Talk:One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (film)/Archive 1

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.



Kesey's dislike of the movie
Hello, everyone. I'm a student at the University of Oregon, Eugene. I met with Faye Kesey last week, in conjunction with writing an essay on Kesey's experience with Cuckoo's Nest. I brought up the film and the fact that wiki says he disliked the casting of Nicholson. She denied this, and clarified that Kesey never saw the film due to a legal dispute. I'm adding in the info now, and unless someone can provide a link to the previous Kesey quotes about his dislike of Nicholson as McMurphy, I suggest we trust in Faye's memory of her husband. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zdementia (talk • contribs).

Popular Culture
I have always found it interesting that the co-stars of this movie often appear together in subsequent movies and TV shows. Would this be a good place to keep up with them? For example:

Christopher Lloyd and Danny DeVito in Taxi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tempusmule (talk • contribs) 02:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The part of the movie when Harding says these lines

"I'm not just talking about one person, I'm talking about everybody. I'm talking about form. I'm talking about content. I'm talking about interrelationships. I'm talking about God, the devil, Heaven, Hell. Do you understand... FINALLY?"

is mimicked in the dance song 'Everybody' by Progress presents Boy Wunda. The lyrics do not match the above quotation perfectly but the last line is certainly the same. Is this too obscure a reference to merit being put in the popular culture section?

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stark_Raving_Dad

Scroll down to Cultural References on that page. That Simpsons episode has OFOtCN references.

Academy Awards
This movie was the first movie to win all 5 major Academy Awards since It Happened One Night in 1934 and this feat was not reapeated until the early 90's This movie was the SECOND to win all 5 ..... the 1st being it happened in one night, and it was not repeated until the silent of the lambs. What about it? (HelenoBR)
 * I will rephrase this sentence to this:

Interpretation

 * Does anyone know what the title means?
 * Is it just “One Escaped the Crazy House”?
 * A Cuckoo does not build a
 * A real bird?
 * Brood parasite — in this case would Nurse Ratched be the cuckoo?
 * A Cuckoo clock?
 * —Chris Capoccia 03:29, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought Cuckoo was just another name for a crazy person. The one who flew over would be McMurphy, since he arrived and departed (i.e. died). Citizen Premier 00:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

a) the title is from a poem :
 * From what i've read

Vintery, mintery, cutery, corn,

Apple seed and apple thorn;

Wire, briar, limber lock.

Three geese in a flock.

One flew east,

one flew west,

one flew over the cuckoo's nest

b) Some people consider that the title refers to McMurphy who flew over the cuckoos nest.It is ofcourse NOT to be taken in a literal sense. It's more like he became free in spirit.Few people also believe that the title refers to chief who escapes in the end.I'd go with the first interpretation.

Actually, as stated by Ken Kesey (not sure the source,sorry), One flew east represents RPM, one flew west represents Ratched (this symbol of parallax{with each going a different direction than the other} is a direct reference to the struggle between the two characters) and finally the one whom flew over the cuckoo's nest is indeed Bromden at the end of the story,with his escape.

In German, a cuckoo's nest is another term for a mental ward, a crazy house. So I'm guessing that McMurphy is the "one who flew over the cuckoo's nest." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.176.108.144 (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Combine
Bromden refers to the negative forces of the world collectively as the "Combine," the very force which tries to suppress people like McMurphy.

Does anyone know if the Combine, the alien race in the Half-Life series, are named in reference to this concept? Junkyard prince 04:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC) I doubt it, but it could be true, however the Combine in the novel refers more to a sort of "man's-inhumanity-to-man" deal, and I can't imagine that having anything to do with aliens. One of the definitions of combine is "An association of people or groups united for the furtherance of political or commercial interests," and that could refer to a group of people or a group of aliens who want to harvest humans, or whatever they're doing in Half-Life. Citizen Premier 00:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Should there be two entries for OFOTCN?
One for the book and one for the movie? Both have cultural significance and major differences--we need more talk about bromden and the combine which don't have much of a presence in the movie itself. Should this page become a disambiguation, maybe? Citizen Premier 00:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

