Talk:Brokeback Mountain/Archive 1

message: I have reverted the latest edits relating to the 'Box office performance' section of this article. It appears that certain editors are engaging in an edit war because they see that the two viewpoints are contradictory. Firstly, it should be said that this article is not a place for personal views as to whether or not the film will perform well based on its gay story line. Until the film is released, its box office success or otherwise remains unknown. Until such time, both views regarding the possible success or lack thereof (namely, that there will be much curiosity and interest, or that it will be unpoular) remain valid. I have edited the article to contain a version of words which reflect both views based on an earlier version.  That said, the claim that the film's success 'is in question' should be referenced. The success of most films is 'in question' until they are put to the test at the box office. Perhaps it would be better to say that the film 'may prove controversial', or that it may impact on the success of the film. If the use of the words 'in question' are to remain then a reference to an authoritative source questioning the likely success of the film should be provided. I have tried to use a form of words which present both possible scenarios put forward by other editors and hope that it is NPOV. Please discuss further edits on the talk page before engaging in reverts and edit wars. -- Adz 06:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting ''Box office performance'' section. 

message: The title has been adopted by a porn movie. I've created a separated page for it, with references to the origins of the name.
Diego Moya 20:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No real movie critic like Leonard Maltin is going to call it Bareback Mountain, but a google search of the exact phrase gives 413 results....all in reference to Brokeback Mountain. It's just a matter of time until you see it as a headline on a  quasi-mainstream site. I guess everyone is a film critic, but I used the term pundit because "film critic" usually indicates a professional. Here are a couple of examples sites:    Barneygumble 14:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, if that's case I'm happy to let it back in. I can't do a google search on that term from the computer i'm on at the moment but will look it up later today. I think that a reference to 'bareback mountain' should be in the context that you put it (ie. amature comentators on blogs and (presumably) discussion boards) and should be NPOV. I think the logical place to put it would be after the sentence about Alexander and before This may affect the film's success at the box office. I think there should also be a reference to the google search page at the bottom of the article or something because I suspect other people may leap at the opportunity to challenge it and edit it out if it isn't referenced. I can't do a google search on that term from the computer i'm on at the moment but will look it up later today. -- Adz 23:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, yes, let's do a service to a wonderful story by renaming it because people can make jokes about its title. What's next? Are we going to rename the 6th Harry Potter movie "Harry Potter and the History of Lord Voldemort" because the Half-Blood Prince does not serve as large a purpose in the plot as alluded to? Come on. It's named "Brokeback Mountain" for a reason, and anyone who cares to take the story seriously will see that. Soulsteelgray 23:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh my! Why you're SO clever and witty! Goodness! Do you have any Oprah or Titanic jokes while we're at it? --Deglr6328 02:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bareback Mountain 

message: I've removed the link to the Yahoo group. I'm not sure that it is encyclopedic, it is an age restricted group (and I really can't be bothered to log in to find out what is there), and going back through the history, it appears that there may be some rivalry between groups as the link used to go to a different group and was changed. - So I thought I'd remove it. Am happy for prople to put it back following discussion if these is some consensus.  -- Adz 03:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: :Heath Ledger had a nude scene in which he jumped into a lake. The director intended to edit any actual frontal nudity out of the film, but a paparazzi photographer took photos of Ledger with a digital camera. The photos have appeared on the Internet and in some press publications.</blockquote>
Does anyone know where to find the nude paparazzi photo of Heath Ledger that is circulating on the Internet?  Gilliamjf 12:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heath Ledger paparazzi nude photo 

message: I've moved the broken link here in case it comes back to life again as I have a suspiscion it will. I think it is a valuable link to have as long as it is working. 
*Original story - Broken Link 
I had read somewhere that the short story was also available somewhere else online. The good thing about this one is that it was a New Yorker page - the page that originally published the story, so no copyright issues. 
-- Adz 09:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  broken link 

