Talk:Good Will Hunting/Archive 1

"Sociopathic"
"sociopathic" seems much too strong here. -- incandenza 17:09 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I think it was a pretty accurate description of the character, at least at the outset of the movie. Will has a criminal record as long as your arm and brutally beats a man against whom he holds a 15 year old grudge.  He has no tolerance at all for authority.  Sure sounds like a sociopath to me.  But, OTOH, I can live with "troubled".  Bill 00:39 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree that "sociopath" shouldn't be used. But mostly because it is a poor interpretation of Will's character. That or the person who suggested it doesn't know what "sociopath" means. - Cyborg Ninja 03:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Themes and other edits
I am thinking of adding themes to this page, including duality, coming of age, love, and the intangible antagonist. Any suggestions/objections feel free. --Asuskay 03:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I added another theme under the Themes category because i think that it is a really important lesson that is learned in the film.--Precious3230 21:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I added an external link to the webpage "Screen it" because it seemed like a really good review page, especially for adults to review the bad content in the film.--Precious3230 21:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I added an 'intangible antagonist' section to themes because I feel it is essential to undertstanding this to appreciate the movie.--Asuskay 23:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I feel that under the synopsis section for the page the conclusion indicates to the audience that Will is seeking Skylar first before he seeks the opportunities Lambeau has provided for him. I am not sure this is true, in fact I think it is insinuating that he is eventually going to come back, which I feel is inaccurate to the concluding scene of the movie.--Asuskay 23:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I re-worded the second to last paragraph which discusses "Chuckie's one great hope." I feel this is very valid to this film page, but the wording seemed a little off. I simply took out and added a few words to make it a little more accurate. Originally this paragraph indicated that the one time Chuckie came to pick Will up he wouldn't be there. For the reader, this suggests Chuckie does not pick Will up every day, which he does.--Asuskay 23:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I added a reception category because i think it is important for viewers of this page to know that it not only made a lot of money in the box office, but people actually liked it a lot, and it had good film critic reviews.--Precious3230 03:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I added on to the reception category, touching on what makes this regular story so intriguing on film.--Asuskay 15:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the theme section of this page flows well. Some of it seems copied and pasted from other papers. I am going to make it flow a little better by taking out the "three major theme" heading because there are more than three written about. there are also a few times the synopsis is replicated in this section, which I think is unnecessary at this point of the page.--Asuskay 15:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I took out the theme about Will searching for a home because he has a home in the film, and it is obviously the only place that he feels safe. In his home, it is only him and his friends that he trusts, whereas, in the outside world, he is exposed to people that he feels could potentially hurt him. Also the movie shows how important home is to Will and how guarded he keeps it, because he will not open it up to Skylar and let her come see it. --Precious3230 15:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure the themes section flows very well. I am going to do some minor editing to the wording because certain parts don't really make sense in how they describe Will Hunting.--Asuskay 19:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I edited the synopsis section because i felt like it made sense to people who had already viewed the film, but someone who has not seen it and is looking for information on it would be really confused by this summary. i hope i helped!--Precious3230 01:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Source of script?
I am pretty sure the anon contributor who is saying this film is based on some 'unknown' MIT person is a vandal - after depositing their (unsourced) info they wiped out the rest of the page. But I am going to AGF and leave the info there for a while and stick a unverfied tag on instead. I am going get rid of it if a source doesn't appear soon tho... novacatz 14:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Couldn't find the any info - nuking that paragraph. novacatz 15:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Quotes
I removed the huge and badly-formatted Quotes section. Oh, and I added a link to the movie's Wikiquote page, which has more than enough quotes. riana 14:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Synopsis
By definition, this section should be relatively brief, but it's turning into a full re-write of the screenplay. What say we keep or shorten its current length and focus on keeping it as well-written and flowing as we can? Dudesleeper 17:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * -Heartily agreed. Unfortunately I don't care enough about the film to do it myself...Figureground 01:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Heartily agreed, too. I also don't care enough to do it myself...--Lord of the Ping 08:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If noone else wants to or does it first, I'll cut it down significantly in the next few weeks. Every time I look at this page, that synopsis makes me want to puke.  It's practically the entire script. Randomjohn 21:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

removed Trivia section
I have removed the Trivia section by moving the para re Williams into the production section and combining it with a sentence there that had been commented out.

