![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From my memory, there seem to be a number of flaws in the description of the plot.
1) "Walker...shot by his adulterous wife" I didn't think it was certain that they were actually married.
2) I thought it wasn't his wife that shot him, it was Reese.
3) "Walker pursues his money in a series of murders..." Few, if any, of the deaths, are directly caused by Walker. Reese is killed by accident, and three guys are killed by the sniper arranged by the Organisation. Walker may have some indirect responsibility for their deaths, but he doesn't actually kill any of them.
Does anyone agree / disagree with this ? If there are no objections, I will change the article accordingly. GeraldH 08:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
1) Firstly, it is Reese that shoots Walker to death in the prison cell at Alcatraz (see below).
2) According to Director John Boorman (in a retrospective discussion of Lee Marvin which I once saw on TV), Walker is a ghost. This, perhaps, is why he never actually kills anyone, and also explains why, when he confronts his ex, he never actually converses with her, but rather she "converses" with herself. ARog —Preceding unsigned comment added by ARog ( talk • contribs) 19:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:PointBlankPoster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 06:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:Primary, we discourage primary sources when there are reliable secondary sources which can be used instead. In this article, an editor keeps removing information sourced to an extremely reliable secondary source (the American Film Institute Catalog) in favor of less reliable primary sources (the film's credits and the film's poster).
Credits are left off of films and advertising for many reasons, anyone with the least bit of knowledge about the history of Hollywood films knows this to be true, so the film's credits and the film's poster are not the ultimate source for information. When an organization like AFI does research, and determines that someone one did a job they're not listed for, and they are confident enough about it to list it in their catalog, we go with them, because they are a better source and a secondary source, which is preferred, not a primary one. In the absence of very reliable secondary sources, there's nothing wrong with using the film and the poster as sources, but that's not the case here. BMK ( talk) 00:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
You talk about editorial judgment. I don't know why you're trying to prove the credits are wrong, but you have not demonstrated any reason for this. There is no evidence that there was any controversy here - that Irwin Winkler ever felt that he was wrongly denied a credit. I've seen no interviews to that effect, no articles. You are making a controversy where none exists. It's apparent with your six sources that they saw that Chartoff and Winkler later became producing partners, and so they decided to retroactively call Winkler a producer on this film for simplicity's sake even though he had no such credit on the film. Roman Spinner explained this type of AFI credit is not meant to be used as official like its Print Viewed By AFI pages are. And I don't see where any of them claim they did any research into this and decided Winkler was wrongly uncredited. Statements like Rocky was the foruth picture produced for US by Robert Chartoff and Irwin Winkler. Before US, the team produced Point Blank (1967), as you quoted it, are informal in nature, not declarations of official "Produced by" credit. They could just as well be referring to executive producers, and WP:CONSENSUS at WP:FILM is to not include executive producers in infoboxes. Many sources have said George Lucas produced the Star Wars films, but he is not listed as a producer in those films' infoboxes because he had executive producer credit. Wikipedia should not repeat informal statements as official credits. My editorial judgment tells me those sources do not collectively outweigh the film's credits, nor were they even trying to. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 14:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the issue of the novel's year in the infobox. The infobox is supposed to be simple and provide a quick summary of the film. So the details of the source material, including the year, would be better placed in the article lead not the infobox. Furthermore, Template:Infobox film states that for the based on field "Insert the title of the source material and the name(s) of the source material writer(s)". And according to Template:Based on, the based on field should work like this: ((based on|title of the original work|creator of the original work)) for example ((based on| Contact| Carl Sagan)). So the infobox should simply have the name of the novel and writer, i.e. ((based on| The Hunter| Richard Stark)). -- Wrath X ( talk) 07:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment I find the AFI to be a compelling source in these situations, especially if the British Film Institute is in agreement. However, upon consulting the BFI this is what I find: it only credits Judd Bernard and Robert Chartoff as the producers. It also lists two other names in a production capacity: Patricia Casey and Edward Woehler. Looking up each individual name in the BFI database casts some more light on the matter:
According to the BFI there are only two people with the producer credit. Winkler only seems to be involved at the production level through his partnership with Judd Bernard, who is a credited producer. Obviously there is discord between secondary sources, but Winkler's role as a producer seems to be far from unanimously agreed on unlike the two other producers. Since the BFI is in agreement with the primary source (the film) I think this is what we should go with. There is a difference between someone holding a producer credit (which is essentially what the infobox is for) and someone being part of a production partnership (which seems to be the case here). There is no way to know for sure exactly what role Winkler had (none of the sources put forward in the article or the BFI elaborate), but given the disagreement between the sources I think the best course of action is to leave him out unless we can find a source that can explicitly clarify this either way. Betty Logan ( talk) 18:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From my memory, there seem to be a number of flaws in the description of the plot.