And also, as you may have noticed, I think the book is a much greater work than the movie. Citizen Premier 00:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * ...Yes. Why would we even want to merge the book and movie articles back together? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:57, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be good to have One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest be a simple disambiguation page that linked to both One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (film) (or One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (movie)) and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (novel)? —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 00:48, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Because I would say that the most popular usage of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is the film. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:41, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. Both are culturally significant. Citizen Premier 03:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If we rated on a scale of 1-10, I'd rate the movie higher on signifigance. Mario, for instance. The Godfather. Why not this? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:46, August 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the book should have the main entry, since it came first and its what the movie is based on. --DrBat 12:46, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * But the movie is more popular, and thusly, more people will be here to find information on the movie. - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:31, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sure more people will type in Magneto looking for the comicbook character, not the ignition system. But he isnt the main article either. Point is, its the book that the movie is based on. There can always be a little text at the top directing the reader to the movie's article. --DrBat 22:40, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * And we can't do the exact opposite, and have some text on the top to link to the book article. We decide what article gets the main page, and the lesser-known one goes for that. Magneto is an exception. In regards to fiction (and non-fiction in regard to works based on real-life), people will go to this page more often for the movie than the book. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:10, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * You seem to be the exception; everyone else thinks it should be moved. --DrBat 11:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Um, no. Just because three people don't care that it's good for the average visiting user to have the most popular material attributed to the article's title, it does not mean that it should be moved. Are you telling me Wikipedia should not be designed for the readers' sake? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it should be designed accurately, and regardless of how popular the movie is it was the book that it was adapted on. Also, Im sure more people associated A Clockwork Orange with the movie and not the book its based on, yet its the book that has the main article, not the film (which has a separate article at A Clockwork Orange (film). The same goes for Frankenstein (which has the movie in another article), and Dracula (which covers the movie adaptations later on in the same article). --DrBat 21:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2001: A Space Odyssey? The Godfather? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * And I guess those other articles are irrelevant then?
 * Put the 'move' up to a vote and let the readers decide. --DrBat 11:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No, but the way you're acting implies that my examples are irrelevant. I have two arguments - one of which is to the advantage of the reader (who we design these articles for), ie, that it is more well-known to the average person, and these example articles. You only have one, and are disregarding assisting readers better, focusing more so on making the article how you want it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I put this on Requested Moves. The readers can decide. --DrBat 15:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * We don't even need this. It doesn't concern you that this change wouldn't be in the best interest of the reader? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. I don't see how giving the original book the main article as opposed to some movie adaptation would be against the reader's best interest. --DrBat 16:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's say 20 readers visit Wikipedia. Nine come here to find book information, but eleven come to find information on the book. This is based on the common sense that more people know the movie than the book. We cater to the majority if there is nothing wrong with the majority's opinion (such as if the majority wanted to ban homosexuals), and more people know the movie, so the article is designed after their wants. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, whats so wrong with letting the readers themselves decide? --DrBat 18:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

How are the readers deciding? The readers aren't voting on the matter, the editors are. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Anyone can be an editor by registering. --DrBat 22:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * But that is when they cease to be readers. Since you seem to disregard that simple fact, is it even worth arguing with you? Let me explain - More people will come here for movie information. That is, without a doubt, 100% fact. And based on that fact, it's clear that removing movie information from this page is not in the best interest for readers. It is clear that you are trying to make this move with your wants in mind, with no regard to convenience those who we are making this for. If a reader joins the Wikipedia to edit, he or she becomes an editor, not a reader. A reader is a random passerby who uses Wikipedia to access knowledge. I think it's pretty obvious that this move would not be in anyone's interest except for you, who just wants the move because the less well-known book, which the movie is based on. You whined that I was disregarding your examples, showing that you seem to think your examples hold more weight than mine. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I made a big post, and it froze. Anyway, I've already made my points. If you have a problem with the Wikipedia voting process, take it up with them.--DrBat 00:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

There's no NEED for a voting process. Readers don't vote, editors vote. I ask you one more time - do you not care that what you propose is not to the advantage of the average reader? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * In your opinion. When I typed in OFOCN, I was looking for the book. If its so important, make it a disambig page. --DrBat 01:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * And I bet 5x more people searched it for information on the movie. This can't be proven, but denying it is blatant denial of common sense. I guarantee you if you polled every single person on the face of the Earth on which they know more about, the movie would come on top. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Requested move
I think the book should have the main entry, since it came first and its what the movie is based on.--DrBat 13:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC) Ok, apparently there was some confusion before. I believe that the movie article should have its own page, and the main page should be a disambig that links to the movie and the book it was based on. --DrBat 23:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Sign your vote with ~ 

