Talk:Forrest Gump/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cheated

message: 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)
replies: text: It was based on the movie, founded in 1996, according to  --Cfitzart 11:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bubba Gump Shrimp Co. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Connection to ''The Idiot'' 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: I agree with Uthanc. 222.126.76.205 19:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That seems fair.  I believe that's what's done with A Series of Unfortunate Events.  Powers 02:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so not quite the same thing.  But it still models seperating the book from the film.  Powers 02:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Perfect solution Liu Bei 04:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If you would like to split the two articles, definitely go for it! ^_^ grafikm_fr 12:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: move to Forrest Gump (film) -- Shane (talk/contrib) 01:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Books suck, movies are better, u see more and takes less time.. RealG187 16:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More focus on the book? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Added spoiler quote 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vietnam War rally 

message: Just curious.
:I believe not.  --Crisu 00:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the Lieutenant Dan Band the same [[The Dan Band|Dan Band]] from Old School? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This is not a flaming contest 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  crooked as a....... 

message: 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)
replies: text: I noticed this as well. I thought he was a PFC in the film. --MasterA113 20:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  US Army Rank 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Movie Plot section of this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Differences from the novel" section should have spoiler warnings 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What happened to the hollywood accounting section? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gump/Pulp Fiction Parody 

message: 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. "
#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
#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)
thread_title:  Paramount and the author - contested information 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Two actors played young Forrest Gump 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Forest Gump and Zelig 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tom Hanks' Younger Brother 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Significance of Feather 

message: Shouldn't there be a mention of it somewhere? Socby19 23:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gump (song)|Weird Al Song]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: He's fictional.~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 20:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A real story or just a fiction 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Differences from novel 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Forrest gump.jpg 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bubba Gump Shrimp 

message: 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)
replies: text: The refresh rate has nothing to do with the running time.--Loodog (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Running Time differences 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Groom/Paramount "dispute" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: 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)
replies: text: But it's already mentioned in the Plot. Wildroot (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Famous people 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why is John Lennon not mentioned? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, that's why he was sad at the ending of the movie. --217.120.78.212 (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  HIV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Conflict with the author POV 

message: Footnotes 17 to 21 are bad links!
Joe Gatt (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "bad links", they seem fine to me. - Kollision (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Footnote errors 

message: :Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs) 02:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: References to use

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gump and Co? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Grammar correction (Cast - Tom Hanks) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Percentages in first line 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Political interpretations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Funny joke or coincidence ? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Gump's unit is also mentioned here: Forrest Gump (character) Tjlynnjr (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Gump's unit in Viet Nam

message: 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)
replies: text: NM, just saw the link explaining why.Emperor001 (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Title

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Box office bomb? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Was a line altered? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  studyforrest project section