Talk:No Country for Old Men/Archive 2

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

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Chigurh was NOT in the hotel room when Bell arrived

I removed this section because Chigurh was NOT in the hotel room when Bell arrived. This was all in Bell's head. Read the book. In the film, they denoted this by not showing Chigurh's true face: it was how Bell pictured what Chigurh looked like, and since he had never seen him. Hence, the face was obscured.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.70.143 (talk • contribs) 15:27, January 3, 2009

I see why you've been deleting that paragraph. Note that the plot description does not say that Chigurh is in the room which Bell is entering, only a hotel room. We can only describe what is shown on the screen or interpretations available from credible sources, not our own analysis even if it is based on a reading of the source novel. That paragraph has been very carefully worded to avoid inappropriate interpretation and analysis. See the discussion above.

Also, thanks for explaining your edits here. You can also use Edit Summaries as well. If after reading earlier discussions on the motel room scene you still want to discuss or edit, have a go at it. Thanks for working to improve the article. Sorry I didn't check here before reverting your last edit (although I still would have).
Jim Dunning | talk 02:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit war over plot summary

I have to agree with the editors who have been trying to restore the plot summary to the pre-GA status. The latest edits are not an improvement. Please discuss here before entering into more of an edit-revert cycle. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

I think this--"Discovered by returning Mexican gangsters, this good deed sets off a cat-and-mouse game in which the hunter and hunted frequently switch roles, as the gang of Mexicans, Moss, Chigurh and Bell chase each other and the money across the Texas and Mexico landscapes."--might be what the user was referring to, according to Collectonian, about timeline problems. It's the last thing in the first paragraph, and it's really summarizing the entire movie in the final part of the sentence, but what it does is insinuate that Chigurh and Bell are present during this chase...when they are not. When Moss helps the dying gangster, and the others show up, it's just him and the Mexicans running across the land...and they don't switch roles in the chase. So, the sentence should probably be rewritten to reflect that rest of the summaries writing style, which is to be consistently linear. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Good catch, perhaps this is a time to revisit the entire article to review other issues. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

Issues Extant May 09

Atmospheric setting

BN has asked if there is a need for the descriptive sentence that begins the plot section. I re-inserted it as it has relevance in providing context to the film. The west Texas scene is desolate and barren and provides the viewer/reader with the impression of foreboding. FWiW, I could be wrong, as usual... 17:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

Far more atmospheric is the brief opening: "West Texas in June 1980 is desolate, wide-open country, and Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) laments the increasing violence in a region where he, like his father before him, has risen to the office of sheriff." Ring Cinema (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, "make it so." `a la Captain Luc Picard. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC).
Chigurh Hired?

Wrong, that's not in the movie. Ring Cinema (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

He is hired by a group of Mexican drug dealers; the other hitman refers to Chigurh in this manner. Bzuk (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

I believe you are mistaken but if you could name the person or the scene I'd be happy to doublecheck.Ring Cinema (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't come up in any scene in which Chigurh appears. Wells is a hit man but he doesn't refer to Chigurh being hired at any point. The word 'hire' and its derivatives only appear in the screenplay once and refer to Wells, but not in the dialogue. "Hire[...]" does not appear in the dialogue at all. Similarly, there's nothing in the script about "work" or "job" in reference to Chigurh.Ring Cinema (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, we were both wrong. It comes up in the scene with the accountant, where Chigurh, questioning why the accountant's boss gave a receiver to the Mexicans, says, "You pick the one right tool" (referring to himself). Now, does that mean that the boss hired Chigurh? There will be wiggle room there for those who believe Chigurh is more and less than human. What's your view? Ring Cinema (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I may be reading more into the scene but when Chigurh is introduced to the carnage of the desert shootout, he appears to be there under direction. I assumed that he was brought into the picture as a tracker because of his background and experience. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

I'm not sure what to say about that. The scene you reference is silent on the question. He could be connected to the drugs or the money the way I see it. I'm more concerned with whether or not the filmmakers were trying to maintain the ambiguity of his role for dramatic purposes, in which case that flavor should be reflected in the summary. Ring Cinema (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you making the case of whether or not he is a hired killer? I am beginning to see the subtlety of your arguments. If Chigurh indeed was not "hired" but merely a crazed killer or psychopath, it gives a more chilling message... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

Yes, this is more or less what I'm driving at. I'm even a little uncomfortable referring to him as a "hitman" as this seems to diminish the untamed quality of the man. The film makes him start to seem like a manifestation of a fear. Ring Cinema (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Killer, psychopath, serial killer, Chigurh is the embodiment of pure evil, but I do instinctively feel that he made his living as a contract hitman. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

Well I suppose you're right. That and theft.Ring Cinema (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that I thought about it it still bothers me because his vocation is not important and is only deduced from the actions that are presented in the summary itself. So why are we putting an interpretation on something that should be up to the reader/audience? Ring Cinema (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Where Chigurh Hides

What door is he behind? Well, you have to be sophisticated to realize he's not behind the hotel room door. He's behind some door somewhere, true.

Does he see Bell's reflection? No, that's again completely ambiguous and shouldn't be in the summary. Ring Cinema (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

For those interested in verifying the intentional ambiguity of the scene, the material in question begins at the 100 minute mark. Of critical importance is that Bell opens the door and it swings all the way to the wall. Then to the bathroom: the shot of the locked window might seem a little bit strange unless we're questioning the location of that rather large man with a weapon. Hint: he didn't exit through the bathroom window. Ring Cinema (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wholesale Changes

The edit that's been worked on and endorsed by the editors for a couple months should be restored. Before wholesale changes are made a consensus should emerge. Ring Cinema (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There does not seem to be a talk page entry regarding the changes you mention. There was also no "endorsement" of any edits, as no call for consensus was ever issued. See note at bottom of this and other Wiki pages: Please note: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. Bzuk (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

