Talk:Brokeback Mountain/Archive 3

Controversy in Alberta, Canada

This film was shot in Alberta, which is by far the most conservative province in Canada. I know this film generated quite a bit of controversy in the areas where the movie was shot. While most residents of the rural locations were excited to have their home depicted in a major motion picture, controvery developed when word leaked out about the nature of the film. I don't have any specific sources for this information though. If anyone knows more about the controvery surrounding the actual filming of this movie, please add it to the article.

Request for Comments: "lust" vs. "physical attraction"

Link to RfC page: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature

Regarding this passage in the "Plot" section:

>Through it all, Ennis and Jack struggle with societal and family pressure, and their own fears that prevent them from fulfilling the love and physical attraction that captured them both during their first summer together.

Is the phrase "love and physical attraction" sufficient or does the word "lust" need to be substituted as per a user today? By all accounts, and as is certainly obvious to anyone viewing the movie, the two protagonists of the film are in love. Why is it necessary to replace "love and physical attraction" with "lust" except for reasons of a POV agenda that gay people can't fall in love? Comments requested. Thank you.

Note: the addition of "physical attraction" was my attempt to compromise, but User:Druidictus continued to revert and add the word "lust." Moncrief 21:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Lust means physical attraction, no?--Urthogie 21:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"Lust" carries more implied negativity than "physical attraction". The latter strikes me as an appropriate compromise.

Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 21:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No, not really. Lust is a vice (at least in a religious context), something purely carnal and without connotations of love. Moncrief 21:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Lust has negation connotations; see dictionary.com[1] ex. "self-indulgent sexual desire" and "sinful longing." It's unnecessarily POV. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 21:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the phrase can be refined – "erotic and companionate love", or "consummate love"? Love entails numerous aspects: erotic love, platonic love, familial love, et al. Lust refers merely to the former and has numerous connotations (e.g., even one of the deadly sins, no?), and excludes (even debases) other types which are arguably at play in BBM. My two cents ... E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it appears clear enough to me that we aren't taking about platonic or familial love in this context, with the phrase "fall in love" earlier in the section. Moncrief 21:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You and I may believe that, but it's never a bad idea to clarify or reiterate what are complex concepts. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you think "physical attraction" clarifies the sentence sufficiently, or do extra words need to be added? Moncrief 21:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with just calling it love? User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That would absolutely be my first choice and I think it is the best descriptor. I was trying to find compromise with a user who kept adding in the word "lust." My druthers would be to revert back to simply "love." ("physical attraction" tends to be obvious and a given when it's already been stated that two people have fallen in love - unless we want to go to the plethora of articles on here about love stories and add in "physical attraction"? :) Moncrief 21:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That might do and I generally agree, but is it too overarching? Like I said, a rephrase might be in order. As above, even "physical and emotional love" or similar might do? Also, perhaps replace "captured" with "captivated"? :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Feelings? I'm not sure you can fulfill love nor lust although it may be fun trying. MeltBanana 22:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The objection, as I read it, was to stating that circumstances inhibited their love. Whatshisname was technically correct in that regard -- love is nominally intangible, can't be hindered, etc et al. It's probably obvious to anyone reading that the objection was just an effort to take the word "love" off a page about a fictional relationship between two gay men -- ie, agenda pushing by someone offended by love between two males.

That said, if it'll put an end to the back-and-forth over this word, I'm OK with "physical attraction" being tacked on, though it seems a bit silly -- we're not really here to quibble over the nature of romance, and I thought the original language was just fine. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 22:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If there's consensus, which I'm not rushing, I'd like to go back to simply "love." As I said, "physical attraction" was added as a potential compromise, but it is a bit silly, and probably impossible to "fulfill." Moncrief 22:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with just "love". It's a love story, so it is understood by anyone who knows what a love story is what the word "love" entails. --Chesaguy 22:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd support inclusion of "love" as standalone if you can logically address User:Druidictus' objection -- perhaps by changing "prevent them from fulfilling the love and physical attraction" to "complicate the love and physical attraction". After all, I doubt anyone would argue against the assertion that you can *complicate* love, thus neutralizing the objection that gave rise to the insertion of "lust".

Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 22:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

In case it wasn't obvious, I am in support of just "love" or at most "love and physical attraction." I think Moncrief's comparison to Romeo and Juliet was a salient point; do we insert this type of semantic disctinction between love and lust in every love story? "Falling in love" connotes the physical as well as the emotional for most adults. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 22:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with 'love' and 'love and physical attraction' as a compromise if necessary. I think that lust is POV for the reasons stated above, and I think that 'erotic and companionate love' is equally POV. -- Adz|talk 23:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

While I prefer the simple term above as well, remember the proposals above were conciliatory attempts to address the multivaried (and perhaps ambiguous) nature of the term "love". Arguably, descriptions of any emotion are POV. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I prefer just "love", no "physical attraction". "Lust" is generally derogatory. I don't think it's really necessary to break the characters' relationship down into various components. For example, the article for Guinevere mentions her "love affair" with Lancelot, but doesn't say that it had both emotional and physical aspects to it. I also don't think it's particularly relevant to the movie or the article. If the movie was exactly the same, but these two characters never consummated their love physically, would it really be all that significant a change? eaolson 01:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It should just be "love"-- lust has negative connotations in many contexts, and clearly in this one or there wouldn't be any dispute. "Physical attraction" is (though I understand the reasons it was offered) just a plain silly compromise that would open a question on all kinds of past and future articles. That this wouldn't even be a question were the film a depiction of a heterosexual relationship should make the POV agenda of "lust" clear. --ChrisLott 23:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above. It should just be "love". 18:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I also like Adrian Lamo's "complicate the love that..." or just a revert to the original "fulfilling the love...." The "physical attraction" add-on attempt to compromise is really weak, the more I think about it, and should be removed at some point relatively soon I think, as there seems to be no consensus to keep it and definitely no consensus at all that "lust" is needed. Moncrief 10:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What about something along these lines: Brokeback Mountain tells the story of Ennis Del Mar (Ledger) and Jack Twist (Gyllenhaal), two poor young men who meet and fall in love on a sheep herding job on Wyoming's (fictional) Brokeback Mountain in the summer of 1963. The film follows their lives over the next two decades and documents their complex relationship, which continues after both marry women and father children. Jack wants to try to create a life together, but Ennis, who is haunted by a childhood memory, fears being ostracized by his family or killed by members of the community if he and Jack were to live with each other. Often, they are only able to contact one another by sending postcards. Through it all, Ennis and Jack struggle with societal and family pressure, and their own fears that prevent them from fulfilling the emotion and feeling that captured them both, for their entire lifetimes, during their first summer together. 144.35.254.12 23:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No, that sounds clumsier, more awkward, and less precise to me. And please don't change it again until we've had a chance to agree that consensus has been reached. Thanks. Moncrief 23:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"Love". Just plain "Love". Love has a multitude of meanings which all fit in this context. "... Ennis and Jack struggle with societal and family pressure, and their own fears that prevent them from fulfilling the love that captured them both" is perfect BECAUSE it uses a vague term like love. One of the themes of the movie is what their love means. That is part of what I love about this movie, it makes the audience think about what love is. -- Samuel Wantman 00:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have a consensus to revert back simply to "fulfilling the love..." Can we agree to change it back now? I don't necessarily want to be the one to do it because I responded most vociferously to the initial addition of "lust," but I think it's time someone change it back; this is pretty clear consensus. Moncrief 02:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

How can you have true consensus when you block the opposition out? The original sentence implied that the story characters were restricted in their love which wasn't true, they were only restricted in a sub group of the various meanings within love and that was the context that results in lust. This poor context still exists in the revised version.

