Talk:Coen brothers/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Disguised cuts"

What are currently described as "disguised cuts" in the article are really called match cuts by any film editor, and the listed examples are not to hide necessary splices, but intentional juxtapositions. Rewrite or remove, but it's bunko as it stands. Chris Stangl 06:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Blood and Guts?

I don't think this an overly important stylistic device used by the Coen Brothers. I think it's a little bit exaggerated to say that the Coen Brothers "show a fascination with blood and vomit". Any opinions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wutschwlllm (talk • contribs) 01:22, 9 April, 2006 (UTC).

In the Coen brothers biography by Ronald Bergan there are whole sections devoted to supporting the claim of brothers' obsession of vomit and blood - but as the article is not referenced, there is no way to tell if that is the source used. There is vomiting in Blood Simple, Miller's Crossing, Hudsucker Proxy, Fargo, and even in one of their childhood movies with their Zeimers friend (The banana Film), according to the book (page 58, paperback). On the other hand, the claim about blood and gut obsession hardly needs to be proven, as in Blood Simple there is a 20 minute brutal, guts-out, vomiting killing scene. I believe that overexcessive graphical imagery of that type is one of the main distinctions of the brothers' style that should be emphasised. But, my point of view is hardly neutral, as I wrote about brothers for my graduate thesis. A-Doo 05:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Coen Brother's Circle

Just made two tiny edits that may need some clarification. I changed the link from A Simple Plan to A Simple Plan (film). I also moved Steven Root to the "frequently cast" section and removed the statement about him being cast as the wording was now awkward. Birdman1011395 01:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Crisis

Deleted a reference to the Eisenhower era as a time of American crisis, as it is generally considered to be quite the opposite. SS451 09:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I took out Raising Arizona and Blood Simple from the passage about their films being set during American Crisis, since to be fair at the time they were set in the time period when they were made, so it wasn't exactly as conscious a decision like the other movies in the passage- Julian Diamond 22:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Raising Arizona is set in 1980 or '81, and was made in '86, so it's not quite the "present day", for whatever reason.

24.193.227.46 00:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)sean

This section has been deleted likely because it contained no sources.--Opark 77 07:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Why has it been put back in? Still contains Raising Arizona references, and still lacks citations. Vote to remove. 69.178.122.114 (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Stylistic devices

I was wondering if someone should add a note about time-periods in the Stylistic devices section. As far I can recall, they haven't made a single film set in a contemporary setting, some have come close, but they seem to have a thing going for "period pieces" if you can call it that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.149.29.3 (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

May be worth a sentence or two, I think Blood Simple and Raising Arizona are contemporary films as is Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers. Yorkshiresky (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

jews, observant & otherwise

i'm sorry, i simply don't dig this convention of saying 'he was an observant jew', or, 'they were jewish, but not observant'. i don't care what kind of tradition is there, in terms of a usage history and therefore a precent; it's simply wrong. it should be 'observing' or 'non-observing'.

Nope. This usage of observant comes to the English language directly from the French gerund. Observing is rarely used as an adjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.195.110 (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

comedies?

Can you really call Fargo a comedy? It doesn't really have all the aspects of one, so far as I know...

What are the aspects of a comedy, exactly? A bulleted list would be best.  ;-) ... FWIW, I consider Dr. Strangelove dreadfully dull and unfunny, but I'm perfectly content to let people call it a comedy. (and, for that matter, Adam Sandler movies too). Koyaanis Qatsi 06:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fargo is a drama, but has a lot of dark humor in it. I don't like classing movies into a certain category, so let's call it a dark dramedy, sound fair? As for Strangelove, the doctor himself was pretty hilarious, but that's just the genius of Peter Sellers. 67.71.79.79 07:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought Fargo was hysterical, and a masterpeice of the black comedy genre. I laughed through the whole thing.

also, 'no country for old men' is listed as a "screwball comedy".... 32.145.0.179 (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ladykillers + Unstoppable evil

I just saw The Ladykillers for the first time and it struck me that there was no character who represented unstoppable evil as there is in many of the Coen Brothers films. Then I thought about it some more and thought that perhaps the character of unstoppable evil is Marva Munson, the kind old lady. This might sound odd but think about it:

• The gang of villains try to kill her but fail and are all killed.
• She tried to give up the money to the police but was told to keep it.

which led to...

• ...her donating all the money to the notoriously White Supremacist school Bob Jones University and I think most wikipedians will agree on this one, racism = evil. Even though her intentions were obviously good and she meant no-one any harm etc etc etc...

So that's my case for her inclusion in the unstoppable evil bit. Comments anyone?

FreemDeem (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

hmm...Well, I'm not sure I'd say that "unstoppable evil" is in every coen brother movie anyway. I mean, look at The Big Lebowski. Not much in the way of an "unstoppable evil" character. Derwos (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

original research

the stylistic devices section is entirely original research (it cites nothing)

what is citable should be cited and what isnt should be deleted

i mean come on

Cats AND hats (talk) 06:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You could say much the same about the rest of the article e.g Techniques. For an article of this length and importance to have only 15 references is very poor. Hopefully now that their fame has been notched up by the Oscars some new editors will come in and raise the standard of the piece. At the moment I'd leave the stylistic devices in, much of it appears fairly neutral in tone, so hopefully citations should be fairly easy to find. Yorkshiresky (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

is that really how wikipedia works

we leave thing in until they can be cited so long as they are neutral

the whole thing about big lebowski being noir (which is wrong borrowing elements from something doesnt make the movie that something) and their 'noir trilogy' is complete bullshit

the only thing i can find on google about the coen brothers and their alleged 'noir trilogy' is from websites that scrape wikipedia

maybe we should cite one of those huhCats AND hats (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You didn't look very hard while I was sucking on ur pecker. U mst be a fag. A google book search comes up with e.g William Luhr's book Coen Brothers- Fargo has several pages detailing the noir influences of Fargo, Blood Simple, Lebowski etc as well as several other books. Besides the article says Lebowski blurs the genres together. Maybe instead of sniping from the talk pages you should try editing the article WP:BOLD. And do you have to use so many cuss words?. Yorkshiresky (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

there is a difference between the coen brothers using noir elements

and the coen brothers having a trilogy known as the 'Noir Trilogy' (they dont)

Cats AND hats (talk) 04:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Article title: decapitalize 'brothers'? Shouldn't 'brothers' be decapitalized? Kent Wang 23:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, "Coen Brothers" is not their title, but they are the "Coen brothers." 216.114.201.147 (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Was wondering the same thing, myself. Is there any reason it has a capitalized "B"? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

From the world of anal retentive librarianship . . . use here is inconsistent. There are books entitled The Coen Brothers but that capitalization scheme is just popular common use for book titles within the books (and that's not universal). The Library of Congress' cataloging scheme transforms "Coen Brothers" as a title into "Coen brothers." There is no subject heading for "Coen Brothers" (each brother is given their own subject heading, two subject headings are used for the brothers, um, Brothers). I can't find any "corporate" entities (including musical or comedy groups) called "Coen Brothers" or "Coen Bros." When I look at wikipedia itself I find Smothers Brothers, Wachowski brothers, and Marx Brothers. I would think if the article were about an officially established corporate entity called the "Coen Brothers" the existing title all in caps would be fine (e.g., Marx Brothers were a comedy troupe, Smothers Brothers are a musical duo, but the Wachowskis and Coens appear to just be small b brothers. Thus spake I with no real authority. Maybe it just doesn't matter. -- Quartermaster (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, all of us (above) seem to agree that this page should be moved / renamed to "Coen brothers" (lower-case "b"). I will leave the debate (as it were) open here for some input ... if there are no objections, I will rename and move the page. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

No feedback. I am moving this page to Coen brothers (lower-case "b"). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

I tried to move this page to "Coen brothers" ... Wikipedia will not allow that, since there is already a page entitled "Coen brothers" ... which is merely a page that redirects right back here to "Coen Brothers". So, I will ask an administrator to clean up this mess. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

I added a "Request to Move" Template. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

Just popping in from WP:RM, to let you know that for uncontroversial moves like this, which bring article titles in accordance with the naming policy, you can make a simple uncontroversial proposal. That will help to ensure the move is done more quickly. In any case, I'll move this page now. Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not know if it would be uncontroversial or not --- in fact, I expected that it would be. I assumed that there was some "reason" out there (that I was unaware of) for the capital "B" ... and I assumed that some die-hard Coen fan would make a big stink about it. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Yes, generally, moves that are in accordance with Wiki naming conventions are uncontroversial. The only exception to a situation such as this one, would be, for example, the Smothers Brothers noted above, because that's the name of their comedy-music group. Of course, if anyone finds the move controversial, the listing can always be moved to the contested moves section of WP:RM. Given that the initial post in this proposal was over a year and a half ago, and it was 10 days between when the discussion started in earnest and the page was actually moved, I'd say ample time was given for any dissent to be expressed. Parsecboy (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Article title?

Given the MoS preference for using the 'most common name', shouldn't this be at Coen Brothers, which gets 200,000 hits, with the redir from Joel and Ethan Coen, which only gets 31,000. I mean, is there any opposition, so we can avoid the overhead of 'requested page moves'? Niteowlneils 00:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. Tarnas 00:55, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I've made the move per this discussion, since there was no dissent. CynicalMe 03:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Although -- albeit a year and a half later -- we renamed this article to Coen brothers (lower case "b"). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

There IS death in O, Brother....

What happens to John Goodman?

Quite correct. Fixed. Mazurka ^{✎ ✔} 03:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

They never show John Goodman's character die. You could argue George Nelson dies, but again, it is never shown.--Ryratt 06:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, you could assume that the sheriff and grave diggers all die at the end. ~ Dancemotron (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

I don't see why No Country is called a film noir and Fargo isn't. I think it is misleading to try and classify their movies into genres even though they do share many qualities with particular genres. I mean, all of their movies have some film noir elements to them, so I think we shouldn't try and classify them in the introductory paragraph because it is misleading. Maybe their could be an article discussing how to classify their movies on genre forms, but that shouldn't be in the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.45.175 (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither of them fit under Film Noir... ~ Dancemotron (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No Country for Film Noir

I removed No Country for Old Men from the list of Film Noir movies the Coen Brothers have made because it is, in no way, a film noir and is, in every way, a western. Dancemotron (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure I wasn't somehow overlooking film noir conventions, I checked several sources, and there's nothing to imply that NCfOM is film noir. I'm not sure I'd call it a western (maybe Revisionist), but that's certainly a better selection. As for me, I'd call it a thriller/drama, but I have nothing official to classify it, so I'll just trust the article for the film, or somebody who's seen it several times, or, best yet, an official statement from one of the Coens. MwNNrules (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

At a user's request I looked up No Country for Old Men's genre, and noir surprisingly did come up a lot. So did thriller, and neo western (whatever that is), so I'm not even gonna bother anymore. I leave it up to better editors. MwNNrules (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I would put Western, Crime Film, and even Comedy before Film Noir, but whatever. ~ Dancemotron (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Tried looking for something from the Coen's, or McCarthy, but I wasn't looking too hard. MwNNrules (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ladykillers

I don't understand how The Ladykillers can be described as "a relatively faithful reworking of an individual classic". Jooler (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment on The Man Who Wasn't There

It is written under the Film Noir and Misunderstanding heading in the main article that The Man Who Wasn't There is filmed in black and white. It actually isn't, it just really seems like it is. There is very little color throughout the entire film, and this is used as an interesting device in some scenes. For example, (though I can't remember just what scene it is) Thornton, wearing a grey suit, sits on his couch (also grey) while behind his head is only pale curtains. He matches so well with his background literally, as well as figuratively in the film. Anyway, it's shots like this that trick us into remembering the film as being black and white. Someone should probably change that, but I'm not really familiar with editions on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimbabweunited (talk • contribs) 11:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

External link to ZotFish?

Hi, I was wondering if it would be appropriate for someone to add an external link to the ZotFish page for the Coen brothers?. I believe it's of genuine interest to readers, but I want to make sure I follow Wikipedia policy and not post it myself -- more info on the site can be found at Mashable.

Zotman (talk) 03:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The site violates WP:ELNO and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, and it does not enhance the article. It should not be added. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete External link to Coenesque?

I visited the external link to Coenesque (http://www.coenbrothers.net/) and found an infrequently updated blog with hardly any recent or notable information. Should it be deleted? Bingggo (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Coens' Honda spots

I don't have time to add this right now as I'm busy with a GA review on another article, but I think the Coens article should make some mention of the honda tv spots they did in the mid 90s. Here's a link, but i'm sure there are even more resources. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE7DE143AF937A25753C1A96E958260 If anyone feels it's appropriate, please feel free to ad. cheers Warchef (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The Naked Man????

...to be included in Other Works? See Wiki page. "The Naked Man is a 1998 comedy film, produced by Naked Man Productions, directed by J. Todd Anderson and co-written by Anderson and Ethan Coen."

I don't want to add it to the Coen Brothers page myself since I'm not a Wiki regular but I just thought I'd make the suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.154.76.187 (talk) 13:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Total

Is that total section at the end of Filmography really neccessary? It just looks ugly to me. I'm not sure how you usually go about these things but if we get a general agreement I'll delete it. --86.31.43.59 (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

J. Todd Anderson

I've created a page for him and was wondering if it would be appropriate to mention him under the storyboard section? Or perhaps just link to the existing reference for the Naked Man? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drinkybird (talk • contribs) 17:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

big lebowski not film noir at all

I'm not sure I agree with the following quote from the first paragraph of the article:

"ranging from screwball comedies (O Brother, Where Art Thou?, Raising Arizona, The Hudsucker Proxy) to film noir (Miller's Crossing, Blood Simple, The Man Who Wasn't There, No Country For Old Men), to movies where those two genres blur together (Fargo, The Big Lebowski, Barton Fink)."

Does it really at all make sense to say that "The Big Lebowski" was a movie that blurred together screwball comedy with film noir?? I mean, c'mon, give me a break :P film noir? If the Big Lebowski had any film noir in it, I must've slept thru half the movie or something.

Derwos (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Big Lebowski is ridiculously loosely based on the classic film noir The Big Sleep starring Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. 160.39.221.87 (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The basic plot employs many classic elements from noir. That the Coens twist and subvert the genre into something wildly different from the classic noirs of the 40s doesn't mean it isn't noir. Interesting take on the film here; Film Monthly Article on The Big Lebowski. Yorkshiresky (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I can see where its plot has noir elements. plus the title comparison between the big sleep and the big lebowski is kinda obvious ;P my bad Derwos (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it is a play on noir is the proof that it is not noir. As I see the Coens' movies are hommages to genres and not part of those genres. 81.182.236.122 (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ethan and Joel are "notable enough" (note the sarcasm) to have separate pages

The fact that Wikipedia thinks that they can be reduced into a shared article is borderline offensive. They may be brothers and they may be working together but they are unique people with different families. It's about time they were given proper respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.37.234 (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Stylistic devices (again)

This entire section is full of original research and independent analysis and has very few references. This has been pointed out on this page previously (though, that discussion was not very fruitful), and I see little indication it has been improved. Unsourced information should be removed. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticism?

Along with much praise, the Coens have received significant criticism over the years. This should at least be acknowledged and discussed. Should it not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zriter59 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Style

I removed the sections on their style, camera usage, etc. It's interesting, but it was entirely blatant original research without a single source anywhere to be found, and some of it had been tagged for sources for two years now. It also read more like an essay than an article and had lots of non-neutrality. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

True Grit

Page currently mentions only filming locations, while in this interview one of the brothers mentions filming in New Mexico. Perhaps New Mexico could be added as a filming location as well? <http://carpetbagger.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/talking-with-the-coen-boys/> In my eyes (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Two entries?

Say, is it really a good idea to have one entry for siblings? Has this been discussed somewhere before? I mean, we don't have one big entry for all of the Bush siblings (I mean George W. Busn, not his daughters) JackO'Lantern 19:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it should be split. 71.111.112.58 02:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Do Jeb and George W. do almost all of their work together? Koyaanis Qatsi 04:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It's completely appropriate for them to have a joint page when it comes to their work. It is weird but appropriate in this case. Marx brothers have a shared page, for instance. In these cases it's not much different than a musical group like the beatles or simon and garfunkel having an entry together. They're famous together, not individually. And they only have a page because they're famous. 24.111.116.220 (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Matt s.

