Talk:Heaven's Gate (film)

message: The film does not have the American Humane disclaimer. So, can this be mentioned.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:4700:2D30:2419:2C53:3D3A:D889 (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Disclaimer

message: Alternate figures are given - both $30 million and $40 million are cited as the film's production cost.
----
In the article, it says
:: ...Cimino finally delivered his masterpiece—a 5 hours and 25 minutes version of Heaven's Gate. The studio balked and sent him back to re-edit it to a more manageable length. His recut version was still 3 hours and 40 minutes long.
Later, it says
::Jerry Harvey, the channel's programmer, decided to play Michael Cimino's four-hour original version
Some clarification could be in order here.  Is the second passage referring to the 3 hour 40 minute version?  If so, perhaps classifying that as the "original" version is inaccurate, and could be changed to "...to play Michael Cimino's 3 hour 40 minute version"
In an interview here in Australia last year - http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s1422317.htm - Kris Kristofferson claimed the film was killed by the studios who wanted to reign in the auteur directors and the newly elected Reagan government who wanted "[..]no more films made with a negative view of American history, like 'Heaven's Gate'". Claimed as evidence an alleged meeting between Alexander Haig & studio heads and reviews at the time which Kristofferson claimed not one of which mention the Johnson County Wars.
A search of google though only comes back to the interview transcript, so has anyone else ever heard these claims put forward? LamontCranston 11:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cost of film

message: The article makes this statement: 'Insofar as the film genre is concerned, no studio produced or released a single Western for a full decade, aside from Clint Eastwood's 1985 hit Pale Rider and Silverado (also 1985).'
This is not true. I can think of one example, Young Guns, and I'm sure there are many more. That whole part is not backed up and makes a lot of generalizations and talks more about Dances with Wolves than it does about Heaven's Gate. I'm going to remove it. If someone can think of a better way to word it be my guest :) 209.144.55.6 20:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: comment

message: Is it just me or is the plot summary the most condescending thing ever written? While hilarious, it contains sucn references as "x's character" and "y's character", and sneers at plot details, which is hardly encyclopedic. 130.76.32.145 20:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is horrible. I tried to remove most of the POV, but I'm sure there's still some lingering between some badly-worded sentences or plot summary. - Zone46 03:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: plot summary

message: "the free-wheeling excesses that begat Heaven's Gate"? Give me a break. Someone fix this, please. --N Shar 06:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I elaborated much of the movie's plot, avoiding weasel words and personal opinion as much as possible.  I still can add to it, but it should be much better now.  Opinions? --A.T. Horsfield 00:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Changes 

message: Is using the term "WASP" appropriate? Is the fact that the people are White Anglo-Saxon Protestants essential to the films plot?--Scotsworth 03:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WASP 

message: the article for dances with wolves says that during production it (DWW) was nicknamed kevin's gate because of the low confidence that the western movie genre could produce a good epic, based on heaven's gate being a disaster.  this article says waterworld was "kevin's gate"  was it dances w/wolves, or waterworld, or both? 76.217.120.247 16:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  kevin's gate? 

message: :Image:Heavens gate.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 06:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Heavens gate.jpg

message: The IMDb entry says that "James Averill never studied at Harvard, he attended Cornell".  No other factual errors are mentioned there.  Nor here.  Unless some can be cited, it is very unfair to brand it as "highly fictionalized".  --GwydionM (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite a bit is untrue.  You can look at the Johnson County Wiki alone to see differences.  I don't have Bill O'Neal's book on hand to provide direct sources, but highly-fictionalized isn't an inaccurate or particularly malicious statement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.224.31 (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which bit isn't true? 

message: The term "Western" should be capitalized, as it always is when referring to a particular region. The term is not capitalized when referring to a general compass direction.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.157.102 (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic English 