This situation goes to show that Wikipedia isn't a real wiki database as there are factions that dominate public input. I changed the context of the sentence to perfect string and then find it being changed back to the one with less validity, then to be banned for 24 hours since I overrode a moderator from changing to the worse sentence, great isn't it. Druidictus 10:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where someone misrepresented your words or comments (provide a diff perhaps?), but you weren't blocked for "overriding a moderator", you were blocked for violating a longstanding Wikipedia policy, as you well know, and you are misrepresenting the truth. User:Moncrief, the "moderator" you were disagreeing with received the same block for the exact same reason. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 10:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

How could he User:Moncrief, as he's been posting. If he was blocked then I would agree it's fair, but there seems no proof of that. BTW I modified quickly my post previous, before seeing yours. Druidictus 10:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

His ban was 24 hours long, the exact same length as yours, and once his ban was lifted he could edit again, as could you. I provided the proof of his block in my post... it's a big long blue link saying "received the same block for the exact same reason". --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 10:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well he must have had a different 24 hour time shift than I as he was able to edit after I was blocked. Druidictus 10:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes that is true. I blocked him about 50 minutes after I blocked you. Your case was clear cut, 4 exact same reverts. Moncriefs was somewhat different, and I discussed it with others before deciding, in fairness that you should both be blocked. -- Samuel Wantman 10:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

To get back to the issue of love. I don't understand how you can say that the only physical manifestation of love is lust. They were restricted to showing their love for each other publicly. Love is more than just the feelings you hold inside. One reason this movie was so effective was that it showed how difficult it was for them to hold these feelings inside. Holding emotions inside is one of Ang Lee's trademarks and a big theme in Chinese culture. -- Samuel Wantman 10:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I am honestly trying to understand what Druidictus means by "restricted." He's using the word in an odd way, and I'm having difficulty understanding what he's trying to say. Can someone help translate if they think they understand? Moncrief 13:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If I may throw in my two cents as well, I think saying anything other than "love" is silly, redundant, and (perhaps worst of all) plain old bad writing. The article for "Titanic" doesn't specify that Jack and Rose felt "physical attraction" for one another. There is no need to add this phrase as it can be taken as a given in a story about adults that "fall in love", and "lust" is just insulting in this context. KGiles 06:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"$25 million in ticket sales"

imdb says 50.8 million. I went to the site of the quote and it's dated today. Is she talking out of her hat? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

$50 million + is correct. I just realized you were talking about an old quote on the main page. You're right that the quote should be dated because at the time the quote was uttered, $25 was might have been the correct figure, but isn't any longer. EDIT: I just re-read your comment. Really?? That $25 mln comment has been on the page a while. It's hard for me to understand how it could be "dated today." Moncrief 22:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry. When I clicked on the link, the date at the top of the page says January 30, but the article itself says January 17. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I added this: This assertion was made on January 17. By January 30, Imdb was reporting gross sales of over $50 million.. I have no problem if somebody wants to reword that. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well, I see somebody removed it without explanation. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Complete list of awards