message: This article has been experiencing several vandal attacks a day given the increase interest now that the film has been launched and the award nominations it has been receiving. There is no reason to suggest that the vandalism will slow down between now and the various award nights. 
I suggest that we ask an administrator to lock this article for editing. Most of the information that needs to be in the article is already in the article. If there is significant news we can discuss on the talk page and have it unlocked for a short period to update. In case of minor news, we can hold off and maybe unlock once every few days. 
What do others think?  -- Adz 05:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of vandalism? If it's really serious then it should be locked. Scorpionman 18:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: There does seem to be a bit of vandalism, but it's not bad compared to many other unlocked articles.  I don't personally think locking is warranted yet; there are some additions that will need to be made as the movie opens wider, and asking an admin to lock and re-lock is a pain.  Enough people seem to be watching this article that the vandalism is pretty quickly corrected.  Moncrief 19:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Please note that I made the comment above on 16 December, in the week following the release when there seemed (to me) to be a lot of vandalism. I agree that it has probably slowed down a bit, and I think that more people have it watchlisted now too, so am happy for it to remain unlocked. Adz 11:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locking article as result of vandalism 

message: Bbatsell reverted an recent edit which said that the film will be released in other cities in the United Stated on December 16. 
Originally the article said that the film will be released in additional cities on Dec 16, so the words in the united States were added. 
I can't understand why this was seen as vandalism. The film doesn't open in Australia until January 26. I'm sure that it opens in different countries on differt dates. The original text was US-centric. User 70.92.165.42 was right to make the edit and inser the words 'in the United States'. -- Adz 07:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh.  Don't know how it happened, but WP somehow gave me an old edit to the article when I went to edit.  The only thing I changed was a fictional quote and the replacement of Randy Quaid with Dustin Diamond that had gone uncaught for 5+ edits.  Not sure how everything else got changed as well.  --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 07:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  released in other cities on [[December 16]] 

message: I thought it might be worth provinding this link: Wikipedia:External links in light of all the external links that are being added to this page. I am tempted to remove the link that currently says A non-commerical discussion board for this movie because I think it fits the criteria of 'a link which has been included to promote a website'. The discussion board - as yet - has had very little traffic. ... as an experiment though, it would be interesting to know whether the traffic picks up as a result of the link on this page. Anyway,. I thought I would wait to see what others thought because it probably also fits the criteria of 'fan sites' which is under the list of 'maybe OK' external links. -- Adz 07:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Putting aside the mechanics of the film's plot, I have to disagree with most of the previous commentators in saying there is no controversy around the addressing of bisexuality that is worthy of inclusion in the article. At least in the UK, there has been significant controversy in the LGBT and Bisexual communities over the fact that the mainstream media has entirely erased bisexuality from it's coverage of the film.
Unlike Moncrief, "gay cowboy movie", is by far the dominant thing that been said about the film (closely followed by discussion of the "moral outrage" of the American christian right). --Myfanwy 00:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK coverage 

message: Somehow, probably due to an inexperienced Wikipedian, the introduction has grown overnight into something very unwieldy.  Wikipedia articles do not put all their information into one section alone.  The introduction should be 1-3 paragraphs long, with the rest of this information in sections below.  I don't have time right now to fix it, but I will later if no one else does.  Grrrr. 209.173.239.60 17:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction too long

message: So sorry to add yet another category, but I couldn't thinhk where else this might fit.
This piece of "trivia"
:Though critically acclaimed and lauded by critics the world over, is generally viewed as a box office dissapointment. Also, despite its numerous awards and nominations, its been speculated that the film is peaking too early and much of its momentum will have died out come Oscar time.
really doesn't seem... to a) be backed up in any way, even by hearsay, or b) fit into the trivia section in the first place.  Shall I take it out?
JustADuck 04:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Someone keeps putting it back in.  Not only is it unsourced, but the facts don't back it up at all.  It doesn't really make any sense.  Oscar voters don't vote based on box-office popularity or momentum, and most Oscar-winning films have made more money and "peaked earlier" in the year than  BBM; the idea of "peaking" before the Oscars is bizzare, considering this is December and they'll start voting for the best film of 2005, including those released much earlier in the year, not long from now.  At the same time, BBM is exactly the opposite of a "box office disappointment" considering its limited release. The more I think about those two sentences above, the more illogical they are. The two sentences contradict not only each other, but also reality.  Moncrief 06:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia