Talk:Duel (1971 film)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

"Analysis" section

Somebody obviously put a lot of thought and effort into analyzing the themes and messages of the film Duel in the "Analysis" section. Let me say that I enjoyed reading it and think it provides a thought-provoking analysis.

That being said, though, it doesn't belong here at all. It is 100% original research. It's essentially a book report, but of a film. That does not belong in an encyclopedia. (See WP:NOT.) Plus, its tone is absolutely unencyclopedic, making heavy use of first person.

This section will need to be completely rewritten. --Hnsampat 03:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete I think we should get rid of the Analysis Section. It seems like a critique and an encyclopeida isn't critique guide --ShortShadow 03:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete But be careful to what you delete. The entire article is not trash, do not delete previous entries. JeDi 07:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As regards the deleting- perhaps put move it to the talk section, rather than deleting it entirely?

WikiProject Horror?

I'm not sure if Duel ought to be part of WikiProject Horror because it's not really a horror movie. It's really more of a thriller/suspense movie. There's a very fine line, but the difference is that thrillers are supposed to excite or "thrill" you while horror movies are supposed to scare you and I feel that Duel is not meant to be scary. It's an incredibly exciting and thrilling movie, but it isn't "scary." --Hnsampat 04:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this message is too late, but I disagree. I don't think the line between horror and thriller is about whether it personally scares you. It has more to do with the nature of the events, and structurally Duel is most definitely horror, with its "monster" terrorizing its victim. There are many horror movies that aren't intended to scare the audience (campy B-horror flicks, for example) but which are identified as horror by the fact that they're about horrific events. Being mortally stalked by an unidentified truck driver for no apparent reason definitely qualifies as horrific. Taken at face value, the events are far more "horrifying" than "exciting" or "thrilling"--regardless of what personal emotions you may feel while watching the film. marbeh raglaim 04:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Horror film" page opens with this sentence: "Films from the horror genre are designed to elicit fright, fear, terror, disgust or horror from viewers." Those B-horror flicks, I agree, are campy. However, they did at some point have the original intent of eliciting fear from the audience; they just really sucked at doing that. It wasn't like those movies were meant to be funny, or else we'd call them "comedy" and not "horror."

There are movies about horrific events that are not classified as "horror." If you've ever seen the movie Se7en, I think we can agree that that movie is about incredibly horrific events, but we still wouldn't call it "horror." That's because it's not supposed to elicit fear or terror from the audience. Instead, it's a "thriller."

A case can be made for Duel being a horror movie, but I disagree. I feel that Duel is a thriller. Furthermore, Richard Matheson, who wrote the original short story "Duel," describes it as a "straight suspense story." So, I say we call Duel a thriller, not a horror movie.--Hnsampat 13:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you agree that a case can be made that it's horror, then that should probably be mentioned in the article.

I can't believe we're having this argument, but it's kind of fun anyway. First of all, Matheson's opinion, while relevant, is not the final word on the subject. Authors have been known to interpret the genre classification of their own works differently from the general public. (For example, many people consider the Hannibal Lecter series to be horror, but I don't think Thomas Harris does, nor do many of the people who worked on the film.) Plus, it's not clear to me that Matheson was denying that "Duel" is horror. Something can be both suspense and horror. Though I believe that there is a distinct suspense-thriller genre that can be separated from horror, in practice the words "suspense" and "thriller" are often used very broadly in a way that includes horror. Sometimes the term is euphemistic, as in Michael Jackson's song "Thriller," which is about B-grade monster flicks. Speaking of which.... Many camp films are intentionally funny, like Little Shop of Horrors. (I would question whether the Broadway musical is horror, but the original film is a horror-comedy, even though it probably never scared anyone or even intended to.)

I believe that "Duel" does attempt to elicit fear and terror from the audience. The whole story is about a terrifying, surreal, nightmarish situation. Whether audiences react with those emotions is a separate question. Spielberg tends to direct his horror films in an "action" way: Jaws and Jurassic Park are more or less action-horror hybrids, and I believe Duel fits that description too. So the fact that the film elicits "excitement" from many viewers is, I believe, an artifact of Spielberg's directorial style rather than the nature of the events on screen. marbeh raglaim 16:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Plot and Wiki Project edit

I have written a detailed plot for the article. I have also edited some of the other sections, including moving information on the movies production into a seperate area from the plot. I have also changed the sections titles from description to plot etc, in line with the template for Wikiprojectfilm style guidelines as well adding some further information. LordHarris 02.04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Acting on the too-long tag, I have trimmed about 4K from the plot summary -- mostly needless exposition such as "Mann gets back in his car and continues on his way". I've left a few sloppy grammar situations, but in general I think it's more readable. Even so, if anyone wants to slice a little bit more, I'm sure it would help. --Dhartung | Talk 05:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Starring a truck?

