Talk:The Shawshank Redemption

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top
This article has been rated as Top-Importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] High

IMDB number two, nominated for seven oscars. Andman8 04:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old discussion

While there are Stephen King movies that diverge from the book much more (I saw almost all of The Running Man, except for the very beginning, and never realized it was based on the book I had read a month before), The Shawshank Redemption isn't terribly faithful (I still love the movie). One of the two principal character's race changes, perhaps the most memorable part of the movie (Norton's suicide) doesn't appear in the book, another of the candidates for most memorable part of the movie (Brooksie's suicide) also doesn't occur in the book, the cause of the ending (the source of Andy's wealth) is different and there are numerous smaller differences noted in the article. All in all... substantially different, though certainly no The Running Man. Tuf-Kat 04:32, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

The Shawshank Redemption appears to have been deleted... need a revert.

So... revert it yourself, no? Go to history, open the version you want and just to edit and save - thereby reverting. Yitzhak 18:28, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Maybe I'm not understanding something (I've never read the book) but -
1. Race doesn't seem to be an issue in the film. Why make light of it here? What difference would it make what race the two principal characters were?
2. The article already discusses the differences between the film and the book, so what is your point? Are there any other differences that need to be added to the article?
--Colin Angus Mackay 21:00, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with On the whole, this film is a pretty faithful adaptation of the Stephen King book. No less faithful than most others, maybe, but it isn't especially faithful. Tuf-Kat 23:09, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
Then change the article. If the article is wrong or expresses a POV then you should change it. It is obvious from your comment that pretty faithful adaptation is a POV, so you should change it to be a NPOV. --Colin Angus Mackay 07:07, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you fellow Wikipedians, I was racking my brains trying to remember Morgan Freeman's name, and I apologise for wasting this talkpage space. Boffy b 21:37, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

[edit] Theme

The whole Theme section sounds like an personal essay, rather than the well-established consensus of the people who have watched the movie. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It needs to be rephrased to represent reviews by notable critics. --Poiuyt Man talk 22:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, you know what? I think our "Theme" author (whoever they may be, I haven't looked at the history) got it just about exactly right! So I don't give a damn whether or not a "notable critic" has said the same thing (although I'll bet if we look hard enough, we can find one); I'm glad our author said it for us here!
Atlant 20:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plot

I'm sorry, I cant stand it. The film does not begin with Andy being wrongly convicted. It is only discovered by the viewer that he is wrongly convicted during the scene in the workshop with Red and Tommy. At the beginning there is no indication of this other than Andy's own pleas of innocence. Further more, the viewer does not see that Andy is chippoing at his wall until near the end of the film. There are other details that are left out here as well. I will write some details and re-write some of the existing information for this article over the next couple days unless there are significant objections. - Enemy of the Light 0310 GMT, 21st December 2005

[edit] Object to Disambiguation split.

I wish to voice my objection to this.

  1. The movie is very well known (Number 2 IMDB) and has this title.
  2. The Story has a different title and is mainly known because of the movie.
  3. The movie article points to the book in it's 2nd line.
  4. This was not discussed first.
  5. Talk page was not moved.
  6. No pages linking to here were moved.

I would request things be restored to where they were previosly. Thoughts? SimonLyall 11:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I object as well (as I did over on The Green Mile where our editor has attempted a similar change).
Atlant 12:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree with SimonLyall. --Poiuyt Man talk 14:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] As With Anything In Life....

People will object with every decision you make. And with this, people obviouslly have. In my opinion, people like to know what their are two pages and that they have a choice - to read about the movie, or to read about the short story apon which the movie was based on. That's just my opinion, and as I can see here; I am getting "flamed" from it, and for my work on The Green Mile page. It's a free world; you folks do whatever you want.--Matt von Furrie 21:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Reverted. If one thing gets 50 times the hits of the other it should probably be the main page. See guidelines is diambig pages. SimonLyall 22:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Difference between novel and movie

The following statement needs clairification: "The escape of Andy occurs 9 years earlier, from 1975 to 1966." Since I have not read the book, and could not find these dates on the Web, please distinguish and clarify this statement. Thanks, Steven McCrary 15:44, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


Am I the only person that thinks this section is ridiculously over-detailed?