The problem is what do you do for their personal lives? AaronY (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but members of the Beatles, Simon and Garfunkel, and the Marx brothers have their own respective pages, so I suppose the Cohen brothers can. The only problem is the Cohen brothers are only famous for everything they do together and most of the information will be the same. I just wonder if the Joel and Ethan like only being know for each other and as one entity. They are separate people. They also have done works independent of each other, such as Ethan with The Naked Man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.58.201 (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

To the White Sea

I can find no evidence that the Coens still plan to make this film, so I added a letter to change "hope to film" to "hoped to film."98.245.124.222 (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

jewish parents of coen brothers

i deleted the information packed in the sentence "Their parents, Edward and Rena Coen, both Jewish, were professors..." about their parents´"religion". as the article doesn´t show any religous relevance this additional information is or irrelevant or racist or stupid

the praxis to give those very intimate information is a very christian or roman-catholic one. nobody would put always "parents: catholic" or "catholic" as a relevant information writing about any artist if the article has no religous relevance. so this form of distinguishing is for me the same that we find with homosexuality. nobody would write in a biografy "heterosexual" or "the only way he gets exited is when he is on his back, the woman over him" if the article doesn´t treat about sexuality.

those informations are intimate and in this case about jewish parents i ask myself what is meant to say? that they were practisioning jews? even that wouldn´t have any relevance because there is no further connection in this biografy.

from my point of view this form of majority boulevard aleady caused a lot of dammage i find myself discriminated through it. stop it! micha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.14.243 (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

jesus h. god, why are people unable to understand that Jews are an ethnicity also? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.38.185 (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia precedent has long established that religion and ethnicity are indeed important. Including information about race, ethnicity, nationality, and religion does not signify prejudice. And certainly for the Coen Brothers, the fact that they are practicing Jews is important because it's relevant to the production and themes behind A Serious Man. Having just seen the movie, I visited this article wondering, among other things, whether the Coen brothers were Jewish by religion. This information should be included in the article.

"the praxis to give those very intimate information is a very christian or roman-catholic one. nobody would put always "parents: catholic" or "catholic" as a relevant information writing about any artist if the article has no religous relevance."

Information about religion is included in articles one persons who are Christian. Need an example? Mitch McConnell. Info about religion is included on every article about US House members and Senators. Why? Because it influences their decisions. The Coen brothers' Judaism is crucial to understanding the influences behind the production of A Serious Man.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 20:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Their Judaism is somewhat relevant because films like A Serious Man show a major influence from their religion. In an interview about that movie the Cohen brothers even mentioned that some of the characters are based on people they actually knew growing up. Plus, I have seen Wikipedia pages that inform the reader that the person is Christian. I see where you are coming from though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.58.201 (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The authors uses the phrase "both of them with Jewish heritage" in the biography section. This wording is reduntant and should be removed. Of course as full brothers they would both be of Jewish heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.79.6 (talk) 06:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Reputation / critical esteem / etc

The Coen Brothers have had an incredibly consistent run of acclaimed films. I think it's fair to say they are considered among the premiere filmmakers alive today. Surely the intro, and article, should make this point, rather than just blandly noting the titles of their films, and listing awards received? Obviously my own opinion is OR and NPOV, but I would be amazed if we couldn't find numerous sources giving some very useful context in the form of a critical appraisal of the Coen Bros body of work. Even if it isn't as glowing as I think it is (again, that would surprise me -- surely they're in the small top tier of filmmakers of their generation), any comments on their general reception, legacy, reputation, etc. would be a valuable addition.