No call for consensus was issued on the recent massive changes, either. Perhaps they should be reversed until a consensus emerges. Since we all agree to be mercilessly edited (even Collectonian, I believe) silence is an endorsement. Ring Cinema (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the WP:BRD phase of development. The article was stable for a time, a number of editors agreed to submit it for review, a previously uninvolved editor began a major revision that was challenged, albeit not through the "normal channels" of talk page discussion. A call for "more eyes" was put out on the WP:Forum that attracted a number of other editors, and here we are... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

While it may be said that silence is an endorsement, it is only an endorsement until the silence is broken. Once that happens, it is being challenged. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

But a reversion that goes back almost three months is pretty silly absent some kind of vandalism. Ring Cinema (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The normal channels are just guides, though, right? Ring Cinema (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The usual means of dealing with controversial or conflicting edits is to refer to the talk page of the affected article, and to stick to the topic of edits, which is what is happening now. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

Closing Paragraph

Since the plot summary is still too long, the final paragraph before the illicit wholesale changes were made should be restored. It's shorter and covers the plot material completely. Ring Cinema (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The first thing I question is where the statement "the plot summary is too long" comes from? Does WP:Film actually give guidelines in this manner? Bzuk (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

Current plot is 753 words, including actor names. Per WP:MOSFILM, should be between 400-700, so only slightly overly long. Easily fixed by cutting down some of the wordiness in a few areas. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As I suggested, the previous version was shorter and sacrificed no meaningful content. Go ahead and correct it. Ring Cinema (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Word counts are not "set in stone" nor is the MOSFILM guide; the pertinent word is "guide." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

And since we can follow the guide without a sacrifice of anything meaningful that's a no-brainer. Go ahead and correct it. Ring Cinema (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Outside / Inside

The current summary is marred by its "outside the work" exposition. That's bad style. A proper summary is written from "inside the work." Or, for those of you more philosophically inclined: don't mention, use.

Wrong: "This play is about an old man named 'Lear' who wants to retire from power." Right: "Lear, who is old, wants to retire from power." Ring Cinema (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That is quite incorrect. It is perfectly acceptable to reference the work from outside, per WP:WAF, and general consensus as shown in other FA/GA film articles. While the plot is primarily "inside the work", there are times it is fully appropriate to reference it from "outside". In this case, the noting of how the film opens is relevant and should stay. The last paragraph, also is an appropriate use to indicate the film advanced to a new time frame. Using "the film" in the last sentence could probably be removed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It might be acceptable but it's inferior style. Since the previous edit sacrificed nothing for content, was shorter, and had the advantage of avoiding this particular stylistic issue, it's pretty clearly the better version. Similarly, references to the voiceover should be removed. Unless of course, the voiceover needs to be included. There are such cases but this is not one of them. Ring Cinema (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Treat all submissions as AGF, no one "marrs" the work. Everyone attempts to find common ground and improve the article as they see fit. Bzuk (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC) As to your suggestion (I'm being charitable here) that one particular edit is better than another, that alone appears to be a subjective statement. I can see that the use of a voiceover reference does not fit the plot summary but it is integral to the reader knowing that the narrator introduces the story in that manner. But then again... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

No, that's not the correct standard for including the voiceover (or a reference to a camera angle, the actor, the script, or the crew). A good case is where the reader can't understand the action correctly without knowing it's a voiceover. For example, "She says in VO that she's in love with the prince" so that we know that the prince doesn't know what we know. In a bad case like this one, it's not integral to the reader's understanding of the story. It's superfluous, so it should be out, especially when the length is at issue. Ring Cinema (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The only "guideline" is the rather ambiguous "A good plot summary should stick to describing what happened in the film" and what was happening in the film is that a narrator provides a voiceover that introduces his character. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

Boots and Blood

Okay this is an area that deserves attention. The filmmakers were skillful and we should be equally skilled. When Chigurh checks his boots in his penultimate scene, we are allowed to interpret the gesture. But we are guided in our interpretation by an earlier scene: the killing of Carson Wells. In that earlier scene, Chigurh shoots Wells and, while he's on the phone with Moss, he makes sure he gets no blood on his boots. When he later exits Carla Jean's mother's house and checks his boots, we get the chilling payoff on the earlier scene.

In the status quo ante edit, the editor, whoever he was, tried to address the same setup/payoff structure without forcing an interpretation on the audience. He did that, it seems, by including the boots and the blood in both scenes. In other words, whoever he was he tried to replicate the film's structure in the structure of the plot summary.

It seems to me that was a worthwhile try. Since the fate of a major character hangs on it, yet we don't want to force an interpretation on the reader, I think we should see if the earlier editor might take a shot at dropping the boots and the blood into both scenes. Ring Cinema (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Where this interpretation is most relevant is in the post-film analysis although the proviso of a third-person source is required. Including it in the plot veers into OR. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC).

I'm suggesting simply stating the facts as they are in the film without any "guidance." Ring Cinema (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"A good plot summary should stick to describing what happened in the film" Ring Cinema (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph One Close

This is a problem: "Discovered by returning Mexican gangsters, his deed sets off a cat-and-mouse game in the gang of Mexicans, Moss, Chigurh and Bell chase each other and the money through Texas and Mexico."

I'd suggest "Discovered by a pair in jeep, he's chased into the river and loses his truck."

As a matter of fact, we don't see his pursuers' faces. As a matter of form, we shouldn't offer an interpretation of the work in the summary. (Does Moss chase anyone at any time? Seems like he doesn't.) Ring Cinema (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath of the firefight

Gruesome courage: is that an interpretation or a summary? I'm going to argue it's a summary. No doubt what we see is gruesome. Is it courageous? Seems like it to me.

In scene order, this is what happens: 1. Firefight 2. Moss: limps across the border, buys the jacket, stashes the money over the fence, wakes up the next morning and offers the musicians money 3. Bell: does his small town job 4. Chigurh: steals meds, treats himself 5. Moss: wakes up in hospital with Wells 6. Wells: locates the satchel 7. Chigurh gets the drop on Wells, hotel room, phone call, etc --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

In the publishing world, making a distinction such as "gruesome" is probably considered objective but "courage" and the pairing of gruesome and courage, takes it into a subjective observation. It's no big deal in an article wherein the reviewer provides a perspective, but if you want the plot to merely be a summary, statement #4 is basically all that is required. I did add a descriptor "brutally" to amplify the statement. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC).

Right, and one may argue that 'gruesome' includes observer response while 'brutally' simply describes the manner of the action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ring Cinema (talk • contribs) 20:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Top 10 lists

I don't think the (fairly exhaustive) list of top 10 lists is encyclopedic. A mention somewhere in the article of the impressive numbers would suffice, but the list itself is not necessary. - superβεεcat 03:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

All the top ten films of 2007 and 2008 list all their ranking on all top ten lists, and it does go to show critical opinion. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Should the article document that Chigurgh got the money?

Should the plot section document that Chigurh got the money from Moss's hotel room after he is shot by the Mexicans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sks939 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No, because we never explicitly see it happen. Many viewers surmise it, but the Plot section only describes what is seen. HaroldPGuy (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Plot rewrite

Resolved

The plot section is pretty poorly written, much of it seems fanboyish and focuses on trivial details (perhaps in an effort to avoid assuming too much...but the result is that it reads like cruft). It's more like a play-by-play description of every scene, rather than a summary of the actual plot. I made an attempt to clean it up here, and was reverted. So here is my rationale for all the changes that I think should be made again:

Hitman Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) strangles a sheriff's deputy, escapes custody, and steals a car by using a captive bolt pistol to kill the driver.

→ Remove. This is not really part of the plot, it's just a scene to open the movie. It doesn't have a real effect on the plot.

Character introduction is plot. The plot is the sum of the scenes. As you may read above, there is some question if Chigurh is a "hitman." Of course we could cover the entire story in two sentences or even one if we tried. I don't think that's really the goal.

If character introduction is the goal, then the later sentence introducing Chigurh can say something like "Hitman Anton Chigurh, recently escaped from police custody" or something along those lines. Recounting a non-major scene is not part of a good plot summary. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the scene is thoroughly memorable and illustrative of Chigurh's place in the story. As far as I know, it's always been in the summary. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's always bothered me a little that no mention is made of Chigurh's coin flipping scene with the old guy at the service station. It's his signature scene. If there was a deft way to put it in, that would be cool, but it seems that any summary would be nearly as long as the scene itself. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Unable to sleep, Moss returns with water for the dying man. Discovered by a pair in a jeep, he's chased on foot into the river and loses his truck.

→ After taking the money, however, Moss is hunted by both Mexican drug dealers and the hitman Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem). Moss sends his wife Carla Jean (Kelly Macdonald) to stay with her mother in Odessa, and goes on alone to evade the people chasing him. The original version describes the unnecessary details of the scene while leaving out the main point. To a reader who hasn't seen the movie, it makes little sense and this doesn't flow logically into the next paragraph of the plot summary, because it doesn't explain that Moss leaves town or why (doesn't say anything trying to get away with the money, or the fact that people are chasing him). Again, it's not helpful for readers.

The original looks good. You leave out the most critical point and substitute speculation about intention. Let the incidents tell it by putting in the summary what's in the movie. The summary used to include Carla Jean's movements but she's not a major character. I'm sympathetic to the idea if you can find an elegant way that doesn't distract from the main action.

The point is that nothing in the original plot summary explains the fact that Moss leaves town and Chigurh chases him; it just jumps from the river scene to the hotel, giving the reader no explanation of what happened. It seems the writers of this summary were so paranoid about avoiding "speculation" that they replaced real plot summary with just regurgitating of scenes. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that Chigurh's pursuit is not mentioned. It's quite clear that he is after Moss because that is what the incidents imply. Yes, gloriously this summary avoids speculation and is much the better for it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Searching for the money, Chigurh removes the vent cover with a dime and realizes Moss has already retrieved it.

→ , but Moss escapes with the money in the meantime. Who cares that it was a dime? Once again, you're focusing on trivial details, at the expense of actual plot summary.

The dime is significant. There's no reason to exclude important details simply because they're details or physically small.

Why is the dime significant? That is never mentioned, and I certainly don't see the significance. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The sheriff finds a dime later, so there are two dimes.

Tracking Moss to a border town hotel, Chigurh's pursuit climaxes in a firefight that spills onto the streets.

→ Chigurh tracks Moss to another border town hotel, and the two men meet in a shootout. Not a content issue this time, just plain old poor writing. Chigurh is the one doing the 'tracking', not 'Chigurh's pursuit', so the participial phrase is grammatically incorrect and awkward.

Your writing is limp by comparison and I'm sure everyone understands the original since Chigurh's pursuit is also doing the tracking.

You can tweak the writing by adding "climaxes" to my version if you want (although personally I think it's overly flowery, apparently we just have different tastes; I prefer sterile writing to purple prose). And the "tracking moss..." bit is not a style issue, it's simply grammatically incorrect, fair and square. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's grammatically correct, as I explained. Thanks for being attentive to that, though. This summary of what happens in the movie is suited to the action uncommonly well. Boring nouns and inaccurate verbs are not good, especially when the action is vivid. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a journalist who used to write television reviews for a major daily newspaper. I have to say that I prefer the version "Chigurh tracks Moss" as it uses clear, simple and active language. "Tracking Moss to a border town" is unnecessarily passive, and is just one in a string of passive sentences in that version of the plot summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.59.94 (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

After Chigurh brutally treats his own leg wounds with stolen medication, he gets the drop on Wells back at his hotel and kills him just as Moss calls the room.

→ Chigurh, however, finds and kills Wells before Moss can contact Wells again. The unnecessary bit about Chigurh treating his wounds needs to be removed, as it's not a significant plot point (although it could be mentioned in the same sentence as the one pointing out Moss going to the hospital; "Moss wakes up in a Mexican hospital, whereas Chigurh treats his own wounds in a hotel room" or something). And who's to decide whether his treatment is "brutal"—that bit is just pointless. As for the Wells part..."gets the drop on" is not encyclopedic language, even for a plot summary, and the fact that this coincides with the phone call is irrelevant.