This is misleading. It did not win the SAG Award for Best Male Actor. It was nominated. Nowhere is a nomination separate from a win. This list needs to be refactored. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean put "Nominations" in a separate section rather than as a subsection? Because the SAG is listed only as a nomination, not in the Awards column. If your point is to make "Nominations" a wholly separate section and not a sub-section, I think that's a good idea. Moncrief 22:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I skimmed right past the "nominations" section heading, it's the same size as the text surrounding it.  :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The list of awards is simply overwhelming — do we really have to list every single award that it was nominated for? In addition, I don't see the point of listing a nomination if it failed to succeed at winning the award, of course, unless it was a Golden Globe or an Oscar (have those nominations even become public yet?). Honestly, it needs to be sliced, and if no one decides to proceed to trimming it, I am going to have to do it myself. The thing about the list is that I've never even heard some of the award ceremonies listed let alone even realized that the film was nominated. Is one really going to want to know which films it lost to at a clip-ceremony held in Cameroon? I'm not so sure about this. Any suggestions concerning my thoughts? —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Restored the awards section and the lead; I'm afraid you were just a bit too bold there Equinox. Remember, Wikipedia is not paper. WP:NOT We have room for the entire (encyclopedic, if you will) list of awards and nominations. Certainly any of the organizations or awards that are notable enough to have WP articles (as most do) should be kept. Also, before swooping in with major rewrites, please note the talk page conversations and debates (e.g. not 'gay comboys') and realize that the article was being tended quite carefully by regular editors before you happened on it. You started the discussion here (good) but acted before any responses (not so good). AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 22:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather shocked at what you did, Eternal Equinox. Those sorts of changes aren't going to stand without substantial negotation and discussion here (and even then not, but at least you have to make the attempt). Moncrief 22:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The lead section was rewritten because its writing was not to my liking — I am taken back that it was reverted in its entirety. I am considering whether or not I should revert it to what I had written. Regarding the awards, there are simply far too many listed, and some need to be trimmed or removed. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Your re-write was much poorer than the current version, both in terms of syntax and level of information. Moreover, why would we exclude awards won from a full list of awards? That is counter-intuitive. Moncrief 22:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that my re-write was poorer, IMO. The reason I wanted some of the awards delisted is because they take up half the article. If we wanted to nominate this for FAC, do you believe that other contributers would like to see an article that is made up of a huge list alongside an equal amount of information? —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You've already been reminded that Wikipedia is not paper. Hash out your potential revisions here rather than unilaterally changing the article. It's been worked on by a number of people for a very long time. Moncrief 23:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

They are NOT, for example, cowboys. A better descriptor is the one in the article now. It's been worked on and debated in this Talk section. Read through it first. Moncrief 23:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. Also, I reverted to my previous edit only once, so please do not use the words "unilaterally changing the article". I've replaced the {{endspoilers}} tag that you removed without explanation, and wikified the information box. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

They are not cowboys? I suppose that I've been editing the wrong article then or I completely misunderstood the film itself. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see the "Cowboys" section of this very Talk page for a detailed description of why "cowboys" was not chosen as the preferred descriptor. It helps if you actually read through Talk pages before making major changes. Moncrief 23:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I was aware of, they were cowboys. But I'm not going to attempt to make any changes or compromise right now; that will come later. For now, I've submitted this article to peer review as I believe that it needs it. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you even bother reading the old comments? I used to work on a cattle ranch, and the distinctive thing about cowboys is that they work with COWS. Annie Proulx herself said they were not cowboys, except in the general sense in which most people in the West are somewhat caught up in the cowboy myth. But these were low-level ranch hands working on a sheep herding ranch. They were closer to shepherds than cowboys.

But if you had bothered reading anything before acting, you would have known that. Also, it's extremely childish and un-Wiki to retaliate against individuals who reverted your ignorant changes by flagging an article. I hope that doesn't sound ad hominem, I'm just trying to be descriptive.Aroundthewayboy 18:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have made some minor changes to the lead section, including 2005 in film, which appears in other film articles that were released in 2005 (or other articles released in different years). —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There are probably many hundreds thousands of awards this film could (and may) be nominated for and win, and a line has to be drawn as to whether an award is notable enough to be listed here. I award this movie the "Nohat Film Of The Year" award for 2005, but my award is not notable and does not deserve to be mentioned in the article. I hope that everyone agrees that some minimal standard of notability has to be applied. I propose that we systematically apply a criterion that if there is a Wikipedia article about the award, then it can be listed. If there is no Wikipedia article about the award, then it should not be listed. This criterion is good because it draws a clear line between what should and shouldn't be included, avoiding endless debates about whether some particular award is notable enough to be included. Implementation is simple: awards that are redlinks should be removed. It is fair because it applies an external standard of notability—the Wikipedia standard for retention of articles. It is also robust because it is not subject to manipulation—if someone creates articles for all the tiny, unimportant awards, they will probably be listed on AfD and deleted. Nohat 07:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, another potential criterion, which I just thought up, which would limit the field of awards even more, but would ensure that important awards stayed present, would be to only include awards that someone who was involved with making the movie (director, cast, etc.) was present at the awarding of the award to receive. This would be harder to verify, but I think it is an excellent way to ensure that only truly important awards took up space in the article, creating better balance in the article. On a related topic, I think the article could use a more elaborated summary of the plot. Nohat 07:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Since no one seems to have any opinions strong enough about this to register them, I'm going to go ahead and remove all redlinked awards to this page. Nohat 19:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are the removed awards and nominations. If any of them become blue links, they can be put back:

