the Washington Post (February 2, 2006)
  • "An Affair to Remember" - analysis of the short story and movie in The New York Review of Books (February 2006)
  • Cowboy Controversy: The battle over Oscar front-runner "Brokeback Mountain" (Rolling Stone, February 10, 2006)

(Unsigned comment added by 85.206.164.9 at 18:43, February 21, 2006)

  • Wikipedia is not a web directory, but that does not mean that links of some significance should not be included. brokebackmountain2005.com has been added a few times, and some editors (including myself) have removed it, considering it to be a very minor site. It has little to no content, and many of the forum postings are movie reviews from other sources, in violation of copyright. eaolson 00:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is not only movie reviews, most important is news, and other media. And regarding other boards, they do have this? and also regarding violation in copyrght, is not a commertional board, there no one advertising and - (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.) (Unsigned comment added by 85.206.164.9 at 19:01, February 21, 2006)
  • Virtually all of the postings on that board are by "admin". There is very little discussion going on. The busiest forum is the news forum which has 74 posts. In comparison, the quietest forum over at the [cullen] site has 6400 posts. The brokebackmountain2005 site is very minor in comparison.
As for the copyright issue, I'm not enough of a lawyer to speak definitively, but I don't think it being non-commercial or for "educational" purposes is entirely sufficient, especially considering that many of these articles are copied in their entirety. You can't just photocopy a textbook and hand it out at a university. That gets you in copyright trouble, too. eaolson 01:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The anon was blocked for WP:3RR. I am glad that the user is talking about this, but for the next 24 hours the conversation can only be continued on the user's talk page. -- Samuel Wantman 01:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok let explain me now, I see you had added more external links, now even blogs (where at all no activity). I just want to hear from you, why you are removing this website? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.135.167.37 (talk • contribs) 08:45, February 28, 2006.

First of all, realize there is no "you" doing the adding. Just a bunch of editors, some that edit here regularly, some that are new. Frankly, I think the blogs should go, too. One hasn't been updated in a month. Another I can't judge, because it's in Spanish. This article shouldn't be a collection of links to all things Brokeback.
To the anon poster: perhaps you could make your case to us about why your link is significant and notable enough that it should be included.eaolson 05:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with WP:EL all the external links to discussion forums should be removed as they don't provide any additional information that isn't included in the article already and serve just as a collection of links. There is no logical reason for keeping them there and should be removed to

  • Keep in line with the policy
  • Give a chance of this article receiving featured status one day.

-- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 22:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MoS

The MoS states that "died" should be replaced with "passed away" as it is more formal. Therefore, I would appreciate it if users didn't revert my edit. Thank you. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find that preference at the link you provided. I have seen other discussions preferring "died" to "passed away". -- Samuel Wantman 01:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly does not. However, Wikipedia:How to write a great article specifically says avoid using euphemisms, such as "passed away" for "died". I'm not sure what your issue is on this subject, but deliberately misrepresenting something so easily verified is a good way to destroy your credibility here. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 02:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:How to write a great article clearly says this. I'm in favour of every example of "passed away" being replaced with "died". Wikipedia should be consistently rejecting euphemisms as "non-encyclopedic". I shudder to think that Wikipedia:Manual of Style would ever be advocating the use of euphemism above descriptive and correct usage of words. MoS says nothing of the kind - did you really think anyone would buy that? Rossrs 10:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We shouldn't be using euphemisms. "Died" is better. Exploding Boy 19:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EE, are you editing in good faith here? I don't see how anyeone could look at the MOS and honestly believe it said what you claimed. There's nothing at all in the MOS about use of euphemisms, and there's certainly nothing stating that all instances of "died" should be replaced with "passed away". "Passed away in an accident" is particularly awkward, almost to the point of being comic. Such phrasing has no place in an encyclopedia article. KGiles 19:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The same goes for "lost," "passed on," "go on one's long journey," "pushing up daisies," "on one's fluffy cloud," "in a better place," "meet one's maker," "kick the bucket," "buy the farm," and any of those other ways of expressing "die." Exploding Boy 19:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, it was not my intention to direct you to the MoS until I realized that I already had. When I discovered this, I was going to point out the how to write a great article guideline, however, I had to depart from the computer. So I made a mistake but this does not warrant every user to shoot me in the foot. No, I did not believe that anyone was going to buy "that" because it hadn't been what I was meaning to do. Anyway, on a different note, since I believe that this article is not aiming at any type of future, I'm going to refrain from editing here. I don't type these words in hate but in frustration. So I say goodbye from this article, but perhaps I'll stumble upon one of you on a different one where we could create a mutual relationship. Take care of this article! Ciao! —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, remember that there is a peer review to refer to if one ever does decide on attempting featured article status for Brokeback Mountain. Good luck to the person who chooses to. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Liberal groups" section title

I don't think that the section title "Liberal groups controversy" is appropriate. The term "liberal group" is POV, not to mention innacurate, as the section talks about criticism from journalists and others. I just can't think of a better title. "Pro-gay groups" would be POV. "Objections to the marketing campaign" is more accurate but terribly awkward. Anyone have any better suggestions? eaolson 16:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmm, it's a tough one. "Liberal groups" to me sounds slightly inaccurate, and "Gay rights campaigners" would be POV and awkard as well. I'll suggest "Media criticisms", "Criticisms by the media", "Media criticisms on the marketing campaign" or something like that. --CharlieHuang 17:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citations

I've started converting the citations in the article to inline citations, adding notes, etc. Quite a few of these citations are actually broken, though. Does anyone have information on the citation about Brokeback Mountain being high-grossing from indiewire? Jude(talk,contribs) 05:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations Help!