Your writing is limp compared to the original. Check the bit about "brutal" above and respond there; it's been discussed. As written, I think the summary tells what happened in the movie pretty well.

"Brutal" was not added because it was good, it was added because the previous version was "gruesomely heroic" or something; it was just the lesser of two evils, not necessarily good writing. And, again, there is no indication of why this is significant to the plot. Sure, it's a cool scene, but it's not necessary to the plot summary. I have said this many times already: the goal here is to summarize the important points of the plot, not to create a detailed storyboard. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The outcome of the firefight is not trivial, so I'm really not sure what you're objecting to. The fates of the characters, their journeys, their obstacles, that's what's in a plot, so of course we include it in the summary. Many incidents are left out of this summary as well, so it's not as if no selection is being done. Do you have an argument or a principle you're relying on? --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an argument or a principle you're relying on? --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Picking up the phone and carefully avoiding the blood on the floor,

→ Totally unnecessary, removed in my version. "Picking up the phone" is redundant...who cares that he's 'picking up the phone', all that we need to know is he talks to Moss. And "carefully avoiding the blood on the floor" is yet another unnecessary detail. I assume it was included there to suggest some relevance to the later scene where Chigurh looks at his feet after leaving Carla Jean's house...but that would be OR/speculation. I know in an above section there was a discussion where Ring Cinema suggested that we should mention both this boots thing and the boots thing after Chigurh confronts Carla Jean, in order to "replicate the film's structure" and leave the same suggestion without forcing an interpretation. But you need to remember that we are not here to re-create the same experience that watching the film would have; we are only here to summarize the plot. Saying "whether or not Chigurh kills Carla Jean is left intentionally unclear" is preferable to trying to re-create the scene.

The summary says what happened without speculation, just as it should, selecting just the information necessary to make the point.

Like I said already, it says more than necessary. It's not necessary to recount this detail. I already wrote a long paragraph right here about why I don't th ink it's necessary. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

An accurate report of what appears in the movie is never speculation, so perhaps your radar is not quite right on that point. It simply gives the information that summarizes the plot. Your temptation seems to be to include conclusions that require an interpretation. That could lead us astray.

Now retired, Bell shares two dreams with his wife (Tess Harper)

→ "In the movie's final scene" needs to be added to this to help express that there is a passage of time between the previous paragraph and this one.

"In the movie's final scene" is execrable style. Check above the discussion about writing from inside the movie. If time passed, that's your inference. The movie doesn't say time passed any more or less than the summary does, so I think the summary gets it about right.

In the above discussion, other editors (such as Collectonian) challenged you on this perception, because outside-movie writing is appropriate in some cases. More to the point, it is made extremely obvious in this scene that time has passed, it's not OR. And besides, the current version lacks transitions, making it read poorly. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

How is it obvious that time has passed? You must be alluding to something specific.

I'd like the question answered if you don't mind. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Then he woke up.

→ Totally unnecessary; not plot, just parroting. This was the sentence that bothered me the most in the plot summary.

But he said he woke up, so here we simply end the summary where the movie ended. Does it bother you that it's accomplished so simply?

So we need to repeat every line that every character says? This is extremely trivial. It's not important at all to the plot; just say he had a dream, describe it, and be done with it. What bothers me isn't that it's "accomplished" so simply, what bothers me is that it's inane writing. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying the movie ending is inane? Same ending, different medium. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This summary has been well-vetted for a long time. I'd leave it alone. I'll be responding to your points over the next couple days. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said above: the result of "well-vetted" still has plenty of problems. That's why I listed numerous specific points for cleanup. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The problems you mention are discussed in your section. There is probably some virtue in cashing out Carla Jean's story a little more. I've thought about that myself many times, but it seems like the path of the money is more important. If you check on the summary back in early May, you'll see it was handled differently. But that was before a major re-edit happened. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is clear that we both know what we like and will probably go around in circles if we continue. So in the meantime I have left messages with Maria and Darrenhusted, who have both apparently been involved in editing and/or reviewing this article, asking them to comment. You are also welcome to inform other users of this discussion, if you are aware of any who would be interested. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for not responding sooner; as Rjanag noted above, they asked me to comment here because I promoted the article to GA-status last year. In my review, I made several comments and suggestions for improvement, but for the most part I was confident that the article was of high quality. The plot in particular was well-written in that it adequately described (in accordance with film style guidelines) a tricky storyline, although in hindsight it was perhaps a little long and overly detailed in places. At this time, however, I don't believe the plot fulfills such standards. From the very first sentence, it is choppy and lacks narrative flow, something that all good summaries should retain. Were I reviewing the article anew, I would suggest a less clinical retelling of a complex story. It reads as detached and difficult, even by someone who's seen the movie such as myself.

It's important to note that a plot summary is never going to remain, despite numerous reverts or arguments, the way one editor wishes it to be; things are interpreted differently by different viewers, and they typically want to express it in their own particular way. I therefore tend to think of them as organic: constantly shifting and changing, even if they've attained GA- or even FA-status. However, when they don't work, perhaps it's time for an overhaul. María (habla conmigo) 00:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The current plot summary is not any one editor's wish. It's the result of a long process. While an overhaul might sound theoretically like a great idea, that is exactly what was rejected only a short time ago. Instead, the "superior" editors imposed an old version that was replete with really awful errors. It took a lot of work just to correct the errors introduced by restoring the GA version in May.