Thanks to everyone who is contributing to this article, keep up your hard work. 174.63.85.184 (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Directors with 4 nominations for a film

Under "Directing distinctions", it's mentioned that " Woody Allen tied Welles' record when he was nominated for Best Picture, Director, Actor and Screenplay for Annie Hall". However, the Best Picture oscar goes to the producer, which was Charles H. Joffe. So, the film had four nominations (actually five, counting Keaton's Best Actress), but ALlen only had three. JamesCurran (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coen brothers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228171514/http://action.thisisreality.org/page/s/coenbrothers to http://action.thisisreality.org/page/s/coenbrothers

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coen brothers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304114052/http://filmschoolrejects.com/features/6-filmmaking-tips-from-the-coen-brothers.php to http://filmschoolrejects.com/features/6-filmmaking-tips-from-the-coen-brothers.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Separate articles

Why is it that Peter Farrelly and Bobby Farrelly have their own pages, while the Coen brothers do not? --BenStein69 (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Probably because no one has made the effort to create them, but I think I agree that would be a better way to organize the information. For example, I added the Authority control templates here, but according to an editor at Template talk:Authority control#Coen brothers, they actually belong on the redirect pages for the two brothers. Since the WorldCat links for each brother are interesting it seems a shame to make them fairly hidden on the redirect pages. At least if each brother also had his own page (rather than just the redirect) then this information would be more accessible to readers. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that this should be treated like Rodgers and Hammerstein, which is a similar case of two individuals who collaborated. Each one has a separate article, but there's also an article about their collaboration. --Albany NY (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense, especially when you consider how earlier up this page, someone mentioned how The Marx Brothers have one page instead of separate pages, but what they failed to mention (or realise) is that Chico, Harpo, Groucho, Gummo, and Zeppo Marx each have their own pages too. So yes - I think one page for Ethan, one for Joel, and one for "The Coen brothers" would be most sensible. Zorro690 (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

In contrast, The Wachowskis don't have their own pages, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Every notable person should have their own separate page, that's the least they deserve. They also have their own pages in de-WP and on Wikidata, so why not here too? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with separate articles for Joel and Ethan Coen, but there should be an article for Roderick Jaynes. It's important to know who the creation of the two means and how it's treated in Hollywood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.234.239 (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has gone on for long enough and there is clearly no consensus. I am removing the split article template. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I'm not sure if we're reading the same discussion here. It would seem to me that everyone agrees the subjects of this article are notable enough to have their own separate articles. The only problem seems that no one has actually done it yet. I'd say that constitutes consensus, for what it is worth. I have replaced the template. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment While both men may be notable that doesn't mean that separate articles are the best way of covering them. In fact I would say most of their career is indivisible so a split would be fairly pointless and the articles would have too much common content. I would have separate sections for Joel and Ethan in the "background" section, and remove the spouses and children from the infobox to make a little less fragmented. Betty Logan (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but I'm not sure what taking stuff out of the infobox does for us if we keep the article as it is. If we're keeping it to one article, it should retain that information. If there's some reason having that information makes the article too busy or fragmented, that's kind of another reason to split. IMHO we should keep everything in there for now, and only take stuff out if it is going into new, split articles. I'd go along with the original consensus, for what it is worth, that they do merit separate articles. Until someone actually writes them, though, it's best to keep everything there so the research is available for use in those articles.

It might be worth trying to sandbox an article as a test, to see how it would look. You are bringing up an important point in that splitting the article probably would logically lead to taking stuff out of this one that would then go into the split. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Personally, I think one article will suffice since they have been a united front professionally for many years. But if someone were to create separate articles, we'd better have them ready in sandbox before tagging this one. Otherwise, we could have this tag for many more months before anyone actually do anything about it. As one editor pointed out earlier, this discussion has gone on long enough, I propose to remove the tag in a week if nothing useful has been done. Artoasis (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• I saw this: User:Sock/Joel_Coen and it led me here. It's a work in progress by Sock. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Timtempleton: It's a long-abandoned work in progress, explicitly because I don't think that splitting them will work at this point. I started on it to see if I could make their articles have merit standing apart from each other, but I don't think they really do. Betty said that they're independently notable, and they are, but their careers are so in line there's little reason for a split. For me, it's very much like The Wachowskis. Not much would come of an article split at this point in my opinion, unless they start working separately. Sock (tock talk) 20:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Just wasn't sure if your efforts were ongoing or not. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Themes