Only 5 of the 8 Academy Awards nominations were listed. I added the missing 3, but I don't have access to the people that won them (i.e. for the soundtrack). Did somebody else see them?

Liastnir 04:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It won Best Score. (I don't think there is a best "soundtrack," unless it's a technical award.) The list of Oscars winners is on the Academy's website. eaolson 04:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cost

It's not clear to me how these two sentences fit together. At the top of the section commercial success

Brokeback Mountain cost about U.S.$14 million to produce, excluding its advertising budget.
As of March 5, 2006, Brokeback Mountain had grossed more than $78 million in North America and $51 million elsewhere, adding up to a worldwide gross of more than $129 million.

And at the bottom of the same section

According to interviews with the filmmakers, Focus Features was able to recoup their production costs by selling overseas rights to the film so, from the outset, the film was not in danger of losing very much money.

Does it means they had already sold enough to cover the cost even before the film was shown in the US? It is confusing to me when almost a 10X gain and "losing money" were discussed in the same section. Kowloonese 18:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was confusing too. I've moved the information about overseas rights up the the first paragraph of the section, and deleted the rather pointless and misleading bit about "not in danger of losing very much money". I hope this will be more clear to readers. KGiles 05:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary

I realize that this is a recent, popular and (for some) controversial movie, but can we please stop messing around with the plot summary? It's just fine as it is; we don't need to mention every little detail that happens in the film. Exploding Boy 22:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in general, but I think your recent changes cut just a tad too much and wound up making some of the transitions awkward. Jack's dad is refusing to let Ennis have Jack's ashes, and then suddenly Ennis is looking at shirts in Jack's old closet? The summary definitely does not need to give away every detail, but it does need to make sense even to people who haven't seen the movie. I've added in a few explanatory sentences to make things more clear to the reader. KGiles 00:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagline?

I think the tag line "Love is a force of Nature" Should be added. I just don't know how. Some one who knows how should do it.

Category:Brokeback Mountain???

Does anyone thing that a category should be created for BBM as there are three/four other articles about it? --Charlie Huang 【正矗昊】 14:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say hold off on that one. Might be deleted pretty quick. The "see also" lonks should more than suffice for now.
I've heard two different people inadvertantly refer to this film as "Bareback Mountain", and they didn't realize they had said it until I pointed it out. Funny. --DanielCD 21:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Region 2 Release Date

Confirmed as 24th April 2006. Amazon.co.uk and play.com (and cdwow.com) have all listed this release date and have given the DVD a price.

References

This page needs its references worked on. It has over fourty external links interleaved with the text. Ugh. --Cyde Weys 18:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Gramatically inccrrect

For heaven's sake, please provide ANY reference that says that "Ennis'" is more gramatically correct than "Ennis's." I challenge you to provide one. Moncrief 05:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the inappropriate use of the factual error template, which does not apply to grammar errors, and frankly made the article look like some kind pedantic joke. Nohat 05:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nohat. Talk about petty. Moncrief 05:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strunk and White appear to agree with you. I'll withdraw my complaint. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. Ardenn 05:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small plot point

The plot summary says "Ennis, haunted by a childhood memory of the torture and murder of a gay man in his hometown..." Wasn't it two gay men who were murdered? Or do I misremember? IronDuke 21:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. It was definitely a gay couple in the book and I believe in the movie, Ennis also says it was a gay couple who lived in his town. But I don't know if both men were murdered (only one was shown) or only one. Someone should look at the screenplay or watch the DVD and see what Ennis says about it - were both men murdered? Moncrief 00:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the original sentence read "a man suspected of being homosexual" (and if it didn't it should have). There was no such thing as "gay" in the time period being depicted. Also, it was one man who was murdered. Exploding Boy 01:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine to call the murdered man a "gay man." Modern terms are used all the time to describe long-dead people and past events. We don't have to call Harriet Tubman a "Negro" now just because that was the polite term used at the time she lived. I don't think the "gay" in "gay man" invests the described person with any sort of liberationist, implicit lifestyle attributes. You can be a "closeted gay man" or a "gay man in denial" quite easily. It's just a descriptor of his orientation, a more widely-used and up-to-date synonym for "homosexual." And I think it's pretty clear from the story that he was a gay man, not just that he was suspected of being one. Moncrief 17:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brokeback_Mountain&oldid=47572118"