I've responded to all the suggestions above. If I've made a mistake, simply point it out. In other words, engage on the substance. That's an editor's job, I'm doing it, and I'd suggest the same for everyone, Maria. Personally, I'd really like the plot summary as good as possible; that's why I'm defending it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(Since you raise the issue of the opening, the version of the plot summary that you highlight is quite a bit inferior in the first sentence. Really bad style. Although it's true that the efforts to shorten the summary have taken a toll on the rest of the first paragraph, I haven't seen a redrafting that is superior. In fact, that paragraph got a lot of attention from many editors. See the many notes above under Extant Issues.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I was asked for my opinion, and that is what I've provided. Keep in mind, Ring Cinema, that consensus is not a static thing, and is capable of changing over time. That editors previously agreed on any state of the plot summary is immaterial. What matters is that editors have concerns now. Issues with the plot obviously remain, and I'm not the first to say as much. Were it welcome, I would voice individual concerns that I have regarding the current state of this particular section, but I feel the reception here to be somewhat chilly. If anyone has further questions regarding my previous assessment, please contact me via my talk page. Best of luck, María (habla conmigo) 12:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm already mindful of the evolving consensus, since I consider myself part of it. Why do you wamt to move the discussion elsewhere when it belongs here? I have responded substantively to all suggestions and I would like you to keep in mind that that's what editors here do. If there is something about the plot summary that can be improved, by all means let's do it. I've made my own suggestions where I think there are weaknesses. If you object to my opposition to speculation, incompleteness, or prolixity -- which after all are the themes of this discussion -- then please explain yourself as I have done. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Restating: if someone had further questions regarding my GA-assessment from a year ago, they could contact me on my talk page. I have no desire to move this particular discussion elsewhere, nor do I object to anyone's opposition of anything anywhere; rather, I object to the poorly written and confusing plot summary, as I said earlier in this section. That was the input I was asked to provide, and that's that, really. María (habla conmigo) 17:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Maria: Might as well just give up, there seems to be no one interested in giving substantive input and just one editor interested in standing here and philibustering any changes that are proposed. I went through line-by-line and explained every change that I thought should be made, and that apparently wasn't enough—the only person who commented was Ring Cinema, who is only interested in dismissing suggestions, and DarrenHusted did not even reply after I asked him to. Interestingly, judging by this, apparently Ring Cinema has the right to rewrite parts of the summary without discussion and without having to give a point-by-point explanation of his changes, but no one else does. Editors like you and I might as well just find something else to do; this is just one article, and it's no skin off my back if the plot summary is badly written. It's not bad enough to get it demoted from GA, and it's obviously not going to get better, so either way there's not really anything worth acting on. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I've responded substantively to all your suggestions in a sensible way. I agreed with you that Carla Jean's story could be a little more complete. I am open to good suggestions and I assume you are, too. If you have substantive responses, please share them. I believe that is the process here. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

My I responded over a week ago, here. I'm not interested in going around in circles uselessly. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I find that more than a little disingenuous. I repeated two questions today that you haven't started to answer. It's perfectly inbounds to ask you to clarify your thinking. I have responded to all your questions, as far as I know, as a sign of my interest in your views. If you can't answer me, there may be a reason. I'm not dismissing your views for being crackpot, biased, illegitimate, unfounded, or in bad faith despite your occasionally intemperate method of expression. I'm engaging you on the substance. I would suggest you do the same, because that is the process here. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As this whole thread is getting a little tortured how about this, Rjanag, write your version of the plot in a sandbox, link to a new discussion and close this thread off. Consensus can change, but one editor trying to outlast others in not consensus. The plot was extensively re-written by a number of editors, and as such a consensus was arrived at, if you have a better version of the plot summary then show it to us. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you read any of the discussion above? This is my version of the plot rewrite, so I don't see why you're asking me to write it again; as for which is a better version, I started a detailed discussion of every single sentence I changed. If that's not clear enough discussion for you guys, I don't know what is; apparently if I start the same discussion over again it will suddenly be different?

I also don't see who's "trying to outlast others". I already backed out of the discussion days ago, that doesn't sound like "trying to outlast" to me. Your opinion might have been useful a week ago when I asked for it; now I'm really not interested in starting this circular discussion all over again. Keep your badly-written plot summary however you want it, I'm not really interested anymore. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be valuable if you would engage on the substance of the discussion. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell if Rjanag does not want to push their version or suggest any middle ground then this is resolved. The diff given shows that they are only happy with a revert that made a few weeks ago and not willing to compromise. Leaving this open solves nothing. I don't like summaries with "meanwhile" and "however" through them as it sound like someone trying to tell me a story round a campfire. Rjanag has moved on, the current summary is sufficient. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Colonel Carson Wells?

Wells is described as a bounty hunter and retired colonel. I'm not sure but I think that's a remnant of the source material. Isn't Wells presented in the film as an acquaintance of Chigurh's and even less well known to the guy played by Steven Root? Anyone have any evidence from the film that Wells says he's other than a retired Vietnam veteran? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ring Cinema (talk • contribs) 20:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Brutal / Gruesome

Is Chigurh's treatment of his leg wound gruesome, courageous, or brutal? And should it be described that way in the plot summary? My personal view is that it is all three, but that only 'brutal' qualifies as encyclopedia style. My reasons:

1. The manner in which he treats himself is integral to the story. It would be a different person and a different story if he did it another way. What if he went to his mother's house and had her pay for treatment from a doctor? That's a different story.

2. The summary should be mnemonic about the incidents, so it's okay to put in a reminder. In a longer summary we'd recount the whole incident, which we don't here.

3. 'Gruesome' = inspiring horror, and that seems very personal for each viewer. 'Brutal' = like a brute, and I don't think there's any doubt about that objectively. 'Courageous' also seems completely correct to me but there hasn't been a consensus on that so far. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It's perhaps integral to the characterization, but not to the plot (all that's integral to the plot is that he treats his own wounds, by himself). I don't think any adverbial is necessary. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

One person's gruesome is another's not gruesome. It's subjective and not necessary, he treats the wound is enough. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

But he's not a doctor, either, so it's okay to indicate that his method is not professional. 'Brutal' (like a brute) does that. Unless there's another formulation that captures it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