Has the truck gone on to do other things? Perhaps there should be an article espousing the truck's great acting career, past films and thoughts on life. -- Sy / ^(talk) 17:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In Duel there are two main characters: David Mann and the Peterbilt truck. In fact, the truck becomes a personality, and that's in part what makes the movie so scary. They really put great effort into getting it to look that mean. There are lots of stuff on the web about the multiple trucks that were used when shooting the film. The last surviving truck seems to be for sale. For instance, check out http://members.tripod.com/~webzapper/dueltruckataol.html and http://www.stlouisdumptrucks.com/Duel/Trucks.html. Relrel 19:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Multiple plates

Is there a citation for "According to Spielberg, the multiple license plates on the front bumper of the truck are meant to subtly suggest that it is a serial killer." I'm pretty sure all trucks of that era had multiple plates, according to the requirements of the states they were being operated in. In the early '80s this system was replaced with "Bingo plates", a single plate with 48 little squares in which a sticker was placed to show which states the truck was licensed to operate in. Later, this was simplified by the International Fuel Tax Agreement. I find it hard to believe that Spielberg would think any such allusion could be made in that era, when anyone paying attention would know better. The truck probably had 6 plates on it when they bought it. 70.0.95.200 17:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

He states that in the DVD documentary. He says that the multiple plates are supposed to be symbols for other places where this truck has run innocent drivers down. --Hnsampat 17:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale notifications for images

Fair use rationale for Image:Duel232.jpg

Image:Duel232.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 16:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Duellookback.jpg

Image:Duellookback.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 07:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Duelsunset.jpg

Image:Duelsunset.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 07:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dueltruckfront.jpg

Image:Dueltruckfront.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 07:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Duel DVD.jpg

Image:Duel DVD.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 ensure 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) 21:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers

thanks for the spoilers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.203.201 (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

For more information on Wikipedia's guidelines on "spoilers", please see Wikipedia:Spoiler and Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Thanks. — Satori Son 18:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

'About a trucker stalking a motorist'

This description is both inaccurate and misleading: read literally, the opening paragraph doesn't even mention that the trucker is in a truck despite that the truck, not the trucker, is the principle feature of the chase in Duel. Thoughout the movie, the trucker's very existence is so incidental he could be removed from the movie entirely without really changing anything. The movie's depiction of the vehicle is as a monstrous antagonist in it's own right, not as an accessory to the non-defined trucker; Spielberg himself has stated this to be the intent, as the article says already. Hence things like the dinosaur roar. Herr Gruber (talk) 09:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw this mini edit war brewing and I wondered: why not just compromise? We can bring some emphasis to the fact that the truck is the true villain of the film while also remaining technically accurate and mentioning the trucker from time to time. (Keep in mind that there are instances where the trucker acts as the villain and not the truck, such as during the Chuck's Cafe scene or at the two instances when the trucker waves him on.) I've changed the article accordingly (and made other edits). --Hnsampat (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That compromise seems very reasonable. Obviously, there is a driver who is a central character, but I also agree the truck itself is the primary antagonist.

The only reason there was a dispute over this in the first place is because of overreaching edits with grossly inaccurate edit summaries such as "There's never a trucker"[1] and "More or less the entire point of the movie is that there might not even *be* a driver."[2] Clearly, that is not the case, and the article should not reflect that fallacious assertion.

And by the way, it is the responsibility of the editor who wants to make a major change to an existing article to show consensus for that change, not the other way around.[3] See WP:BRD#The BRD process. Being bold is one thing, but stubbornly ignoring the opinions of other editors who disagree is completely unacceptable behavior. — Satori Son 14:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Speed Racer influence?

There was an episode of Speed Racer where the hero was menaced by a band of baddies who had a "mammoth car", essentially a multiple unit semi. Spielberg may have been in a position to have viewed this episode some time during the late 1960s, as the series was shown on vhf tv in southern California at the time. knoodelhed 18:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

He may have, but without sources showing that episode inspired him to make this film, it doesn't belong in the article. 162.136.192.1 (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Telemovie & Theatrical Release...

I think the additional scene and international release should be mentioned in the openning paragraph, not just hidden in Production. 203.35.82.136 (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

English

I have a feeling the car doesn't "impact" a wall, it hits or crashes into one.Maelli (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

the car used in the film

The car was carefully chosen, a red 1971 Plymouth Valiant with an underpowered engine. Its red color was also intentional; Spielberg didn't care what kind of car was used in the film,

This does not make much sense. How can the car be carefully chosen, if Spielberg says he doesn't care what kind of car was used? I think it needs to be made more clear —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.135.162 (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Protecting article

I have protected the article from IP edits until this "Natahan Wallace" mania dies down. Dave (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Duelweaver.jpg

The image File:Duelweaver.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Spielberg's feature film directing debut

This is a little ambiguous, but calling Duel Spielberg's feature film directing debut is clearly misleading. It was made and initially released as an ABC-TV movie. Later the powers-that-be gave it a theatrical release in Europe. But that was not the original intent. The WP article even uses the Television film infobox template.

Spielberg's 1971 The Name of the Game NBC-TV series episode L.A. 2017 was 76 minutes long, so we cannot say Duel was his feature-length directing debut either.

The Sugarland Express was considered to be his feature debut at the time of its release. It was his first unqualified feature film. I've edited accordingly. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Spielberg: "my first break"

Spielberg quoted today in obituary of Richard Matheson --
"Richard Matheson: Sci-Fi Author Dies Aged 87". June 25, 2013. Sky News (news.sky.com).

He[SS] said in a statement: "Richard Matheson's ironic and iconic imagination created seminal science-fiction stories and gave me my first break when he wrote the short story and screenplay for Duel.

--P64 (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Duel (1971 film). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 00:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)