Talk:Cold Mountain (film)

message: I think Donald Sutherland played Nicole Kidman's father. Could someone check that and add him to the cast? Therin83 12:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cast

message: Since it was strongly asserted in the edit notes that the specific software used to edit the film is especially interesting, I'd like someone to add something to that paragraph that illuminates the special circumstances.   Bevo 20:17, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: SFX

message: Shouldn't someone make a page about the novel, then keep this one as a disambig page? -Beelzebubs 23:02, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Novelization

message: Gimme a little while I'll write a stub article for the novel + a disambig page. --Ben Tibbetts 22:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'll do it 

message: Skipped on the disambig and rather just created Cold Mountain (novel) - just a stub, but it's a start! Please edit and add what you can to make the article on the modern classic worthy of its subject. --Ben Tibbetts 01:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 07:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Done 

message: "This caused some controversy in North Carolina, although in fact an estimated 95 percent of feature films and television shows made in the state since the 1980s were set somewhere else."
Can we have a source for this estimate?  Seems like it should be the other way around, i.e. 95% of features & TV shows set in the state since the 1980s were made somewhere else. Dforest 23:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Carolina statement 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I removed a reference to Ruby's supposed mental defect from the plot summary. Neither in the book nor the movie is Ruby portrayed as mentally deficient. She is certainly coarse and lacks the refinement of education but she is not in any way handicapped.
PS:  If I messed up editing protocol here, I apologize. I'm not a regular wikipedia user.
:Don't worry. If the person who created the page doesn't like what you've done, it will be summarily removed without even discussing it with you. You might even receive a comment informing you how stupid and ignorant you are. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Retarded" 

message: Thanks for editing-out Ruby's purportedly being mentally retarded.  I noticed this error last night, but you fixed it before I had a chance to.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.117.144 (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruby 

message: In November 2011, an editor with minimal history eviscerated this page for no good reason.  The reason given was, "I made the summary much more brief and removed all the plot spoilers and excessive detail."  I intend to restore most of the deleted content over the next few days, absent objection.  Spoilers are not an issue if a movie is more than a few months old.  Wikipedia articles are meant to be encyclopedic descriptions, not just promotional teasers. Eleuther (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable evisceration 

message: I'm another fan of the movie and book, and I just wanted to point out that several Appalachian Studies scholars gave both favorable reviews for their accurate representations of studies on the subject.  So, I thought that in the next few days I'd add a section on what historians thought, but anybody is welcome to help.Silas Robertson (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Silas! That would be a great addition. There are some article guidelines at WP:FILMHIST that you can check out. Let me know if you'll need any help with setting up referencing! Erik (talk | contribs) 21:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Eric.  I will definitely need help with referencing, because I'm new to Wikipedia.  The articles I'm using are hard copies, but they can be found through JSTOR.  Silas Robertson (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical Scholarship

message: Anthony Minghella made significant changes, removing or altering the unbelievable -- and let's face it -- downright stupid elements (such as Inman's impossible escapes from the Home Guard, and a bear stumbling over the side of a cliff). Someone should at least briefly list the changes. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: differences from the novel

message: As the family enjoys their Easter dinner, they show close ups of all the surviving individuals, with two additions: Edmom and Ida's daughter and Ruby and Georgia's new baby.  But as they close the scene there is another child in a red garment. Who did that child represent?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.140.160 (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing scene Question 

message: The second paragraph of the "Historical Accuracy" section is very convoluted and its meaning is obscure:
"Several scholars reviewed the movie for its representation of historical studies on North Carolina during the Civil War, especially the state's mountainous western region." The movie doesn't in any sense "[represent]...studies." I assume what is meant is that scholars reviewed the movie to determine its historical accuracy.
"Their justification is the effect popular media has on national and worldwide perceptions of Appalachian people, particularly southern Appalachians in this case." Their justification for what? What is being justified in this sentence? Are the aforementioned scholars "justifying" their discussion? Why should they need to justify that?
"The opinions vary, but the consensus among them is the historical context of the movie is close to the scholarship. Although these scholars disagree about the accuracy of particular elements of the movie, they agree that the story gets at least some things right." Which "scholarship" is the movie "close to?"
The wording is just very odd, and doesn't make sense. I'd suggest a brief paragraph like this: "Several scholars with an interest in the effect popular media has on perceptions of Appalachian people reviewed the movie for its historical accuracy based on what we know of North Carolina during the Civil War. Opinions varied, and while these scholars disagree about the accuracy of particular elements of the movie, they agree that the story gets some things right."
I haven't read the APPALJ Roundtable Discussion though, so I'll leave it to someone who has. 182.239.139.90 (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a link to the Roundtable Discussion, which turns out to be freely available with registration, and added it to the article. I encourage you to take a look and make improvements to this section as appropriate! Ibadibam (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to 'Historical Accuracy' section? 

message: Vesey impregnated a black slave woman. There's no reason to think they are lovers, as is described. nikelous 14:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veasy's slave 'lover?'