Talk:Dead Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics 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.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.

Um, what's going on with the lower sections of this article? I'm removing this stuff for now. Looks like it maybe belongs more at WikiSource than here... --Chinasaur 03:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Bounty hunters

I didn't think it was really accurate to call them "'amoral' bounty hunters". After all, when Lance Henriksen shoots the black kid, Conway Twill says "Geez, [Lance], he was just a kid." So he has some sense of morality, at least. Shame that he has to get eaten later on.

  • The only one who can conceivably be called "amoral" is, IMHO, Cole Wilson, because Conway Twill actually does call him that ("he ain't got a f***ing conscience—know what I'm sayin'?"). Notcarlos 16:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plot summary: "takes peyote"

Having seen this movie a few times now, I'm not sure at what point Blake takes peyote, especially given that, when Nobody takes the peyote, he says that it is "not for use, even by William Blake." Lack of food causes Blake's vision quest, not peyote. Notcarlos 16:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A little change made

I changed Blake's job in the Machine town from "book keeper" to acoount manager please change back if Im wrong —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.91.136.5 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Plot

The page says " formerly a prostitute (not explicitly stated), who is selling paper flowers" but in the movie one man in the bar says "we'z liked you better when you wore a whore" before he pushes her in the mud. Sounds pretty explicitly stated, unless one assumes that the man mistook her for someone else. --Jasonnolan 22:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree.
However, the entire plot section needs to be vigorously copyedited and reduced, for proper tone and content. This is an encyclopedia, not a film review/guide. See WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Article body for a style guide. --Quiddity·(talk) 22:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

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 19:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why the revert?

Hey folks, Bobo192 just reverted a few hours of edits I made to "Dead Man".

I understood that editors are encouraged to be bold with changes, and of course it's always possible to make subsequent changes to anything editors contribute, so I tend to make bold changes and hope they'll be considered as the suggestions they are. But if in any way I've violated the ettiquette of this specific page, I'm indeed sorry - I meant to be constructive, not rude.

That said, is it possible that contributors to this page might overlook any impetuousness of mine and "un-revert" my hard-worked changes (I researched footnotes and everything!), if only to re-work them as deemed appropriate? It only hurts to have them wiped out en-masse, and as a devoted fan of the film in question, I think they're actually pretty good.

As I may have inspired this revert by not pitching in here first, and as I don't like revert wars any more I'm sure than you do, I won't contest Bobo's revert but wait to see if anyone here thinks my edits worth unreverting, if only to spur further development of the page.

Thanks, "71.228.57.147 (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)".

Hi there. I now understand what you were trying to do, and have restored the necessary changes you made to the page - which were many more than I had originally realized, over a much greater length of time. Hopefully the article now reads as it should. Bobo. 01:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! 71.228.57.147 (talk) 12:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)