Fargo (1996 film) has been listed as one of the
Media and drama good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: October 20, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fargo (1996 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I would like some clarification on this fact. The source used for this section is a book published in 1992 (Footnote 17). How would the woodchipper idea be "later reused" but cited in a book published four years prior to the release of the film? -- Kchambers ( talk) 07:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The article quotes the opening "TRUE STORY" text:
"THIS IS A TRUE STORY. The events depicted in this film took place in Minnesota in 1987. At the request of the survivors, the names have been changed. Out of respect for the dead, the rest has been told exactly as it occurred."
In the film, the word "occurred" is spelled "occured". Should this be represented here? Perhaps with '[sic]'? Yokwephil ( talk) 23:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Reference available for citing in the article body. Erik ( talk) 20:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
To the anonymous contributor at IP address 68.192.130.189: I don't see any point in changing "he kills Carl" to "he attacks and kills Carl with an axe". The fact that Gaear uses an axe may be notable because it could reflect on his character, but the axe might also have been handy at the time, and the course of events isn't dependent on his choice of weapon. As for "he attacks", I think that's more or less implied. The summary is currently over 600 words, so I think it already has enough detail. — Codrdan ( talk) 06:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know any more about the snow globe that was released with the special edition VHS? I just altered the article to remove the reference to the wood chipper, because an anon. changed it to say it was the overturned car. Does anyone know which it was? --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 00:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I removed the following unreferenced section and bring it here for discussion:
As far as the title of the film is concerned, that seems rather obvious. The rest of this is, or should be, covered in the locations section. This is all simply redundant. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 16:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm looking for some feedback on this revision about the origin of Jerry Lundegaard's name. Would any citation be sufficient to add this bit of trivia to the Wiki article? It seems rather well-supported to me. RepublicanJacobite, has removed the info twice now, hopefully someone else can weigh in. Unclevinny ( talk) 01:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The citation I read spoke to the existence of a Minneapolis film critic named Lundegaard, but didn't mention anything about a connection with Fargo, or the Cohen brothers. Not to read RepublicanJacobite's mind, but perhaps that's why they felt the citation was inadequate.
Willondon ( talk) 02:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The locations section is referenced almost entirely with the IMDB page, which is not considered a reliable source. I suggest items sourced in this way be removed, or better sources found. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 02:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I strongly suggest that we merge the List of Fargo characters into this article. Most of that article is devoid of content, with section headings for both major and minor characters empty after many years. In most cases, there is little that can be added, because very little is known. Since there is already a character section here, any of the relevant information in that article can easily be brought here --- in the case of Carl, Gaer, and Jerry, there is some good information, with sources. But, I see no reason why a film with such a small cast, and with so little solid character information, needs a separate cast article. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 16:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Fargo (film), without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. The Old JacobiteThe '45 04:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Relevant dialog:
(siren)
CARL: Ah, shit.
Oh, the tags. (sighs)
All right, it's just the tags.
I never put my tags on the car.
Don't worry. I'll take care of this.
(whimpering)
Keep it still back there, lady, or else we're gonna have to, you know, shoot ya.
Hey, I'll take care of this.
CARL: How can I help you, Officer?
OFFICER: This a new car, then, sir?
CARL Certainly is, Officer. Still got that smell.
OFFICER: You're required to display temporary tags, either in the plate area or taped to the back window.
CARL: Certainly.
OFFICER: Can I see your licence and registration?
CARL: Certainly.
Yeah, I was gonna tape up the tag, you know, to be in full compliance, but, uh, it must've, uh...
It must've slipped my mind.
...
Last vehicle he wrote in was a tan Ciera. Under plate number he put DLR.
I figure they shot him before he could finish filling out the tag number.
- Uh-huh.
- So I got the state looking for a Ciera with a tag startin' DLR.
They don't got no match yet.
I'm not sure that I agree with you on your police work there, Lou.
- Yah?
- Yah.
I think that vehicle there probably had dealer plates. DLR.
There is some inconsistency in the script. In the first part the "tags" in that context is a temporary license which is a piece of paper you tape on your new car - like the officer says, either in the plate area or on the windshield - until the permanent tags (plates) arrive in the mail. That suggests that there are no plates on the car.
But later they refer to dealer plates, like this because the officer wrote "DLR". But if the car had dealer plates, why not write down the number on the dealer plates?
A flaw in the script?
I suppose maybe it did have dealer plates and he wrote DLR because the number on them was irrelevant... the new car purchaser needs to have and display the temporary paper tags. -- B2 C 00:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I've always felt that the first sentence describing the plot, "automobile salesman Jerry Lundegaard is in financial trouble", wasn't actually established in the movie.
Although the movie shows his fraudulent dealings with the financing company, and he certainly will be in financial trouble in the near future, it seems that during the time the movie portrays, his motivation is greed, and ambition not to be under the wing of his father-in-law, to have his own business, rather than being aware of the quicksand just yet.
Perhaps "desperate for money" is a more accurate description.
