Talk:Point Break

I added a few Wikilinks

I just added a few wikilinks and fixed a few minor typos. This article doesn't need a whole lot more work to be fairly decent... Hurrmic 01:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I had a little trouble with some of the plot summary and changed it to what I think is a little better. For instance the previous version said a conflict was created in Utah's mind as he learned that Bodhi was a criminal, but there's nothing said or hinted at in the movie to indicate this. I reduced it to "finally unable to shoot his friend", which leaves a hint that there was that conflict. It's not actually clear why he didn't fire at him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendly person (talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Quote?

There is a questionable addition in the quotes section: "You're just young, dumb, and full of cum!" = Harp

Was that really from the film?

Yes, it was stated early in the film.

No. This quote is wrong. Actual quote: "You're a real blue flame special, aren't you, son? Young, dumb and full of come, I know. What I don't know is how you got assigned here. Guess we must just have ourselves an asshole shortage, huh?"

Come on! Have we no standards? Gees.

You're correct, but when referring to the "body fluid", I believe it's spelled "cum". The "standards" should be to get it correct. You didn't write the line, you're just quoting it. 24.189.35.249 (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The quotes are poorly written; some words are missing and/or re-arranged by the person who wrote the quotes.

References and inspiration

References and inspiration are two separate sections mentioning Hot Fuzz, shouldn't these be merged or something? cyclosarin 05:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC) I tweaked the "Tapping the Source" link. I could not figure out how to do a reference. ronin13 07:40, September 20 2009 (UTC)

Another reference is the bank robbery scene in GTA IV and the last bank robbery in the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.4.191 (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Expresidents.jpg

Image:Expresidents.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) 21:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ex-presidents

Who were the presidents portrayed? Was it Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan? USN1977 (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

They are Reagan, Nixon, Carter and Johnson. --ElTio (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

And Nixon has a long nose, like Pinochio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendly person (talk • contribs) 23:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sequel

Is Patrick Swayze to appear in the sequel? His pancreatic cancer would make it very difficult. P Cezanne (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Besides the cancer (God be with Swayze and his family in this difficult time), how could have Swayze returned on screen as well as off. The final scene was summed up where Bodhi is allowed to have one last adrenaline thrill by surfing the waves of the violent Australian current. Although not shown onscreen, it is strongly implied this led to his death. USN1977 (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I guess no sequel now. RIP patrick --Spanglej (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Homoerotic subtext

Nothing is mentioned in the article about the distinct homoerotic nature of the relationship between Swayze and Reeves. Watch the film again - it's clear as day. They make a lovely couple and seem to spend a lot of the film gazing hungrily at each other. It must be a cult gay hit, surely. Such a great film. --Spanglej (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Because it's all in your imagination? danno_uk 19:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hundreds of Tears

Sheryl Crow's page says that "Hundreds of Tears" is on this soundtrack but this page does not support that. Amazon.com agrees that its on there and does not mention many of the tracks on this page. The soundtrack it lists is:

1. Nobody Rides For Free - Ratt 2. Over The Edge - L.A. Guns 3. I Will Not Fall - Wire Train 4. I Want You - Concrete Blonde 5. 7 And 7 Is - Liquid Jesus 6. Smoke On The Water - Loudhouse 7. My City - Shark Island 8. Criminal - Public Image Limited 9. So Long Cowboy - Westworld 10. Hundreds Of Tears - Sheryl Crow

These tracks are not listed on Amazon (who may be wrong) but these tracks are listed here:

   * Jimi Hendrix – "If 6 Was 9"
   * School of Fish – "Rose Colored Glasses"
   * Little Caesar – "Down to the Wire"
   * Ice-T – "Original Gangster"
   * Mark Isham – "Foot Chase" 12.162.122.5 (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I am being vandalized then called a vandal!!!