And you bring up the pertinent point: how do you know he's not a doctor? I, as a viewer, was just as impressed with his expertise in knowing exactly where the requisite medications were in the pharmacy and how to use them as I was with his matter-of-fact self-treatment. Maybe he was a medic, EMT, or a member of the FRCS; we cannot know, but we also cannot presume one way or the other without evidence from the story. Rjanag is correct. Perhaps if you can find a published, credible critic who characterized the surgery in some interesting way, then it could be included (if cited appropriately). 173.72.136.143 (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I got to hand it to you, that's a good thought. As for incorporating a source, my understanding is that summaries are not sourced. Even if an outside source said he treated himself amateurishly, I don't see how that overrules what's in the film. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no problem with sourcing a description or interpretation in the Plot section, as long as it contributes something significant to the copy. I agree it is a reaction-evoking scene and tells us much about the character (so I understand the desire to add "something" to the bare description, but what that is depends on the viewer. Certainly, we could safely say he "expertly" treats his wounds, but the gruesome or resolute direction is far more subjective. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"brutal" seemed like a really strange word choice to me, so I changed it to "gruesome." I think that a bloody auto-medication has a good claim at the word "gruesome," but it doesn't really matter much to me. "Brutal" seemed like the wrong word, because it suggests coarseness and crudity, whereas the surgery was actually pretty expertly performed. Valkotukka (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree: clearly introducing editorial POV (for example I didn't think it was gruesome, I was impressed with his efficiency. 173.72.136.143 (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus that something about the unusual manner of the treatment needs to be said. Some anonymous editors are impressed with his efficiency, and that's fine, but something essential is left out if we simply say he treated his own wounds. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

How about "expertly"?
Jim Dunning | talk 22:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Doctors and nurses, please weigh in if you thought Chigurh stitched his leg "expertly." Seems like "desperately" is as close as "expertly." My impression is of a man who was enough familiar with the problem of being shot and having no wish to explain himself in a hospital that he figured out the best course of action if and when he was confronted with it. He took very risky measures as well as he could and because of good fortune and his personal courage was able to execute them successfully. So maybe we should go with "courageously." --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't need words that end with -ly in any plot summary. How about "he fantastically, successfully, bravely, expertly, wonderfully, amazingly treats his wounds"? There is no need for any adverb, he treats his wounds is enough. And we don't need acres of discussion over one word. You have kept the plot summary under control, Ring Cinema, but any adverb you propose is going to have a POV, and not everyone will agree on the interpretation. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the point, Darren, but there are two problems with it in my mind. 1) that doesn't appear to be the current consensus 2) sometimes it's inaccurate to leave a verb unmodified or at least more accurate to say how something was done, and this seems to be the case here. There's not really a problem with carefully choosing the right way of saying what happened in the movie, I don't think. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The disagreement over any of the possible qualifier appears to make the argument against putting one in at all.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see your logic really. Some things have gotten agreement, others are in discussion. That's how it's supposed to work, I think. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Likewise. RC, I don't see the consensus of which you speak. What's wrong with just saying "he treats his own wounds"? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There's not an argument, there's a discussion to air it out to everyone's satisfaction. No rush. The consensus is pretty obvious: there are different proposals to characterize it. There was some discussion of why it's inadequate if unmodified. Perhaps there's a response to that...? --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I just finished watching the movie tonight. I didn't think anything in that scene was gruesome, and it certainly wasn't brutal. It wasn't brave either. He had to do it himself because he couldn't go to a hospital. Just say "he treated his own wound". The flowery adverbs do nothing but introduce value judgments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.59.94 (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean you don't think there is anything negative (horrible/awful/grisly/repellent) about being in a position where you are stitching your own flesh? I don't believe that really. It's pretty clear that the scene is included because it's so unusual for someone to do that. And to claim that it isn't brave also lacks credibility when there are many examples of desperate people forcing a doctor to provide treatment because they don't have the courage to do it themselves. I think there is a tendency to dehumanize Chigurh because he's evil. "He treated his own wound" describes putting a band-aid on a paper cut as much as it says what Chigurh does, so it's a good idea to characterize or describe the action in a way that differentiates it from quotidian examples of self-treatment. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ellis as deputy

On this page Ellis is listed as a retired sheriff, but where does that information come from? In the film Ellis says, "Your granddad never asked me to sign on as a deputy." He implies that he signed on for deputy out of free will and knew the risk it brought with it, hence not blaming Ed Tom's father for his being disabled. Anyway, I think that if we can't agree on whether he was a deputy or a sheriff, it should be changed to "ex-law man" or something. Qopzeep (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ellis means that he didn't need to be asked. Since his brother was a sheriff, they apparently worked in the same jurisdiction, and there is one sheriff per, I'm led to believe he was a deputy. But who says he wasn't a deputy? --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say he wasn't a deputy, I said he could have been either a deputy or a sherrif. Since we cannot be sure of this information, it shouldn't be stated on the page. The scentence "Barry Corbin as Ellis, a retired sheriff shot in the line of duty and now wheelchair-bound." under the Cast & Characters section should be changed. I will be changing it in one week, unless there is a good argument against this or someone procures definitive evidence that Ellis was indeed a sherrif. Qopzeep (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. No one asked me to answer you, but I think the argument is already made: he became a deputy without being asked. He didn't say "Your granddad never asked me to sign on as a sheriff." A normal English speaker hears that he wasn't asked to sign on as a deputy and infers rightly that he was a deputy. I think the burden is on you to show that he was something other than a deputy, since it seems fairly universally understood that statements of the form "I wasn't asked to X, but..." means in all cases that X is true. Therefore, he signed on as a deputy.

Take note of the opening voiceover by the sheriff: "I was sheriff of this county when I was twenty-five. Hard to believe. Grandfather was a lawman. Father too. Me and him was sheriff at the same time, him in Plano and me here. I think he was pretty proud of that. I know I was." Can you explain why he doesn't mention his own brother was a sheriff too? Unless you can, you've lost the argument a second time. Thanks very much for raising the issue. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is getting a little confusing. Unless I'm mistaken, we are actually on the same line here. We both agree to the fact that Ellis was a deputy, right?

What I'm trying to say is that on the main page of No Country for Old Men (film) under the Cast and characters section, someone has stated that Ellis is an ex-sheriff, not an ex-deputy. As far as I can see, we are both on the same page: Ellis's status in this article needs to be corrected.