1) "Walker...shot by his adulterous wife" I didn't think it was certain that they were actually married.
2) I thought it wasn't his wife that shot him, it was Reese.
3) "Walker pursues his money in a series of murders..." Few, if any, of the deaths, are directly caused by Walker. Reese is killed by accident, and three guys are killed by the sniper arranged by the Organisation. Walker may have some indirect responsibility for their deaths, but he doesn't actually kill any of them.
Does anyone agree / disagree with this ? If there are no objections, I will change the article accordingly. GeraldH 08:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
1) Firstly, it is Reese that shoots Walker to death in the prison cell at Alcatraz (see below).
2) According to Director John Boorman (in a retrospective discussion of Lee Marvin which I once saw on TV), Walker is a ghost. This, perhaps, is why he never actually kills anyone, and also explains why, when he confronts his ex, he never actually converses with her, but rather she "converses" with herself. ARog —Preceding unsigned comment added by ARog ( talk • contribs) 19:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:PointBlankPoster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 06:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:Primary, we discourage primary sources when there are reliable secondary sources which can be used instead. In this article, an editor keeps removing information sourced to an extremely reliable secondary source (the American Film Institute Catalog) in favor of less reliable primary sources (the film's credits and the film's poster).
Credits are left off of films and advertising for many reasons, anyone with the least bit of knowledge about the history of Hollywood films knows this to be true, so the film's credits and the film's poster are not the ultimate source for information. When an organization like AFI does research, and determines that someone one did a job they're not listed for, and they are confident enough about it to list it in their catalog, we go with them, because they are a better source and a secondary source, which is preferred, not a primary one. In the absence of very reliable secondary sources, there's nothing wrong with using the film and the poster as sources, but that's not the case here. BMK ( talk) 00:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
You talk about editorial judgment. I don't know why you're trying to prove the credits are wrong, but you have not demonstrated any reason for this. There is no evidence that there was any controversy here - that Irwin Winkler ever felt that he was wrongly denied a credit. I've seen no interviews to that effect, no articles. You are making a controversy where none exists. It's apparent with your six sources that they saw that Chartoff and Winkler later became producing partners, and so they decided to retroactively call Winkler a producer on this film for simplicity's sake even though he had no such credit on the film. Roman Spinner explained this type of AFI credit is not meant to be used as official like its Print Viewed By AFI pages are. And I don't see where any of them claim they did any research into this and decided Winkler was wrongly uncredited. Statements like Rocky was the foruth picture produced for US by Robert Chartoff and Irwin Winkler. Before US, the team produced Point Blank (1967), as you quoted it, are informal in nature, not declarations of official "Produced by" credit. They could just as well be referring to executive producers, and WP:CONSENSUS at WP:FILM is to not include executive producers in infoboxes. Many sources have said George Lucas produced the Star Wars films, but he is not listed as a producer in those films' infoboxes because he had executive producer credit. Wikipedia should not repeat informal statements as official credits. My editorial judgment tells me those sources do not collectively outweigh the film's credits, nor were they even trying to. - Gothicfilm ( talk) 14:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the issue of the novel's year in the infobox. The infobox is supposed to be simple and provide a quick summary of the film. So the details of the source material, including the year, would be better placed in the article lead not the infobox. Furthermore, Template:Infobox film states that for the based on field "Insert the title of the source material and the name(s) of the source material writer(s)". And according to Template:Based on, the based on field should work like this: ((based on|title of the original work|creator of the original work)) for example ((based on| Contact| Carl Sagan)). So the infobox should simply have the name of the novel and writer, i.e. ((based on| The Hunter| Richard Stark)). -- Wrath X ( talk) 07:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment I find the AFI to be a compelling source in these situations, especially if the British Film Institute is in agreement. However, upon consulting the BFI this is what I find: it only credits Judd Bernard and Robert Chartoff as the producers. It also lists two other names in a production capacity: Patricia Casey and Edward Woehler. Looking up each individual name in the BFI database casts some more light on the matter:
According to the BFI there are only two people with the producer credit. Winkler only seems to be involved at the production level through his partnership with Judd Bernard, who is a credited producer. Obviously there is discord between secondary sources, but Winkler's role as a producer seems to be far from unanimously agreed on unlike the two other producers. Since the BFI is in agreement with the primary source (the film) I think this is what we should go with. There is a difference between someone holding a producer credit (which is essentially what the infobox is for) and someone being part of a production partnership (which seems to be the case here). There is no way to know for sure exactly what role Winkler had (none of the sources put forward in the article or the BFI elaborate), but given the disagreement between the sources I think the best course of action is to leave him out unless we can find a source that can explicitly clarify this either way. Betty Logan ( talk) 18:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)