I removed the other para in the Trivia section from the article, because I can't see a place to put it, and because it is more about JSBSB than about GWH. Maybe a section called References in popular culture could be started. Dog Day Afternoon has such a section.
 * Damon, Affleck and Van Sant all make cameo appearances in Kevin Smith's Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. Van Sant is portrayed as being too busy counting the piles of money from this movie to pay any attention to the fictional sequel "Good Will Hunting 2: Hunting Season," an apparent action flick in which Damon and Affleck have reprised their roles.

--Jtir 19:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

dedication
I removed the "citation needed" flag because the dedication occurs in the film's credits crawl, and surely that should be sufficient (both authors had died that year, 1997).F.N. Wombat 09:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)F.N. Wombat

Opening
What evidence is there that the movie had a weak opening? According to Box Office Mojo, the film averaged nearly $40,000 per screen in its opening weekend. It was a limited release, granted, but limited releases are common for Oscar-bait features. Stick Fig 04:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * At $1.72m on opening weekend, "weak opening" is almost euphemistic. The thing cost $10m.. if a film makes only 17.2% of its budget back on opening weekend, things aren't looking good. Dan 17:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You missed the meaning of "limited release" entirely. Nobody expects a movie to gross much money through a limited opening. The point is to generate hype for Oscar season. Many movies that had limited openings for Oscar season went on to gross many times more than their cost to make. - Cyborg Ninja 03:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It totally misses the context of what Oscar season is -- an attempt to get arthouse films into the theater before the eligibility period ends. How is a film realistically going to make back its budget in seven theaters? And plus, on its wide opening, it made back its $10 million budget in a single weekend. I'm adding some more context to it because the line is misleading.
 * In fact, according to BoxOfficeMojo, the number is wrong. It's actually much lower than that -- more like $200,000. Where did the $1.7 million number come from?Stick Fig 08:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep... looks like $272k. That would be rather devastating... anyway, you're right. Even so, $10m would have been a bit disappointing.. and then it [i]climbed[/i] ... a LOT. Which really doesn't happen very much... http://imdb.com/title/tt0119217/business Dan 17:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I added a little more context, either way. This is a movie that didn't make a lot in individual weeks, but had tremendous staying power. I also changed the box office totals to reflect both limited and wide openings. Stick Fig 20:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Personality disorder
After reading some differing articles about different personality disorders, I'm inclined to think that he suffered from Borderline Personality Disorder 24.107.109.117 (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Add Trivia?
It appears to me in an episode of Family Guy there is a cut scene joke to what appears to be a room and Matt Damon and Ben Affleck are in a room and Damon is sitting at a table and says,'There all finished. I'm calling this movie Good Will Hunting by Matt Damon.' Ben Affleck is lying on a couch and says."Hey, can yo like put my name under yours?' damon replys,'No all you have done for the past 6 months is eat all of the food and smoke pot!' Aflleck replys,'Got any more pot?'

So I;m not really sure what episode it was but I'm pretty sure it was in an episode that was made before 1999. --72.91.32.178 11:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 *  See Avoid trivia sections in articles and Verifiability. Maybe a Cultural references section could be added. --Jtir 17:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Another Cultural reference is an episode of Disney's Recess, where the janitor is caught solving a complex math problem. He eventually turns down the outstanding job offers given to him because of his innate talent, remaining a janitor. --robev (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

filming locations
The phrase "...and the scene is filmed in the westbound lanes because a sign announces the coming of a "Toll Plaza" east of the New York state border" seems a bit obvious and superfluous. Obviously they would be filming in the westbound lanes as Will Hunting is traveling westward, and obviously the toll plaza is merely a part of that fact. Also, the street name on the bridge is wrong. Instead, the sign reads 'Prospect St Stockbridge' in the film, which Google Streetview confirms. (also, there is no Pittsfield Rd. in Stockbridge that crosses I-90) --Hyperquantization (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed
I removed this from the intro paragaph: "The movie took 12 days to shoot which is astonishing."

It sounds like a 12 year old fanboy plus the making of the movie is already covered in detail below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silentjames (talk • contribs) 21:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I told about how long it took to shoot the movie. Best edit-summary I've seen yet. - Dudesleeper 00:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed this from the "Fictional Sequel" section:
 * "During the course of the original movie, a genius, that of Ramanujan, was mentioned having lived in India without formal training, only to become one of the greatest in all of the history of math. Since the release of Good Will Hunting, attempts have been made to film a biographical tale about the life of Ramanujan."

It certainly should not be in that section, and probably not in the article at all. 67.103.42.20 (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Reception
For that random bolded part with a bunch of quantifiable info... I think maybe we should work that into a paragraph instead of a list. It looks sloppy. If not a paragraph, at least we should make a proper table of information out of it. Leaving it like that makes the whole section look rushed. Any ideas? Magicmuggle (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Resources to use
Resources to use. — Erik (talk • contrib) 00:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Print
 * Online
 * Online
 * Online
 * Online
 * Online

Run this Town Jayz
In the Jay-z song feat rihanna and Kanye west, Kanye says in the last line, "I can spend my whole life good will hunting", should this be in the trivia or Cultural references ? 68.50.8.134 (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Language
The language of the article is not good enough. For example, "When his buddies present him with a rebuilt Chevrolet Nova for his 21st birthday, he decides to go after Skylar, setting aside his lucrative corporate and government job offers." "Setting aside lucrative offers" suggests that he is making a choice here. I think it is wrong. There is no urgency about the offers. They can (will) wait.

Similarly, "Meanwhile, Lambeau pushes Will so hard that Will eventually refuses to go to the job interviews that Lambeau arranges for him." I doubt this interpretation. I think Will baulks because he is actually not interested in becoming a lawyer! And why an extra 'eventually'? 122.169.37.231 (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The Real Will Hunting
I knew Matt when they were writing this script and remember that the central character was based on a story that was circulating at the time about someone that had been at Yale. Does anyone know who this was? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.46.55.175 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Connecting the dots here. There is a reference to someone like that on this talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ease_%28programming_language%29
 * --Metroking 23:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * William James Sidis Joerite 00:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Will is not a classic "child prodigy" like Sidis. He is a "street kid," like Zenith. --76.200.157.2 20:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Having been instrumental and present in the invention of the story, I will tell you now there was no real WILL HUNTING. period.

The character in the original treatment, brief, was a combination of real MIT students encountered at MIT decades before the film was ever conceived of and scripted. The inspiration for Math wiz quality/dimension is now a professor o MATH at a leading INVY LEAGUE UNIVERSITY. At the time of his attending MIT. The model, the real math wiz was far more advanced than Will Hunting is portrayed.

The street and bad boy aspects of Will's personality are based on another person, the Irish and Boston and contemporaneous aspects and business was added at the scripting  by DAMON and AFFLECK and by whomever else assisted them after the conceptulization and invention was completed. The idea/story Ghost prefers not to be known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.91.119 (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't remember the guy's name and I'm not going to look through all 500 pages to find it, but I do know that a very similar story of a real-life janitor who discovered very important scientific discoveries regarding astronomy had been working at a college and learned from reading the college's library books, wrote a paper on it, sent it to a science magazine and was then got a job as a professor afterwards. All I know about 'em is that his name is mentioned in Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" and that his person is so similar to Good Will Hunting that I think it's completely impossible for it to be a coincidence. If anyone can tell me the guy's name, he should definitely be mentioned on this movie's page somewhere for the sheer similarities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.230.26 (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Who are Joshua Inglethorpe and Professor Michael Durst? I've never heard of them, and I wasn't able to find any information on either of them. If no one can find information to support the claim that they are the inspiration for the story, the introductory paragraph should be changed. --Sarahjane10784 (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Nonsensical reference
"In Season 1, Episode 11 of Futurama, Gunther gets a girl's number and says "You like bananas? I got her number, how'd you like 'dem bananas?"" What? How is this relevant? This desperately needs an explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.196.10 (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

William Goldman did not write it
Please stop writing stupid and wrong credits in the article, if you cannot PROOF it.