Yes, this section needs a clean-up and I feel most of the entries can be removed. Rtcpenguin 05:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
See #List_of_differences below. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the entries do not say which aspect is from the book and which is from the film, for example: "Red was paroled after only thirty-eight years instead of forty."--Sadistic monkey 06:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Integrity

Apparantly User:Flex takes issue with the section on "integrity." Not sure why, please provide discussion here. In the mean time, I reverted the edits. Steven McCrary 21:52, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

It's just that the Wikipedia is not the place for original analysis (see the theme thread above), and I have seen nothing about this theme from the original author (S. King), in the reviews by any well-known critic (feel free to supply some), or in the director's commentary (Darabont actually specifies two themes: hope and friendship). Personally, I find integrity to be a questionable theme because Andy and company are involved in laundering money, which Andy later takes as his own. Not clearly wrong (cf. the discussion with Andy and Red in the library), but not beyond reproach either. --Flex 23:28, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I found a few Web sources that see integrity in Shawshank, and placed them in the article; but the sources may be inappropriately placed, if so, please move them. I removed my speculation about King's use of integrity. Regarding integrity as a questionable theme: I guess it depends on how integrity is defined. By definition, integrity means adherence to a moral or ethical code. Normally, that code should include honesty and trustworthiness. However, under these adverse conditions, isn't dishonesty necessary, even noble? As far as the money laundering goes, well I agree that it is not beyond reproach. Still, does that destroy Dufresne's integrity? Either way, that very discussion makes the topic of integrity worthy for inclusion as a theme in Shawshank. My 2cents; what say you? Thanks, Steven McCrary 13:51, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Steven. I find Andy's integrity questionable because he was an active participant in the warden's money laundering schemes. True integrity by almost any standard, IMHO, would have refused to help the warden in his scam or would have not taken ill-gotten money for his own. Admittedly, that's just my opinion, but my opinion does go to show that it's not cut-and-dry clear-as-day (unlike the themes of hope and friendship which are pretty explicit and unquestionable).
As for your citations, as in the thread above, I think you need to find a well-known critic (or one of the creators) who makes the case, not relatively obscure websites and anonymous users on forums. The Wikipedia is intended as a compendium of accepted human knowledge, not a place to present original research or criticism. For this reason, I still support deleting the integrity theme. As for the formatting, should you locate some qualifying sources, you could put them under the "References" section at the bottom and follow the formatting scheme there. If they need to be in-text citations because they follow a quote or something, you could put the website in brackets so it shows up as a footnote like this: [1]. Cheers! --Flex 00:59, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Flex, a couple of things:
I included a source written by Roger Ebert on integrity.
Your concerns about "accepted" human knowledge really got me to thinking about my contributions to Wikipedia, this entry particularly. Not sure I agree with your interpretation of the Wikipedia policy, though. For the case of integrity, the fact that many individuals saw this theme in the movie indicates to me that the theme exists, even if the original author did not intend it, or if an expert did not write about it. Still, I understand the need for Wikipedia to represent accepted knowledge, a grey line, and you and I seem to see this issue in different shades.
Regarding Andy' integrity: how much guilt should we attribute to Andy for his complicity in the warden's schemes. Afterall, the warden holds Andy's entire life in his hands, yes his very existence. To me that provides a great deal of freedom for Andy. In other words, the warden's power over Andy prevent Andy from making a truly free choice, therefore his action is coerced, and his integrity remains intact.
Sincerely, Steven McCrary 02:46, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
P.S. The mere fact that you and I are having this ethical discussion indicates to me the importance of this theme in the movie. Steven McCrary 02:48, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

What needs cleaning specifically? --Flex 15:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The "themes" section reads like a high school essay, not an encyclopaedia. No offence, but it really doesn't belong, or if it does, ti needs to be greatly emasculated into a single paragraph or two.
Similarily, things like Jesus' first miracle was turning water into wine, whereas Andy's first wonder was convincing the guards to give the prisoners beer. violate WP:NOR, and again border on making this a book report/essay
Ditto on the "names" bit, like but he is on a far different trajectory from Brooks because he has found hope.
The Count of Monte Cristo, which is about a prison break, was written by Alexander Dumas (mentioned in the film but pronounced "Dumbass" by Heywood), and Andy Dufresne escapes from prison in the movie. Both first names start with the letter "A", and both last names start with the letters "Du" and have a silent "s". is really stretching it.
References should not include reviews, and the IMDB paragraph at the top should be trimmed down a bit, though it is good to mention
How about you remove the Count of Monte Cristo trivia item instead of copypasting it here and complaining about it? It takes like, five seconds. 24.79.138.212 12:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I edited the above mentioned entry, adding much more similarities between the two works. I left in the part that may be a stretch, but if anyone feels it really shouldn't be there, feel free to delete that part yourself. Conquerer 20:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The "A review by James Berardinelli" in the References section needs cleaning up. The link is not active anymore.Zuracech lordum 16:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corrected Errors