Willondon ( talk) 05:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
The movie doesn't depict any addictions to alcohol, other drugs or gambling, investment gone wrong, or unwarranted opulence that could provide a suck-hole for money to explain an existing debt. I think the span of the movie portrays Jerry's ambitions as they unfold. Jerry isn't actually in financial trouble, he just needs more money to be successful.
Willondon ( talk) 04:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
This is really the only piece of information the movie gives us, and it appears to illustrate the urgency with which Jerry needs this money. Whatever his past troubles were is unknown, but they've culminated in him borrowing money against cars which don't exist, and now the lender is on to him, so he has a very finite amount of time to straighten things out. Patrick of J ( talk) 16:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
In the movie credits, the actor who played "Victim in Field" is given as Prince's logo, but rotated ninety degrees clockwise. The article shows the symbol as , which isn't rotated. Is there any way we can create the correct symbol? -- Dan Griscom ( talk) 02:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
in the plot summary I believe a clarification/correction needs to be made in referring to the duck stamp. I believe this refers to the Federal Duck Stamp competition For a hunting stamp. In the current summary it's referred to as a postage stamp I believe this is misleading. M[ [1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.249.88.33 ( talk) 19:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
It has to have been a flawed understanding on the part of the filmmakersThere's a much, much simpler explanation. There are many U.S. postage stamps which have a duck/mallard on them [2], [3], [4], [5] (showing 3, 5, 29 and 51 cent denominations), and that's what the bros. Cohen intended to describe. The fact that there's a duck on the postage stamp seems to have attracted the attention of jumpers to conclusions and unnecessary multipliers of entities. The duck hunting permit cost around $10 in 1987, and $15 in 1991, far more than the denominations mentioned in the movie (3 cents, 29 cents), denominations much more in line with postage stamps. And I don't know for sure, but I believe the duck stamps are issued annually at that year's cost, and are never used to supplement the value of a stamp bought previously. It's a postage stamp with a duck on it. That's what the movie makers meant, and there's nothing in the dialogue to suggest they were referencing anything else. signed, Willondon ( talk) 15:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
It's not clear in the current language that the 1997 TV pilot was a continuation or remake of the film - while the 2014 TV series is inspired by the film, and set in the same fictional universe, but with a different cast of characters. I'll try to clarify accordingly. -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 23:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
On more than one occasion, it has been claimed that Jerry embezzled money from the dealership, and that this is his motivation for the loan from GMAC. Never once is this stated in the film. Jerry is clearly in financial trouble, and he is being pressured by GMAC to provide proof of the cars he has put up as collateral, but we are never told what the source of his troubles is. We cannot make assumptions or speculate in the plot. We can only state what we know for certain. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 16:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Fargo (1996 film) has been listed as one of the
Media and drama good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: October 20, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fargo (1996 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I would like some clarification on this fact. The source used for this section is a book published in 1992 (Footnote 17). How would the woodchipper idea be "later reused" but cited in a book published four years prior to the release of the film? -- Kchambers ( talk) 07:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The article quotes the opening "TRUE STORY" text:
"THIS IS A TRUE STORY. The events depicted in this film took place in Minnesota in 1987. At the request of the survivors, the names have been changed. Out of respect for the dead, the rest has been told exactly as it occurred."
In the film, the word "occurred" is spelled "occured". Should this be represented here? Perhaps with '[sic]'? Yokwephil ( talk) 23:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Reference available for citing in the article body. Erik ( talk) 20:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
To the anonymous contributor at IP address 68.192.130.189: I don't see any point in changing "he kills Carl" to "he attacks and kills Carl with an axe". The fact that Gaear uses an axe may be notable because it could reflect on his character, but the axe might also have been handy at the time, and the course of events isn't dependent on his choice of weapon. As for "he attacks", I think that's more or less implied. The summary is currently over 600 words, so I think it already has enough detail. — Codrdan ( talk) 06:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know any more about the snow globe that was released with the special edition VHS? I just altered the article to remove the reference to the wood chipper, because an anon. changed it to say it was the overturned car. Does anyone know which it was? --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 00:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I removed the following unreferenced section and bring it here for discussion:
As far as the title of the film is concerned, that seems rather obvious. The rest of this is, or should be, covered in the locations section. This is all simply redundant. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 16:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm looking for some feedback on this revision about the origin of Jerry Lundegaard's name. Would any citation be sufficient to add this bit of trivia to the Wiki article? It seems rather well-supported to me. RepublicanJacobite, has removed the info twice now, hopefully someone else can weigh in. Unclevinny ( talk) 01:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The citation I read spoke to the existence of a Minneapolis film critic named Lundegaard, but didn't mention anything about a connection with Fargo, or the Cohen brothers. Not to read RepublicanJacobite's mind, but perhaps that's why they felt the citation was inadequate.
Willondon ( talk) 02:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The locations section is referenced almost entirely with the IMDB page, which is not considered a reliable source. I suggest items sourced in this way be removed, or better sources found. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 02:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I strongly suggest that we merge the List of Fargo characters into this article. Most of that article is devoid of content, with section headings for both major and minor characters empty after many years. In most cases, there is little that can be added, because very little is known. Since there is already a character section here, any of the relevant information in that article can easily be brought here --- in the case of Carl, Gaer, and Jerry, there is some good information, with sources. But, I see no reason why a film with such a small cast, and with so little solid character information, needs a separate cast article. --- RepublicanJacobite TheFortyFive 16:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Fargo (film), without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. The Old JacobiteThe '45 04:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Relevant dialog:
(siren)
CARL: Ah, shit.