At a WGA seminar in 2003, William Goldman denied the persistent rumor that he was the actual writer of Good Will Hunting: "I would love to say that I wrote it. People don't want to think those two cute guys wrote it. What happened was, they had the script. It was their script. They gave it to Rob [Reiner] to read, and there was a great deal of stuff in the script dealing with the F.B.I. trying to use Matt Damon for spy work because he was so brilliant in math. Rob said, "Get rid of it." They then sent them in to see me for a day - I met with them in New York - and all I said to them was, "Rob's right. Get rid of the F.B.I. stuff. Go with the family, go with Boston, go with all that wonderful stuff." And they did. I think people refuse to admit it because their careers have been so far from writing, and I think it's too bad. But I did not write Good Will Hunting, alas." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.221.238 (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you meant PROVE. 70.88.213.74 (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Soundtrack section should be a separate article
I believe the soundtrack section should become a separate article. Ak112358 (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Title
Can someone write something about how/why the title of this movie was chosen? I expected it to be about "The Search for People of Good Intentions", and instead it was about "William Hunting was a Good Boy". --Keeves 10:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The main reference in the title is to a pastime associated with (mostly) low-income people called "Goodwill Hunting", which is searching Goodwill charity stores for special finds. In the movie, a working class person (Will Hunting) is "found" by various people in ways that run contrary to our assumptions. That is, normally a janitor would not be guessed to be a mathematics genius, a wealthy foreign graduate student would not normally form a relationship with a janitor and a low-grade junior college psychologist would not be assumed to be better than all the experts that Will was sent to. The title is analogous to "diamond in the rough." Obviously it also refers to the fact that Will Hunting is Good, as the user above suggested. Jessica Lansdowne (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Will Hunting = Will Sidis
The entire film is based on descriptions of the life and times of William Sidis (and his associates) as found in Amy Wallace’s 1986 book The Prodigy (and the pictures found in her book):

You can read about the other characters here. I added an overview of this to the article, but most of it was reverted. --Libb Thims (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As you may know, Wikipedia uses reliable sources not other wikis and certainly not original research from users/editors here. -Anon98.92.. 98.92.185.217 (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Filming locations
Is all of this information about filming locations, and which businesses are still open, really necessary? It seems like a lot of trivia to me. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  14:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The section's been there for a long time, but of course it can be deleted at any point if you so desire. For my own and (upon request) other people's reference, I've saved the URL at which point the information is listed. I'm sure this will irritate you, because I get a whiff of trolling, which is a nice byproduct. -  Dudesleeper  talk  20:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What you get "a whiff of" is of no interest to me whatsoever, but I will ask you to assume good faith until you have a good reason to do otherwise. It does not matter how long that information has been there.  The only question is whether it is relevant, and information about which of these businesses are still open is irrelevant to the film. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  15:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

MIT?
I watched this film last night and I'm sure it was Harvard he was as a janitor at and not MIT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.156.194 (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Nah that is just completely wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.99.205 (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * He was a janitor at MIT. He and his buddies decide to go to a Harvard bar but he works at MIT. 124.176.217.146 (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Soundtrack
"The musical score for The Conjuring was composed by Danny Elfman, who had previously collaborated with Gus Van Sant on To Die For and would go on to score many of the director's other films. The film also features many songs written and recorded by singer-songwriter Elliott Smith. His song "Miss Misery" was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Original Song, but lost to "My Heart Will Go On" from Titanic. Elfman's score was also nominated for Oscar, but lost Titanic as well. On September 11, 2006, NBC's The Today Show used Elfman's song "Weepy Donuts" while Matt Lauer spoke during the opening credits."

Whats? Where (and how) does The Conjuring come into this? I think it's a simple mistake - I'm changing it. But so removed from that film is the subject of this article, that I thought I'd write about it: perhaps I'm missing something? Something someone else might want to conjure... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapienza (talk • contribs) 08:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Screenplay sources
Anyone have some good sources for the development of the screenplay? Appears to be a glaring omission from the article czar ♔   06:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit I did that was reversed by Sundayclose concerning the oral sex scene, in Development section
Fascinated by this info, I checked the source and it was apparently a personal quote from Harvey Weinstein said on the Graham Norton show. I looked up the video and watched it— Mr. Wenstein flat out says the oral sex scene was between Sean and the Professor. Not Sean and Will like it says in the article. I do not know why my change was reversed due to being "incorrect", clearly he did not actually look up the source— Sundayclose, it is also a bit silly to suggest to an unregistered user to "leave you a message on your talk page" and then have the talk page be semi-protected so that only registered users who have been registered for 4 days and 10 edits can edit. --SRCruz (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It's useful to add the link to the reference once you find it—makes this part easier. But it doesn't even matter who the scene was between—what matters is how it lead to Weinstein getting the deal. So I just rewrote this part of the article. – czar   09:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