Removed awards

• London Film Critics:** Film of the Year, Director of the Year (Ang Lee), Actor of the Year (Heath Ledger), Screenwriter (Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana)
• Satellite Awards: Outstanding Actor in a Motion Picture - Drama (Heath Ledger), Outstanding Actor in a Supporting Role - Drama, Outstanding Screenplay - Adapted (Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana), Outstanding Original Score (Gustavo Santaolalla)
• St. Louis Gateway Film Critics Association: (Runner-up) Best Supporting Actress (Michelle Williams|), (Runner-up) Best Cinematography or Visual Effects
• USC Scripter Award: Best Screenplay - Adapted (Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana)
• Utah Film Critics: (1st Runner-up) Best Actor (Heath Ledger)
• Washington Area Film Critics: Best Film, Best Director (Ang Lee), Best Actor (Heath Ledger), Best Supporting Actress (Michelle Williams), Best Adapted Screenplay (Larry McMurty and Diana Ossana)

Release date in lead section

SamuelWantman removed the release date information from the lead section. Could I ask under what circumstances? There are several films with "(see ???? in film)" in the lead section. Also, in my opinion, it would be a bit unusual not to include the release date as it supplies an important basis for the film's debut distribution to the general audience. Who disagrees with my statement? —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement. It's not the purpose of an introduction to be overly detailed and to provide non-essential information that is included elsewhere in the article (including nearby in the infobox). The "See:" stuff is also highly distracting, in my opinion. Introductions should be streamlined and contain just the most important information. The fact that the movie was released on a specific date in three American cities (which is what happened on Dec. 9) is not important enough to make it into the lead. If you really want a link to 2005 in film from the intro, it doesn't need a "See:" referent. You can imbed it in "2005" in the "2005 film" reference. Moncrief 00:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this as a big deal. I did some previous edits to the lead paragraph to remove superfluous information that is covered elsewhere in the article. At that time, the lead paragraph had become four. The lead paragraph should cover the essential information of the film. Its limited release on a specific date is just not a very notable piece of information for the lead, and is already mentioned elsewhere. --Samuel Wantman 00:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It has only been a few hours since I began editing this article, but I can already see that territory has been marked here. All right. You can edit the article without my interfering, although I will add information when the time is right or when something new is released to the press. Keep up the good work! I'll begin editing the other articles I have an interest in. I hope the peer review goes well and this article can become featured one day. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Equinox, it's not about marking territory, it's about understanding that very active, high-profile articles have a history, often contentious, and over time reach an equilibrium. Those articles, including BBM, have regular editors who work to constantly improve the article and usually do so through well-justified edits, efforts to reach consensus, and often, cautious, incremental improvements.

Here, beyond the talk page debates over certain issues that rose to "controversial" status you'll find significant documentation in the edit history comments where, not infrequently, the change of a single word was accompanied by an edit summary of a dozen words justifying it. Changes like these demonstrate a pattern of editing where every word and every phrase is evaluated and considered in an effort to convey meaning precisely and without POV.

BBM editors are also on constant watch against vandalism and POV-pushing because the subject matter makes it a frequent target for both. To jump into such an article with major changes because "its writing was not to my liking" without adding prose that was obviously and dramatically better was inviting conflict (and a revert). That being said, I think I can speak for everyone in saying that thoughtful, well-considered editing is more than welcome. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 06:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)