message: The article states that "Norman Jewison was reportedly asked if he would take over, but he rejected the job." I don't have The Final Cut to hand, but I was under the strong impression that the director consulted by the film's producers was David Lean. The book doesn't identify him and the identity is subject to all kinds of rumours (e.g. here); perhaps it would be best to flesh this sentence out, mentioning the book, the clandestine conversation etc. Unfortunately I don't have the book on me any more.  -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm not sure whether the information is "clear" enough for Wikipedia's standard, the book strongly leaves the impression that it is Norman Jewison Bach is speaking with.  The main confusion with Lean is Bach's constant assertion that the movie looks like Lean shot a Western, and that he later tells the anonymous director that the film looks like he shot a Western.  But he does mention right after making that statement to the anonymous replacement, that he is modifying his usual statement, signifying he isn't talking about Lean.  The rest of the information of the conversation bears this out:  the director is currently doing post-production on a film; Jewison would have been finishing up "...And Justice for All" at the time, while Lean was barely trying to get a project off the ground.  The director is stated to know Cimino and have had a working relationship with him prior; Jewison took Cimino under his wing originally, and was to produce "Dogs of War" with Cimino as director.  The director is mentioned to have replaced a major director early in his career before making it big himself;  Jewison replaced Peckinpah on "Cincinatti Kid" right before his own career took off.  The director is said to be reliable and to have several projects lined up at UA;  Norman Jewison, along with Woody Allen, is constantly mentioned in the book as being UA's most reliable filmmaker, and the book mentions at other points he has projects lined up, including "Dogs of War".  You have to read between the lines, but it's there.  Whether it's "there" enough for Wikipedia to accept it as a source is a different question.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.224.31 (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norman Jewison 

message: I feel that Queenan's critique is far too emphasized in the Reception category.  There is no reason whatsoever that it can't be cut down and inserted into the paragraph with the Canby and Ebert reviews.
Likewise, there is a surprising lack of the positive reception and reevaluation on the film.  Bach's book documents a highly successful French premiere of the the long version, as well as a modest run in Britain, which included some positive notes, and a few changes-of-opinions from critics who attacked the shorter version.  This could be added in to replace the vague "European critics" reference. There was also the John Kirk restoration of a few years back, and the ensuing theatrical run from which to look at. (The planned, made and then nixed Special Edition DVD could also find its way into the article somewhere.)
Likewise, David Thomson has been a high-profile champion of the film within the critical community, and there are a few others.  Not to mention a few critics like Dave Denby and Jonathan Rosenbaum, who don't love the film, but have found it has things to admire.
I would add the changes myself, but I don't have Bach's nor Thomson's books on hand.  I plan to get to it eventually, but if any one who does have them sees this before I get around to checking them out, their inclusion will very much help keeping this article balanced.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.224.31 (talk) 01:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendations for the Reception category 

message: I'm just wondering, but are all of the women dead before the asshole start to rape the madam? Can't find an answer anywhere. Apple8800 (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rape scene 

message: I've deleted some weasel wording. The accusation by the AHA was not that the animals
rights were abused, but that the animals themselves were abused.  Since the link goes to cruelty to animals, that's the wording I've used.THD3 (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Link rot in Accusations of cruelty to animals section, looks like http://www.humanehollywood.org/index.php/movie-archive/item/heaven-s-gate is where the AHA information went. -ekb- Kid Bugs (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Cruelty to animals

message: This film is an absolute disgrace. I watched as much of it last night as I could stomach. It is alleged to have something to do with the Johnson County War. I know quite a bit about the Johnson County War. Even Blazing Saddles has more to do with the Johnson County War than this idiotic, lying film does, and it's also a much better film. 69.181.40.76 (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And? Many of the great Westerns are highly innacurate to the actual events.  Bill O'Neal, certainly the biggest authority on the subject, is said to be an admirer of the film, despite the inaccuracies. Likewise, you have to take a look at the Reel American History website to see an analysis on how the film differs from historical fact... and even they defend the film! That Heaven's Gate stray from historical events is a fact.  That this is inherently a bad thing is not.  67.189.74.143 (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Outrageous

message: "According one actor, his character was to "walk past a cock fight"; when he arrived at the shooting location, the cockfight scene had already been filmed for two weeks."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.197.76 (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  attention editors 

message: The section claiming to give real events is full of weasel words and givesa very biased account.
It does not match the information on the wikipedia page on these events.
It uses terms like "Killers" to describe people involved (seemingly implying every single one of those hired was actively killing people!)
It needs rewriting badly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.44.230.209 (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Events 

message: The section for the 2012 rerelease is nearly as long the Initial Reactions section, and cites only 2 critics. It's also quoted in the opening paragraph, along with the blurb about the recut being 'One of the greatest injustices in cinematic history.' All the while the film still has a 58 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I hesitate to charge this, but I think the current article, especially the reception and the final paragraph of the opening, are heavily biased in favor of fans of the movie, and should be edited to be more neutral.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.166.197 (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Reception