who wrote it really?
Is it worth putting a bit in somewhere about the rumours criculating at the the time of the oscars that william goldman or kevin smith was actually responsible for the script? Smith quite clearly denounces this as false on his first Q & A DVD, but it is an interesting point of trivia to note. Iwtbf42 (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think Wikipedia likes to deal in rumour. Like you said, Kevin Smith shot down talk in flames that he was in fact the writer, and Goldman does similar in his book 'Which Lie Did I Tell?' Besides which Goldman in particular has a VERY distinctive - almost inimitable - screenwriting style, and the screenplay for Good Will Hunting, which is readily available, is not written in this style.220.240.153.58 (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Lead Actor of the Movie Robin Williams or Matt Damon?
I changed the article so that Robin Williams is the Main/Lead Actor in the Movie and not Matt Damon. There are two places where someone can check who is the main actor: First of all the Movie Poster states in the lower section/credit section Robin Williams as the First actor. Additionaly the beginning credits in the movie state Robin Williams as first actor too. The end credits state otherwise, here is Matt Damon mentioned first, but the end credits are sorted by appearance. Even as the story evolves around Will Hunting, he is the main focus of the movie, this does not mean he is the Lead Actor. The credits and/or movie poster decide who the lead actor is. It is the same for the "Force Awakens", Harrison Ford is the lead actor and not Daisy Ridley, on which the story focus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Da Vinci Nanjing (talk • contribs) 17:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * So, why was Matt Damon nominated for Best Actor, while Robin Williams got a nod for Best Supporting Actor? If what you say is true, wouldn't these have been reversed?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  09:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it comes down to the fact that Robin Williams got top billing because when the movie was released, he was the most widely known actor in the cast. It was the very beginning of Matt Damon's career, so people didn't really know who he was yet. Just like with the "Force Awakens" example above, it was a matter of seniority - and of marketing. Moloch dhalgren (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Missing noun?
"The film grossed over US$225 million during its theatrical from a $10 million budget." Is 'theatrical' being used as a noun here, or is the word'run' missing? Kdammers (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Plagiarism claim
The plagiarism claim in the lede needs to be removed. Per WP:REDFLAG, extraordinary claims require multiple mainstream sources, and this especially so in this case as the claim could be a WP:BLP violation. The argument that there is no source for Affleck and Damon writing the script is ridiculous and wrong. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 12:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The film is the source for their credits, don't need a secondary source stating that when the film itself identifies them as the writers (and that whole them winning awards for it thing). I would agree that without more secondary sources supporting this claim (doesn't have to be true, just has to be shown to be something bigger than 1 person claiming this) it should be removed outright. If it is added in, it should likely be worked into the writing area, unless it blows up into a big news coverage event then it could warrant its own section.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Someone (perhaps the "author"?) posted the "secret for 20 years" story in 2005, over 10 years ago. They even included an email address in the article later. Since Damon started the script in 1992 and had sold it by 1994, not clear how much a "mid-90's" "oral treatment" would have influenced the story. And Damon and Affleck have acknowledged changes they made from others suggestion after selling the script. There are some other details about the script origin that could address/refute the "New York Post Page Six" story without stating the "fringe". Also, the term "plagiarism" might be incorrect in this case. Is Damon's 40-page homework script on-line somewhere? StrayBolt (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Ultimately, it doesn't matter because we're not going to investigate and refute claims. We don't do that. The fact is that no other reliable source is reporting this as a thing. There's no legal battle, just some hack of a writer trying to get credit for something that he may or may not have contributed to in some capacity.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Exactly right. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 12:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Mathematics
Do we really need so much information on the mathematics? I think anything not directly relevant to the film should be removed. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 16:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The scene using an adjacency matrix from graph theory is pivotal to establishing Will's genius. Rewrote the math today. Note the refs re Physics in early script; clearly the film sought a genius-myth to ride. — Rgdboer (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * All I'm saying is that the section went into details about the math that are not in the film. The article should not stray too far from what the film itself addresses. ---<b style="font-family: Georgia;"> The Old Jacobite </b><i style="font-family: Courier New;">The '45</i> 01:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I mentioned some things that weren't included in the same way directors and actors are mentioned that weren't included. The lower part was from the first chalkboard and I was going to include the second. (the following was written before your reply) When I used Google to search for "Good Will Hunting", the first page include 3 lists of movies: Directed by Gus Van Sant, Mathematics, and Matt Damon. This movie is notable for math. The first paragraph I added deals with script development and how D&A went with math. There has been much press and rumor about the origin story for the script so more "exposition" and evidence is required. Also, I was leaning more the other direction to Rgdboer edit and lose the matrices (if we have to) and leave (add) the prose. StrayBolt (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Plot Factual Errors
What is to be done about them?