I hope I am not completely misguided here. Just to be clear, I am stating that Ellis is not and never was a sheriff, he was a deputy. Please let me know if I'm mistaken. Lastly, thank god for the discussion page, eh? Qopzeep (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood you indeed. I agree he was a deputy, not a sheriff. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, things like that can happen sometimes, when discussions get lengthy. I see you've already corrected the article, thanks! Qopzeep (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Protagonist(s)?

This edit raises an interesting question: is there a protagonist, and, if so, who is it (or they)?

Might be worth checking out what some (reliable) sources say on the topic before we decide how the issue should be addressed in the article—

And this leaves out the numerous, high-quality bloggers who deftly address the question of protagonist in the novel and the film whose inclusion might cross the line of WP:RS. Looks like some excellent fodder for a quality addition to the article.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting subject. Here on the page, we write "Adapted from the Cormac McCarthy novel of the same name,[1][2] No Country for Old Men tells the story of an ordinary man to whom chance delivers a fortune that is not his, and the ensuing cat-and-mouse drama, as three men crisscross each other's paths in the desert landscape of 1980 West Texas." So who is that ordinary man? Not the sheriff. The antagonist is easy to spot here, if one has some doubts. The sheriff's inclusion as a framing device is interesting, but since that could be cut without changing the main action, he is not the lead. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

[Citation needed] in introduction

The last line of the introduction of this article reads "Upon its release, many critics praised it as the best film of the year, and it has since been acclaimed as one of the best films of the decade.^{[citation needed]}". I was thinking that we could use RottenTomatoes and Metacritic as sources for this, since this film has gotten a rating of 95% and 91% on Rottentomatoes and Metacritic respectively. Either that or we change the line into something like "Since its release the film has been well-received by many critics" with references to RT and MC. Qopzeep (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like it needs rewording. I skimmed the Reception section and don't see any one reference for "one of the best films of the decade". Perhaps one or two reviewers said that, perhaps it got on one or two lists for that (rather than lists of best films of the year), but unless it's a major trend and has been documented in a source somewhere then it's synthesis. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I feel the introduction doesn't suffer from it if this scentence is deleted. Also, I think it is good practice to remove statements that are as hard to 'prove' as opinions from sections where it hasn't been stated clearly that it deals with opinions (i.e. as in the introduction vs. reception). I'll remove the scentence now. Qopzeep (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think this is good editing. Many critics have named it one of the best of the decade. I believe neither of you googled 'no country for old men film of the decade' where there are literally pages of cites. What's going on? --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Roger Ebert names the film as one of the decade's best on his site. However, there are multiple critics who have done so probably without mentioning that many have listed it thus. This case kind of reveals a weakness in Wikipedia policy. Citations for something unchallenged shouldn't really be required. Somewhere between '1+1=2' and 'Zombies live at the Martian North Pole' we cross a line that requires a citation. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Link, please? I read Ebert's review and saw no such statement there. And regardless, Ebert is still just one reviewer. It may be appropriate to put something in the reception section saying "several reviewers called the film one of the decade's best^[1]^[2]^[3]", but unless a single unifying source can be dug up I see no reason to put such a statement in the lede, and no reason to imply that such acclaim is universal. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I googled 'roger ebert films of the decade' and it's listed first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ring Cinema (talk • contribs) 22:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so you proved that it's on Ebert's list (and perhaps a few random blogs as well). You still haven't addressed any of the other concerns raised. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what other concerns you mean. This issue is peripheral to me. However, if you want to strike something from an article that you know to be true, I'm not sure I understand why. This film has received very high praise in almost every forum. Do you think it hasn't been repeatedly named as one of the decade's top films? Or do you think this fact is not noteworthy? --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I never said we shouldn't say in the lede that the film has "received high praise". That's something that can easily be cited to a single source (Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic at the least, although by now there are probably more academic sources). That's different, though, than saying that "many people called it 'one of the best films of the decade'", something which so far appears to be your synthesis—you found several people that said that and then synthesized from there. If there is a single source that backs this up (for example, an academic article saying this) it would be better. Anyway, I already presented several alternatives above—a better way to word or source the statement, and a suggestion that the statement can go in the Reception section. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing we're discussing is "mine," so don't attribute it to me. Are you taking the view that the movie hasn't been listed on many critics' lists for top films of the decade? I really want an answer to that. What do you think is the truth of the matter? Has it been listed many times or not? --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Issues being raised here are (1) should a scentence like that be included in the introduction, (2) what constitutes "many critics", (3) by whom this was claimed and (4) are they an authority.

When addressing these issues, it's good practice to keep in mind Wikipedia's most important paradigm: Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. The problem with the scentence "and it has since been acclaimed as one of the best films of the decade" is that it's open to debate addressed by points (2), (3) and (4) above. So, if we can agree to a number of critics that we could consider as 'many' and who is an authority on the subject and who isn't, we've set up the conditions to test whether it has been "acclaimed as one of the best films of the decade."

To be honest, I still think that just removing the scentence does not harm the introduction because there already is a section dealing with reception. Qopzeep (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the very coherent post, Q. I feel the impending possibility that our discussion will founder on semantic shoals and I'm not interested in that discussion. I think we are all native English speakers here so we know what the words mean. I am interested in this: are we removing a sentence that is true? In my opinion, we are, but I'm interested in your view. It is not true that every sentence requires a citation (some things are verifiable without one), so we have to exercise our judgement. So, what is your view, Q? Is the sentence true or false? (And many thanks). --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There are cases that it is better to remove a scentence, even though the scentence is true. For example, to keep to this page, its plot summary used to be far too long and was shortened, even though all scentences deleted were true. Now, as for this scentence, I have googled it and found many, many lists (top 10/25/50/100). Here is a list with a couple of listings that matter:

Telegraph.co.uk 55
Pastemagazine.com 9
Roger Ebert Unlisted, but as one of the best
Times Online 3
Metacritic 23
IMDb 113