Support

 * 1) Masterzora 04:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Ouuplas 22:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Object

 * 1) A Link to the Past (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Tonymec 23:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

So is the vote just to rename this article? or are we also voting to make the book article the main article? I think these should be two separate votes. —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 02:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The vote is to make the book article the main one, and for the movie to have its own separate article. There are two separate votes; see Talk:One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (novel) for the other one.--DrBat 03:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neither should be so. Wikipedia grants the main article to the more popular one. The movie is leaps and bounds ahead of the book in that aspect. I have asked so many times - WHY IS THE CONVENIENCE OF THE READER LESS IMPORTANT THAN YOUR WANTS? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Why can’t we have the main article be a disambiguation page that provides a little comparison between the book and the movie?  —Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 11:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There's only two articles that could be on it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I made the main article a disambig page, so the reader can access both articles easily. --DrBat 18:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Right now, the motion makes no sense. It says: "It has been proposed below that One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (movie) be renamed and moved to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (movie)." Please correct this to what you want done. —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 14:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If the move is to take place it should be to (film) not (movie) as that seems to be the agreed extention. see: WikiProject_Films->Naming conventions (films) --Philip Baird Shearer 16:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * About "film" vs. "movie", if you interpret that guideline narrowly, then all articles with "(film)" in their names would have to be moved. There are a helluva huge lot of them.
 * OTOH, IIUC "movie" is more used in the US than in Britain while "film" is the reverse. This would (IIUC) imply that, according to WP:MOS, "movie" would be the preferred term whenever the article is about something from the US.
 * I interpret Naming conventions (films) as applying mutatis mutandis (with "film" replaced by "movie") when talking about US productions.
 * - Tonymec 01:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I see no need to keep a separate article on the film. As long as the article doesn't get horribly bloated, the article should be about both the book and the film.
 * Peter Isotalo 23:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There are already two separate articles. The movie has the main article, while the book has One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (novel). Believing that the book is at least just as important as its movie adaptation, I dont think that's right.--DrBat 23:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So merge them, then. I don't see the problem.
 * Peter Isotalo 09:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a terrible idea. They both have different plots. Do we see the Lord of the Rings movies' articles merged into the articles on their respective books? No. There is enough information to write about each format. - A Link to the Past (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of enough information, it's a matter of both being about the same work of fiction. The LoTR-parallel isn't applicable since there has been several films made and since Tolkien-fans, like fans of most cult, sci-fi and fantasy, expand endlessly about plot minutiae which really isn't particularly intersting information. The book is the original fiction and the film is merely based on it. The plot summary shouldn't take up more than a sizeable paragraph. I just don't recognize the usefulness of the idea that "enough information" is reason enough to split off an article when the subjects are so closely intertwined.
 * And no matter what move you decide on, the book should absolutely occupy the unpiped article.
 * Peter Isotalo 10:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not just LotR, it's 2001, A Clockwork Orange and The Godfather. Also, sure, it may be the original, but more people will come to find information about the movie. - A Link to the Past (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The main article for the Clockwork Orange is the book, though. And the only real difference the Cuckoo's Nest movie has with the book is a lot of the stuff got toned down, such as the hallucinations and the Combine, which play big roles in the book. I recall Ken Kesey being angry at this. --DrBat 15:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What relevance does Kesey's dislike of the movie have to do with this dispute? A Clockwork Orange was not even near the success of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Link, the book was enough of a success to deserve the main article at the very least. Keeping the film in the unpiped article is not a fair representation of the sequence of events.