I made a legitimate edit with a correct reference, who is the vandal that keeps undoing my addition??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.44.12 (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

JesseRafe has been harassing me constantly since I edited. The entry is part of the legacy of the movie and how it has impacted the culture by being referenced in another high profile Academy Award winning movie. Yet, JesseRafe insists on harassing me and deleting my legitimate addition that is part of the film's legacy.

Someone needs to block JesseRafe from bullying other common users by refusing to answer then using his edit button to harass calling himself an "Editor". Jesse an Editor gets paid to edit, this is a public forum that you do not own nor have the legitimate authority to claim as your own.

Cease and desist your harassment of common users and learn some people skills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.44.12 (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Every user who has come across your edits has removed them, and every time a reason was given. You linked a YouTube video which is not a proper source, the content itself was not encyclopedic, and your determination that this constitutes some form of Point Break's legacy is Original Research. Nothing contained in your edit has a modicum to do with the subject matter of the article.JesseRafe (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

--

I was about to open a discussion here, but one more focussed on the edits themselves. I welcome discussion at the new section Talk:Point Break#References to Whiplash in legacy section. Willondon (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Willondon is a human being, JesseRafe is a computer incapable of dialogue and being a human being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.178.173 (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

References to Whiplash in legacy section

My objection to these edits [1] is that (1) it seems to be original research, and (2) that the connection to Point Break's legacy is weak. My first objection might be confusing because the reference given was to a YouTube clip that indeed shows the events described. The original research part comes when the edit says "to indicate the other drummer was 'inferior' to him as with Bodhi and Johnny when it came to surfing", as well as the assumption of relevance in general. It may seem silly, but to avoid WP:OR, the edits really need to stick with secondary sources that assert what the encyclopedia is reporting. Willondon (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Excellent points, Willondon. It is both OR and pure opinion. Yes, it is obviously a reference to Point Break but such a minor one it's barely worthy of the IMDb trivia page, cf. Hot Fuzz where it was actually a thematic and plot-based aspect of the film -- and was cited as being noted by published reviewers. Further the YouTube clip is not an appropriate source. I don't think that using YT of the exact moment in the film makes the claim that it is OR any weaker. I consider things like plots and quotes and cast members prima facie self-evident, and don't need cites. I haven't seen the film but I don't doubt this dialogue exists. But, importantly, beyond the mere mention of Johnny Utah, the main crux of the IP's edits is his/her opinion vis-a-vis the "inferiority" of the name-calling and the connection between the characters in these two films. Any of the above is enough to dismiss this, but in combination it is not even worthy of consideration (hence why I didn't start a Talk section on it myself). JesseRafe (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit wars, regardless of merit, always need resolved on the talk pages. Willondon (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

JesseRafe deemed me "unworthy" and instead of communicating decided to refuse to answer my inquiries and harass me, is this what Wikipedia really wants to represent them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.178.173 (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I started this new section to discuss the edits and the article, without muddying things up with comments on our personalities as editors. These sort of comments should go in the section you started above, if that's the approach you think is best. Willondon (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Your comments are harassment and defamatory and I've opened COUNTLESS lines of dialogue with you, IP. I've never called you unworthy and never not given an explanation for the removal of your needless edits. JesseRafe (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I started this new section to discuss the edits and the article, without muddying things up with comments on our personalities as editors. These sort of comments should go in the section that was started above, if that's the approach you think is best. Willondon (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the point in copying-and-pasting what you've just said to someone else, seems a bit passive aggressive. Nor do I see the point in not acknowledging the harassment and ad hominem in the section where it occurred. This one. The IP libeled me in this section, so I responded to him or her directly here. The IP's behavior (and the uncivil libel is a further manifestation of that) is the issue underlying these edits. There is no question whether they belong here (they don't), and if it weren't for the IP's behavior, there wouldn't be a need to discuss their edits. I don't see your need for distinction.

I wanted distinct threads because I find arguments about editor behaviour aren't usually effective in improving articles. They're often very interesting, don't get me wrong; this one is just not for me at this time. (And keep in mind, not everything needs responding to.)

