# Talk:Forrest Gump

In the film, Jenny falls ill with an unknown disease. Granted, it has been believed to be AIDS, but this isn't confirmed. I also watched a YouTube video suggesting otherwise. I've removed the link for now. GOLDIEM J (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

In the sequel to the original book the movie is based on, it is revealed that Jenny died from hepatitis C, not AIDS. But since neither is mentioned in the film, we shouldn't speculate in this article. Calidum 15:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
In the film she clearly said she is sick with an "unknown virus". So, maybe it is Hepatitis C, but the only unknown but deadly virus in 1980s is AIDS. I'm not sure. P. Pajouhesh (talk)
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) 07:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it's true there is no evidence for this among the contemporary filmmakers. The screenwriter years ago said that his intention was that the "unknown virus" was HIV/AIDS, and the sequel was to have started out with Forrest's son being diagnosed with AIDS he contracted in utero. Source: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/forrest-gump-sequel-never-o-j-oklahoma-city-192839355.html Ford MF (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

 This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Smazurk.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Though most famous than the book, I believe that this article should be moved if possible to Forrest Gump (film) to avoid confusion, Do you think I should do it or not? Quincy43425 (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

No. The film is far, far more famous than the novel so I don't think most people would have difficulty navigating the articles. 92.10.13.209 (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Negative, over. Seasider53 (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Can an 'accredited source' not be found for an objective evaluation of the [essentially non-existent] plot, and the true motivations for producing such an odious film? Namely, the glorification of ignorance and stupidity? Nothing more than a rather obnoxious expression of anti-intellectualism?
That Hanks could think this overtly political movie 'non-political' leads me to wonder whether he was, in fact, acting. Arguably, perhaps he was not. 122.151.210.84 (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

the point of this movie was the symbolic nature of Gumps innocence with real and prevalent world problems. Calling it anti intellectual is completely missing the point. Nomad_00 (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

 This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gracietippacanoe, 20renaangelina02 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Hobartsquash, Appletastic.
— Assignment last updated by Harveyfolger14 (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

In recent years, the film has been reassessed. A lot of people have criticized the movie because they have deemed it to have conservative politics, and because enough people have done this I believe that there should be a new section dedicated to the film's recent reappraisal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.35.8 (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC) 

I thought it was openly misogynist, rather than "conservative". Anyway, what sources do you suggest? Dimadick (talk) 08:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I will look for them later, although I don't mind other people doing it too/doing it before me 92.0.35.8 (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I suggest that we use these sources: ‘Forrest Gump,’ 25 Years Later: A Bad Movie That Gets Worse With Age , "A Struggle of Contending Stories": Race, Gender, and Political Memory in "Forrest Gump" on JSTOR , Should “Forrest Gump” be viewed as conservative propaganda? | Read | The Take (the-take.com) , Why we loved - and hated - 'Forrest Gump' - CNN . 92.0.35.8 (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for not including the hyperlinks immediately. I thought I had - but made a mistake. I've added the links now 92.0.35.8 (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Dimadick  Well we can't use personal views. The whole section violates Wp:NPOV. While there are certainly negative reviews in 21st century, there are also positive reviews in 21st century, as such I request rather than just selectively using negative reviews, also add the positive reviews of the 21st century from noted Wp:RS. Well just a suggestion, you are a senior editor and know much better than me. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Ridiculous. The film has been "re-assessd" by overly sensitive individuals who completely miss the point of the film and want to criticise anything that they see as having a "conservative" bias. The article currently mentions criticism from no-name commentators who criticise the main character for being a "no-nothing white man" and for "Being from Red-State Alabama". "Amy Nicholsons" criticism is particularly tone deaf: Forrest Gump is not apolitical, in fact, the whole point of "Forrest Gump" is that the film is heavily political, while Gump himself is not. The "Re-evaluation" section should be removed, it has no merit. Are all films to be "reevaluated" now, when modern society deems them to be not politically correct enough? Do better Wikipedia, this is an encyclopedia, not twitter. JackStonePGD (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Adding my voice to the chorus that this section is problematic. "He's even from red-state Alabama!" That comment alone shows bias, is insulting, demeaning, and hints at an agenda. Comments like this have no place in Wikipedia. Dave (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and remove this section. The criticisms have gone undiscussed and unaddressed for weeks, with nobody defending or improving the section. If that changes it can be re-added. Dave (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be shortened somewhat. JPHC2003 (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)