Do I think the scentence is true? Yes. Should it be in the introduction? No. There is already quite a large section dealing with its critical reception. If you want to add this scentence to this article, it has a better place in the reception part of the article.Qopzeep (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I don't think it's at all trivial so it should be included. Thanks again. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Several of those lists aren't necessarily the kind of thing that supports the claim being made in the lede. Metacritic is a review aggregator, not a review itself,and likewise the IMDB list is just an aggregator of existing votes. In other words, those two lists are not saying "we here at Metacritic chose this as one of the best films", they're saying "based on the algorithm we use for scoring, these are the ones that happened to be at the top". More subjective things like Ebert's list and the Telegraph one are more helpful as individual lists, but at the same time they're just data points, they don't provide a sort of unified synthesis that would be better (i.e., the best thing would be a journal article or something summarizing the movie's acclaim—note that us citing reliable sources that make synthesis is different from us performing that synthesis ourselves). rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's go back. Is the sentence that was removed true or false? R, what is your view, please? Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)--71.63.236.131 (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I have already presented my view repeatedly. You keep asking people to comment on whether the sentence is True; I suggest you look at the very first line of WP:Verifiability, which specifically says that "truth" is not part of Wikipedia policy. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I have done my reading, thank you. What a funny thing to say! Thanks for the laugh. And actually, your remark above is incorrect. We do not include false statements in Wikipedia, so truth is an important criterion. You act like I've asked a trick question. Is the sentence true or false? Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Writing "it has since been claimed as one of the best films of the decade" would be a peacock term if there is no verifiability to a broad statement. Surely some critics have individually considered it one of the best films of the decade, but we have a sweeping statement here. It needs to be backed by a reliable source that examines the film in retrospect. It may be worth looking for coverage of A Serious Man, which may refer back to No Country for Old Men. Erik (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Erik. I think this is more like a statement of the form "The sky is blue." It's an accepted summary of a state of affairs about which there is no meaningful doubt, therefore no one would bother to include so obvious a remark in their own writing. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

We verify that this film was critically acclaimed. We verify that this film was one of the most critically acclaimed of films released that year. We have to verify that this film was one of the most critically acclaimed films released last decade. Being critically acclaimed on its own and being critically acclaimed for its release year do not mean that it is one of the most critically acclaimed films of the decade. It is a candidate, surely, but we cannot say outright that it is one of the most critically acclaimed films of the decade without verifying. I don't think it's impossible to; we can review headlines at the end of 2009 and so far in 2010. This has some results, especially this from The Hollywood Reporter. Let's work with these results. It's important because what seems apparent now may not seem so apparent historically. If we look back at the 1950s, we'd be more critical of claims of what films were the best of the decade, even if they were considered well-received as well as one of the most acclaimed for that year. Erik (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You might be right, but I'd like to be a little more complete on this question. The reality is that the majority of statements on Wikipedia are not verified. They are mostly true, mostly verifiable, mostly accepted, but they're mostly not verified. For example, there's no verification of 'the sky is blue'. You might ask yourself why that would be, since the sky is frequently not blue. Someone who doubts that the sky is blue wouldn't be given a lot of respect for their skepticism. Instead, we'd just say they haven't checked (or some other explanation). Summaries are frequently not found in anyone's written work, even though they are true, and a good editor recognizes that there is a continuum of required verification that begins with '1+1=2' (none required) and might end with, say, 'Zombies live at the Martian North Pole' (who says?). Having said all that, this particular case is a little bit boring. Obviously, anyone who spends a couple minutes checking will see that this film is widely cited by many individuals as one of the best of the decade. Someone who doubts that doesn't get a lot of credit for their skepticism. Instead, they convince me that they haven't checked for themselves. That's why this case is more like 'the sky is blue' than the more interesting epistemological cases found elsewhere. Thanks again for your input Erik. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Another peculiarity of cases like this one is that it is more likely someone will write something that contradicts conventional wisdom than affirms it. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ring Cinema (talk • contribs) 16:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

In jokes

Forgive me if this has been noted before, but the prominent signage over the pharmacy appears to be an in-joke. It's shown as " Mike Zoss Pharmacy", and at Coen_brothers this name is mentioned as the name of the brothers' own film production house. I see there are several other, alternative references on the www to explain this Feroshki (talk) 08:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Partly a joke, but perhaps just as much a practical decision to employ a name they won't be sued for using. --71.63.236.131 (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Box Office Success

Should we include a section on the Box Office success as it was both great and unexpected. An actor in the film (I can't remember which one) said that one of the Coen brothers told him he thought "no one's gonna see this movie" or something to that effect, and that they were surprised at it's Box office success. If you want to verify this quote it's from the Australian show At the Movies, in their 2010 Venice film festival special. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.84.214 (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Cover it in Reception. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WP ref. in reviews section

I just removed a reference in the reviews section, titled "Winners list of the 80th Annual Academy Awards," but the url for which was another section in this article. I suspect that someone erred when putting that reference together, but I am buggered if I can figure out what they were attempting. Can someone take a look at my last edit, and perhaps shed some light on this? Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

To satisfy my own curiosity, I looked through the history, and found this edit. What he was actually attempting to do, and what url he should have put there, I do not know. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This? 80th_Academy_Awards#Awards --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Could be. That would certainly make sense. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I've worked in the film industry and the inside word is that "No Country For Old Men" was ripped off through a circuitous route from another writer. (The book was inspired by an old unproduced screenplay, then the book was made into the variant screenplay.) Since there was a big imbroglio over at the "Avatar" Wiki site about "Avatar" being ripped off, nobody knowing quite how to proceed, how should this "No Country For Old Men" situation be approached? There's a good site on the Internet--Wild Realm Film Reviews Hollywood Plagiarism--that begins to probe the problem of stealing scripts in Hollywood but as far as I know Wiki doesn't (yet) have a site on Hollywood plagiarism. 70.136.41.30 (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems like this is one of those interesting subjects that can't be sourced adequately. The article on the book doesn't bring it up. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

^ pass
^ pass
^ pass

[1] ss

[2] ss

[3] ss

[1]

[2]

[3]