Peter Isotalo 19:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I've never seen the book, but the movie was a huge success here in the Sixties, while I was still in high school. So my first opinion was to leave the movie under the unqualified title (with a link to the book in its leading paragraph). But the amount of discussion here makes me hesitate. For the sake of pacification, I would agree to the move, provided that the unqualified title be used for a disambiguation page and not for the book. Tonymec 23:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Decision
Its been forever people so I'm closing this one out with no consensus. Feel free to refile if you've think you've decided on something. Take care! Ryan Norton T 07:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Move
I have protected the page to end an edit war over this move. Please continue with the vote above for at least another few days (I would strongly recommend five more days, minimum) and have an uninvolved party close the vote and determine consensus. If the article needs to be unlocked, please have the closing party contact me. -- Essjay ·  Talk 21:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Where is the entry for the novel?
Was it deleted? It seems it was in the fuss over which page should have the parentheses. Citizen Premier 19:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * it is at One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (novel)  — Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 02:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Mental health professionals view of film
I think there should be some explanation why mental health professionals dislike the film. The comment is just left hanging there.--Jack Upland 06:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Presumably because such stylized portrayals of the work of specialists are often mistakenly taken as fact/the norm? 66.215.20.28 (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm a psychiatric patient and I have to break the wikipedia rules here: it is the norm.--201.17.142.77 (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It may well be the "norm" that most mental health professionals are callous toward their patients' conditions and their medications. However, this movie is totally over the top with the use of brass knuckles by an attendant.  My greatest grievance with the film is it gave millions of people the impression that lobotomies were still being widely performed in the mid-1970's.TL36 (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Protected?
Any reason this page can't be edited? I'm just curious; I was looking for the novel's article (found it) and came across this. | Klaw Talk 00:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's because of the unresolved debate over whether there should be one article or two and which one should be primary or if both should be equal with a disambiguation page. See Should there be two entries for OFOTCN? and  its requested move. I think the question has been open long enough that all the interested parties have had enough time to state their case and a decision should be made.   — Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 02:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think, as both the film and the novel have significant worth and both must have sizeable numbers of people looking for more information through wikipedia, that we should have the title lead to a disambiguation page with links to both the movie and book versions.


 * When it's unlocked can somebody please add ? Leithp (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I listed it on Requests for page protection and got it unprotected, the cat has now been added. Leithp (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Petty Criminal??

THe main character was arrested for statutory rape and assault...

Oscars
According to iMDB, this film only won five Oscars (instead of the eight quoted in the article) from nine nominations. I just changed it.

"Requires cleanup"
There is a "cleanup" message in the plot section. What in the article requires cleanup? I think that what si there is well written. -Pgan002 03:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ending
Could someone who's seen the film clarify on the ending a bit? It's implied that McMurphy became a vegetable from the lobotomy procedure he endured, and that Chief suffocated him with the pillow before fleeing, but it doesn't seem directly stated, to me. 12.107.247.95 19:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much it, exactly. I'm not sure there's anything more to add or clarify. GCD1 16:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing Trivia or In Popular Culture section
I know Wikipedia policy is to incorporate the trivia section into the text of the article but I disagree with this policy. My favorite part of Wikipedia is the trivia section. I find so many fascinating things and links in those sections. I just wanted to point this out. See July 15, 2007 "last" version with trivia. It was removed by Occur Curve. There was some really interesting stuff related to One flew over the Cuckoo's Nest in the "in popular culture" section. Oh well. I can always hope Wikipedia changes it's mind. Maybe there should be a new wiki project dedicated to trivia. That would be awesome.Ozmaweezer 15:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Billy Bibbit
The book explicitly states that Bibbit is middle-aged, rather than a teenager. In the movie, he is portrayed as perhaps younger than middle age, but certainly not a teenager. It's pretty crucial to his character, as it makes all of his problems (his mother, his virginity, etc) that much more shocking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.164.226 (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

music
what is the jingle that plays throughout the film most notably at the end —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.24.105 (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletable image?
Why is the poster having deletable image caption with no no mentions of it in the image page? Vandalism? --Anoopkn (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Louisefletcher-1-.jpg
Image:Louisefletcher-1-.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 Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images 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) 18:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Cuckonest64.jpg
The image Image:Cuckonest64.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


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

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --07:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Prisons
If anyone's interested, a new wikiproject has been proposed for the creation and improvement of articles regarding specific prisons, internment camps, and detention centers here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

IMDB rank
"...the film is ranked ... number 8 on IMDb Top 250". This is a problematic statement since it changes over time. Right now it's ranked 9. How about specifying the date as well? "Ranked 9 as of June 30th, 2009"? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)