There is indeed a question of whether the edits belong in the article, else this discussion wouldn't exist. I've seen it before, where an editor cites a movie or other primary source, thinking the reference is an obvious slam-dunk, forgetting that extra commentary and analysis needs sourcing, too, for both accuracy and relevancy. In this article, the OP might think the Whiplash edit is on the same footing as the content about the Hot Fuzz reference. I note, though, that the Hot Fuzz material has two different sources that attest to its relevance. So I'm not in favour of including the Whiplash material here. Willondon (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Here are the reasons why only a few common users ever take the time to edit. Those with Wiki pages and accounts consider themselves Lords of All, and why Wikipedia isn't taken seriously by professional people. Really? All of this nonsense and harassment just for a one line entry. JesseRafe discourages dialogue and deems who he feels is worthy or unworthy. Sorry chaps, but I will no longer be patronizing Wikipedia in any way, shape or form. Goodbye children.

http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.44.12 (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to strip it down to arguing the merits of the edits. I haven't seen any comment from you on my arguments for not including it. The only argument I've heard from you is multiple attempts to insert the same edit, with absolutely nothing in the edit summaries, and an appeal to the talk page titled "I am being vandalized then called a vandal!!!". *Hrmmph!!* No wonder Wikipedia isn't taken seriously! Willondon (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately this threat was also his response to his first edit being marked vandalism by ClueBot. I wish he'd take us up on it. The ironing that removal of nonsense is what makes Wikipedia not be taken seriously and not his trivial addenda is delicious. JesseRafe (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Page move

I have reverted the recent move to Point Break (1991 film). I understand why it was done, and it may well need to once Point Break (2015 film) is released, but for now this article should remain the primary topic. Also, WP:RM is much better in this instance than a bold move that doesn't even attempt to fix all the inbound links. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 5 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. We have strong consensus against a move at this point. It may be worth revisiting the question once/if the new movie becomes established. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Point Break → Point Break (1991 film) – Point Break (2015 film) is a big studio release. Two months before release doesn't change that. Film Fan 14:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Move - As much as I would like to imagine that "Point Break" only ever refer to the 1991 film and this 2015 one be forgotten as quickly as the Mod Squad remake, I do have to acknowledge that as the first film was named after the term it is only right that the term, the two films, and the boy band (???) all be given equal footing with one disambiguation page on the eleven characters "Point Break", but the 1991 should still and always be listed first. JesseRafe (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Additional Comment: I agree with Film Fan that waiting for the actual release of the 2015 film seems trivial. It is being advertised and searched for prior to its release as all films are. JesseRafe (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NCFILM, which says If a film shares its title with one or more other film topics on Wikipedia, compare all film and non-film topics and determine whether one is the primary topic. If one film is the primary topic, name its article after the film's title without any means of disambiguation. For the other films (or all the films, if none of them are the primary topic), add the year of its first verifiable release (including film festival screenings). At the moment the original film is the the primary topic so it needs no disambiguation. If that changes, then a move might be appropriate, but not now. (I am so sick of remakes. Can't they make originals any more?) --AussieLegend (✉) 15:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The original film is the primary topic. Readers looking for the remake can click the link in the hatnote. Making the base title a disambiguation page wouldn't make it easier for them to find the article on the remake, since they would still have to click through a link. Calidum 18:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above. This is currently the primary topic. Maybe revisit it in 6/12 months. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support it evidently won't be the absolute majority topic either side of release and the new one has Ray Winstone in it so is unlikely to be a total dog. Primary Topic was designed for cities like Paris, not for media products. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

"Primary Topic was designed for cities like Paris, not for media products." Calidum 03:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NCFILM, primary topic. Cavarrone 18:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The 2015 film is a remake of the 1991 film. It is therefore highly derivative. The 2015 film will need substantial evidence of dominant recognition over its predecessor to overcome the derivative fact, unavoidable recentism of the evidence, and WP:TITLECHANGES. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Point break" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Point break. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 21#Point break until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)