Oh, the tags. (sighs)
All right, it's just the tags.
I never put my tags on the car.
Don't worry. I'll take care of this.
(whimpering)
Keep it still back there, lady, or else we're gonna have to, you know, shoot ya.
Hey, I'll take care of this.
CARL: How can I help you, Officer?
OFFICER: This a new car, then, sir?
CARL Certainly is, Officer. Still got that smell.
OFFICER: You're required to display temporary tags, either in the plate area or taped to the back window.
CARL: Certainly.
OFFICER: Can I see your licence and registration?
CARL: Certainly.
Yeah, I was gonna tape up the tag, you know, to be in full compliance, but, uh, it must've, uh...
It must've slipped my mind.
...
Last vehicle he wrote in was a tan Ciera. Under plate number he put DLR.
I figure they shot him before he could finish filling out the tag number.
- Uh-huh.
- So I got the state looking for a Ciera with a tag startin' DLR.
They don't got no match yet.
I'm not sure that I agree with you on your police work there, Lou.
- Yah?
- Yah.
I think that vehicle there probably had dealer plates. DLR.
There is some inconsistency in the script. In the first part the "tags" in that context is a temporary license which is a piece of paper you tape on your new car - like the officer says, either in the plate area or on the windshield - until the permanent tags (plates) arrive in the mail. That suggests that there are no plates on the car.
But later they refer to dealer plates, like this because the officer wrote "DLR". But if the car had dealer plates, why not write down the number on the dealer plates?
A flaw in the script?
I suppose maybe it did have dealer plates and he wrote DLR because the number on them was irrelevant... the new car purchaser needs to have and display the temporary paper tags. -- B2 C 00:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I've always felt that the first sentence describing the plot, "automobile salesman Jerry Lundegaard is in financial trouble", wasn't actually established in the movie.
Although the movie shows his fraudulent dealings with the financing company, and he certainly will be in financial trouble in the near future, it seems that during the time the movie portrays, his motivation is greed, and ambition not to be under the wing of his father-in-law, to have his own business, rather than being aware of the quicksand just yet.
Perhaps "desperate for money" is a more accurate description.
Willondon ( talk) 05:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
The movie doesn't depict any addictions to alcohol, other drugs or gambling, investment gone wrong, or unwarranted opulence that could provide a suck-hole for money to explain an existing debt. I think the span of the movie portrays Jerry's ambitions as they unfold. Jerry isn't actually in financial trouble, he just needs more money to be successful.
Willondon ( talk) 04:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
This is really the only piece of information the movie gives us, and it appears to illustrate the urgency with which Jerry needs this money. Whatever his past troubles were is unknown, but they've culminated in him borrowing money against cars which don't exist, and now the lender is on to him, so he has a very finite amount of time to straighten things out. Patrick of J ( talk) 16:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
In the movie credits, the actor who played "Victim in Field" is given as Prince's logo, but rotated ninety degrees clockwise. The article shows the symbol as , which isn't rotated. Is there any way we can create the correct symbol? -- Dan Griscom ( talk) 02:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
in the plot summary I believe a clarification/correction needs to be made in referring to the duck stamp. I believe this refers to the Federal Duck Stamp competition For a hunting stamp. In the current summary it's referred to as a postage stamp I believe this is misleading. M[ [1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.249.88.33 ( talk) 19:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
It has to have been a flawed understanding on the part of the filmmakersThere's a much, much simpler explanation. There are many U.S. postage stamps which have a duck/mallard on them [2], [3], [4], [5] (showing 3, 5, 29 and 51 cent denominations), and that's what the bros. Cohen intended to describe. The fact that there's a duck on the postage stamp seems to have attracted the attention of jumpers to conclusions and unnecessary multipliers of entities. The duck hunting permit cost around $10 in 1987, and $15 in 1991, far more than the denominations mentioned in the movie (3 cents, 29 cents), denominations much more in line with postage stamps. And I don't know for sure, but I believe the duck stamps are issued annually at that year's cost, and are never used to supplement the value of a stamp bought previously. It's a postage stamp with a duck on it. That's what the movie makers meant, and there's nothing in the dialogue to suggest they were referencing anything else. signed, Willondon ( talk) 15:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
It's not clear in the current language that the 1997 TV pilot was a continuation or remake of the film - while the 2014 TV series is inspired by the film, and set in the same fictional universe, but with a different cast of characters. I'll try to clarify accordingly. -- Chaswmsday ( talk) 23:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
On more than one occasion, it has been claimed that Jerry embezzled money from the dealership, and that this is his motivation for the loan from GMAC. Never once is this stated in the film. Jerry is clearly in financial trouble, and he is being pressured by GMAC to provide proof of the cars he has put up as collateral, but we are never told what the source of his troubles is. We cannot make assumptions or speculate in the plot. We can only state what we know for certain. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 16:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)