Talk:Brokeback Mountain/Archive 2

message: Sorry, this is my first post on Wikipedia, so forgive me if I am doing this incorrectly or am stepping out of line, but I question the NPOV of this article.  In the "Praise and Controversy" section, it references "commentators Bill O'Reilly and Cal Thomas, accusing Hollywood of pushing an agenda while telling their viewers that the Christian themed Narnia has more merit for "best picture of the year."  I fail to see how Narnia is relevant to the article at hand and the statement was obviously written in such a way as to be persuasive or to make a point.  Also, in the links section, perhaps links to some of the sources of this controversy?
:Yeah it is a bit off somehow. I think it makes it out to be more successful than it is too. It's doing alright, but after reading this article I got the sense it was this enormous blockbuster or something and wondered why I've heard little of it. It's really not unusual for a smaller film, as this one is, to have higher per-theater sales. The way it's word is slightly misleading somehow.--T. Anthony 08:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its sales are much higher per theather. Munich was playing in about 500 theaters a few weeks ago yet it had nowhere near the gross that Brokeback does now in about 500 144.35.254.12 23:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you and the previous anon commentator are talking about the same thing but I'm not really sure since you only use pronouns (without any context reference).  The anon seems to believe the O'Reilly Narnia reference is off-topic and included merely to push an anti-Brokeback POV attempting to minimize its success. You seem to be talking about Brokeback itself.  The film continues to maintain high per-theatre box-office numbers even as it expands its theater count - this weekend saw it pull in almost $12K/screen compared to Narnia's $4400/screen and Kong's $3600/screen.  AUTiger ʃ talk/work 15:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The person who put the POV tag on the article never explained why on this page.  I'm removing it.  If anyone feels like putting it back, please do; but please say why on this page, so we can discuss it. -- Samuel Wantman 03:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: ozz bless 'em, they're gonna give at least some lead love come accadamy time, too.  i'm guessin the actory guy with the great accent, and maybe best pic too, tho that could split to true-man or capote.  either way, ozz bless that they gave the gay cowboy thing a prize.  sypathies to cash, but stars are aligning. -:)Ozzyslovechild 03:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  i faqqin love that this won critic' choice for best pic 

message: A touch call, to be sure.  A touch, unimportant call, to be sure.  My guess is it will sort itself out rather quickly. -:)Ozzyslovechild 03:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Normal practice is to use the direct link unless it is not available.  I linked BFCA to the Critics Choice article, so I see no reason to link it to BFCA. -- Samuel Wantman 03:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  link to [[BFCA]] or to [[Critic's_Choice_Award]] when referencing the Critic's Choice Awards or Critics' Choice Awards in this article? 

message: there should be a faqqin spoiler alert on this type of shipe.  i'm gonna look that shipe up. -:)Ozzyslovechild 04:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  wow, is that perchance Olde Englysh ye be speakin? :P Jafafa Hots 06:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  there should be a faqqin spoiler alert on this type of shipe 

message: In Toronto I have heard a similar expression, "Has he been to Brokeback Mountain," meaning "has he [heterosexual] ever had a same sex romance or fling."  However it is unsourced and could at best be mentioned as rudimentary, new, gaining momentum, etc. JustADuck 22:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "brokeback" as new slang 

message: I'd like to add information or a section on the widespread effect this movie appears to be having both within the gay community and, to a leseer degree, outside of it too.  I don't want to overstate the case at all, but I think it would be worth a shot to try and describe quantifiable, sourceable effects it's had - i.e., increased number of blogs about the film, quotes from published articles that give context, that sort of thing.  If anyone has any ideas or links on how to do this, I'd be curious.  Moncrief 02:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how you would be able to source facts that were quantifiable and not speculative. The fact that the film has received much attention in the gay community was to be expected and I don't think that that in and of itself constitutes as 'cultural effect'. Similarly, I imagine Philadelphia would have generated much interest when it was released, but quantifying the effect that it had is more difficult. I don't have any suggestions unfortunately, other than to suggest that you discuss any proposed changes here first so as to avoid potential edit wars. Good luck. -- Adz|talk 02:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may be right.  It's certainly not like "Philadelphia" - it's something greater, but rest assured I'm cautious and won't proceed unless there's some quantifiable hook I feel merits inclusion.   Moncrief 03:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ways to quantify cultural effects?