"though he works as a janitor" --  his work is assigned by his PO; not a choice.<BR>

"The next day," -- is a POV since it is not indicated in the film that the next scene is the following day.<BR>

"Lambeau sits in on his court appearance and watches Will defend." -- defend what?<BR>

"treats his first few therapists with mockery." -- he treats all his perspective therapists, including Maguire, with mockery/disdain<BR>

"Will begins to open up." -- that is a POV as in a later scene M. challenges W's defensive attitude. Talking more or discussing more is a fact but opening up is left to interpretation. WP avoids that.<BR>

"Lambeau sets up a number of job interviews for Will," -- L. has been hounded on his phone for W. to start taking interviews and 1 was set up. W. says that he has sent someone else to it. That is 1 interview, not many.<BR>

"Skylar asks Will to move to California with her, but he refuses and tells her he is an orphan, and that his foster father physically abused him. Will breaks up with Skylar" -- they share during this one scene many personal views and experiences including misperceptions or misunderstandings each had about the other.<BR>

"Lambeau … takes a sabbatical to travel the world." -- M. does not say he is taking a sabbatical, and he will say later that he is going to travel to Baltimore and China, not the world.<BR>

"When Will's friends present him with a rebuilt Chevrolet Nova for his twenty-first birthday, he decides to pass on his job offer and drive to California to reunite with Skylar." -- will never says except in his note that he declines any job offer but hat if L. "calls about that job, sorry" and instead, "had to go see about a girl.<BR>

"Chuckie goes to Will's house to pick him up, only to find that he is not there, much to his happiness." -- happiness is a POV as a smile can mean many things but it can be safely said that when W. was not there C. smiled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9149:A600:4474:DD7A:8E8A:9909 (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * It is sloppy writing more than plot errors. Many plot sections contain similar mistakes, editors also often make the mistake of write what they imagine is happening and how the characters feel, instead writing only what is shown.
 * Some of your complaints seem to have been fixed. I rephrased the bit about "his first few therapists", thanks for your suggestions. -- 109.79.171.15 (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Parseval's theorem
I realize that "Parseval's theorem" was on the board when a professor announces a problem-solving challenge at the beginning of the movie. But Parseval's theorem is a very old and commonly proved result. The professor would not be terrifically impressed if someone managed to prove Parseval's theorem. Therefore I think it unlikely that Parseval's theorem was the subject of the problem the professor mentioned, and I will remove all references to Will proving it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porffiry (talk • contribs) 02:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * According to this source, the answer Will is writing does tie to the problem posed on the board. --Arcadian 02:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Parseval's theorem wasn't the one Will solved.. he solved an advanced fourier system. The class was supposed to solve Parseval's. Dan 03:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The viewer is supposed to believe that the problem proposed is more advanced than it actually is written in the movie. Hence the "unsolvability" of it. So with that reasoning, there shouldn't be any technical information about what Will actually ended up solving in reality rather than in the movie's context. It's trivial otherwise. - Cyborg Ninja 03:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that, after correctly writing Parseval's theorem on the board, the professor incorrectly refers to "Percival". The closed captioning also writes it as "Percival". MathPerson (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Seasider53 Revert
Well sourced deletion of 'Irish-American' citation seems baseless, if not proprietorial. Many other sources support this. Reason? 109.154.200.100 (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)