Goofs: "Red says Andy arrived at Shawshank in 1949, but then tells Tommy he came to the prison in 1947. He indeed came in 1947 because it took Andy 19 years to escape, which he did in 1966." -- This is not a goof and was simply interpreted incorrectly by this person. Red narrates near the beginning: "So when Andy Dufresne came to me in 1949 and asked me to smuggle Rita Hayworth into the prison for him, I told him no problem. And it wasn't." He is specifically referring to when Andy came to him and asked for the Rita Hayworth poster, a scene we later see in the film, not when Andy came to Shawshank Prison. The next thing Red says in narration a minute later is: "Andy came to Shawshank Prison in early 1947 for murdering his wife and the fella she was bangin'." No goof present here. I deleted the incorrect entry and the "Goofs" title, since that entry was the only one. Conquerer 03:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the Goofs section, and added a significant continuity goof. Interestingly, this one isn't even noted by IMDB.

--58.105.111.37 15:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Themes

I could be crossing memories of the novella with those of the movie, but isn't it Andy's goal to make it to Mexico and set up a hotel on the beach? The article currently states that he's embraced the life of a fisherman and I recall nothing of the sort from either source, aside from the assumption one could draw based on the fact that he is sanding a canoe at the very end of the movie (more than a small stretch in my opinion). Can someone refresh me & hopefully the article? Wangoed 19:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shawshankin

A term from whose wherabouts are unknown has now become part of the American lexicon. The term 'shawshankin' refers to the act of passing gas and shaking it out the bottom of one's pants. The term refers to the scene in the movie where Andy needs to find a way to redistribute the dirt he excavates from his escape hole. He decides to carry the dirt outside in his pants and shake it out on the baseball field.

This was in the article for some reason. I'm not sure if it's supposed to be a joke. Ich (talk) 07:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's just run of the mill Wiki vandalism. I've removed it (again) and warned the editor.
Atlant 12:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of differences

The list of differences with the novella is quite long and should perhaps be moved to a separate article, retaining only the most important ones here. What say you? --Flex 16:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If it's worth saving them at all, they should be their own article or something, because it's crazy long.24.193.227.46 01:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)sean

No way! It belongs in this article. "Longiness" is not a good enough reason for splitting, and the list isn't really that long. So please, let's keep it here. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 16:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well if it does stay here it really needs to be improved.--Sadistic monkey 06:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Brooks was here" vs. "I've decided not to stay"

This recent edit was correct, as far as I know. Why was it reverted "per policy concerns"? - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it was reverted, but "Brooks was here" is definetly correct.--Sadistic monkey 06:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, "I've decided not to stay" is what he writes in the letter, whereas "Brooks was here" is what he writes on the wall. The way it is written, it can go either way, though I think "I've decided not to stay" works better, given the previous sentence ("[...] he's tired of being afraid all the time"). EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JibJab

JibJab's Great Sketch Experiment included a way shorted rap version of this film, the winner of the contest. Should that be included anywhere on here? 67.160.87.2 02:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say no per WP:EL (it's not "symmetric"). On the other hand, it may be notable that a parody of it was made so long after the film's release, the assumption being that for most folks to get the jokes, they'd have to know the movie. On the other-other hand, I don't know the details of that contest. Anyone can take a poll, and sneaky people can fairly easily rig a vote on a poorly implemented poll. (I'm not alleging that anything like that happened, just that a contest-winning parody isn't necessarily also a notable parody.) --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2001 Reference

Heywood and Floyd are obvious references to Dr. Heywood Floyd from the film 2001: A Space Odyssey. I would add the trivia myself, but Wikipedia seems to have gotten a bit uptight about trivia lately so I decided to ask here first. --NeoVampTrunks 01:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You might be right, but I don't see that as "obvious." Did King say this somewhere? Is there some other connection between 2001 and Shawshank or between their respective characters? --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Shawshank_Redemption_c44b.html"