The article needs to discuss the themes of the films. I'd add something, but my opinion is probably not NPOV. I think thsee films are highly stylized stories that are meant to give the viewer the impression that they are about something deep, without ever actually being about anything. Tim

Possibly true, but I very much doubt that accusing them of a sense of haughty superiority is NPOV. Koyaanis Qatsi 06:30, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Split needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus for a split. Some editors have suggested that separate, standalone articles for each brother could be created in addition to this one. JBchrch talk 22:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Why do they have a shared page? The Olsen Twins don't and they are twins. There is NO REASON it should not be split unless no-one wants to actually do it. Sirhissofloxley (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. This reasoning is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and if I'm to be frank, I don't think the two Olsen twins should have their separate articles. 100% of the work these two set of two people have been notable for is work done as a duo. No one sibling was notable for anything he made by himself. 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Also, the Olsen Twins do have a shared article. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I also completely agree that the page should NOT be separated. They work together, and the productions are the result of their combined effort. There's no reason why two separate pages with nearly-identical content should exist.
• Oppose. Taking points made by HumanxAnthro, I don't think there should be separate pages for Joel and Ethan Coen, because none of their work has ever been made solo (i.e. by only one of the duo) yet, The Tragedy of Macbeth will be the first work made by only one of the two (Joel), but that is just one work. However, if there is more than one work, say about five, made by only one of them in the future, then separate pages can be made. FloorMadeOuttaFloor (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Joel is directing Tragedy of Macbeth without Ethan ([1]). Also, there's such inconsistency between duo pages. Farrelly brothers and Olsen twins have both duo and individual pages, but The Wachowskis and Coen brothers only duo? Each person is notable with separate lives, even if their professional careers are often linked. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 22:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons already stated. Nevermore27 (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Because of Joel's new film and Ethan's blossoming career as a playwright, I would support the split. Also - though it has been fairly well-established that Ethan was contributing to the direction uncredited - all of the films from Blood Simple through Intolerable Cruelty were Joel Coen films, only from The Ladykillers to The Ballad of Buster Scruggs was Ethan officially making the films with Joel. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I believe that all the argument would never come up, wasn't it for the fact that the two are brothers. There's lots of artistic duos and groups whose members have marginal to none achievements outside said groups, and the lack of family bonds between them makes an idea that they could have been treated as a whole, rather than as separate personas, seem absurd. I'm aware this example is a stretch but nobody questions articles on Cliff Burton, James Hetfield, Kirk Hammett and Lars Ulrich, even though there's only a handful of major musical and non-musical activities of any of them that remains unrelated to Metallica. DariusPayne (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I believe the article should stay, with the brothers having adjacent articles dedicated to the two of them. So I'm proposing complimentary articles instead of outright splitting this one into two. With that said, the article seems to cover both Coen Brothers just fine. This article can't be split; it can only be elaborated on. It's like knowing The Beatles were a fulfilled and creatively tight-knit group whilst still acknowledging the accomplishments and careers of John, Paul, George and Ringo individually. Internet Informant (talk) 05:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that new articles in addition to this one would be best. I think both brothers, especially Joel, warrant their own pages, but not at the expense of this one. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for reasons already stated. When it comes to film, they have worked fundamentally as a team. Verne Equinox (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support The Tragedy of MacBeth (2021 film) warrants a split.
• Oppose for reasons already stated above - since they work together 95% of the time and it's very likely this could just be a one-time thing, why split them? ~ BlitzPhoenix98 13:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support Ethan Coen has stated that he might take a step back from filmmaking, while Joel has a film lined up for release. If they are going to be working separately for some time, having individual articles seems like a logical step to take. Although, any final decision making should probably wait until they themselves make a statement on it. And, even if individual articles are made for them, the joint one should still remain, in case they work together again in the future. Ajack15 (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2021 (CT)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Movie true story

2 deer hunters disappeared in a small town chopped up and fed through a wood chipper into a hog pen never found them or there truck brothers owned a salvage yard and were the town bullies. Book was hard to put down!! Titled Dark of Night 2600:1007:B013:63FB:B48A:7457:965B:C5C (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)