Talk:The Fugitive (1993 film)/Archive 3

Dam scene in plot
Before this gets into an edit war, I personally think the dam scene - specifically that these is where Kimble and Gerald first see eye to eye - is needed in the plot; this is what puts uncertainty into the manhunt from Gerald's standpoint seeing Kimble's plight, such that while the manhunt continues into the second half, Gerald tries to second guess Kimble's motives and works from an assumption that Kimble may be innocent. Given that this addition only brings the plot to 510-ish words with actor credit, this is not a harmful addition. --M ASEM (t) 14:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, and one line referring to one of the movie's most famous scenes is hardly overdoing it. I will also add that the attitude of several established editors leaves much to be desired. Some people just don't like it when someone else, especially an IP user, makes an edit to one of their favored pages. So they revert with generic remarks like unnecessary, unexplained or against consensus. If I added a comma it would be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.19.24 (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your assumptions about the motivations of other editors aside, your wording is inaccurate. As written, your addition makes it seem as if Kimble escapes into the sewer system beneath the hospital, which is not at all what happened.  I do think that the first confrontation between Kimble and Gerard at the dam should be included, if it is brief, but the recent addition is simply incorrect.  The rewording should be discussed here and consensus should be reached, as it has been reached in the past when the plot was altered.  Believe it or not, but that's the way WP is supposed to operate. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  15:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The current version, the one you keep restoring, implies Kimble escaped in a ambulance. This is also inaccurate, since the vehicle was hemmed in by the cops and he had to abandon it and head into the sewer, from where he escaped. It's also a little late for you to be urging others to discuss and reach consensus. I see from the talk archive I'm not the first to take issue with the resident editors blanket reverting legitimate edits without a reasonable explanation. Believe it or not, that's not how WP is supposed to operate.


 * That particular detail is correct, as you mentioned. Therefore, I will edit that sentence for accuracy. Moovi (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I suspect that I added the original wording, and those additions are completely fair per BRD (and yes, when I added it, I word counted just to make sure); there's no requirement to seek consensus to add something, but once reverted, then it becomes a discussion on talk page for consensus. Sure, it's probably not the sewers under the hospital directly, but for the sake of brevity, we don't have to go into full detail. Let's consider the key point: while one can easily gloss over the dam scene in the broad plot, it plays both a visual role (it's a memorable scene of Kimble jumping from the dam) and a character role as I described above. For the additional 10-20 words it is needed to include it, that's not harming the plot length at all. --M ASEM (t) 15:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The film's most "famous" scene is not an adequate enough reason to include it into the plot summary. It's a technically challenging stunt that was performed, but nevertheless, as mentioned above, it's not a good enough reason to include it in the plot. The reader doesn't need to know whether the character of Dr. Kimble entered a sewer drain, or whether he jumped off a dam to flee the police. All we need to know, is that he fled and escaped federal custody. Plain and simple. See WP:FilmPlot. It clearly states the following: "avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail." Moovi (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, it's not just that there's a stunt involved. It is the first time the lead characters of the movie meet, and it alters Gerald's approach to the manhunt and some of Kimble's motives subsequently. There's also the fact that the jump from the dam is completely out of character for Kimble until he knows this is only way to escape. There's also articles that talk about the filming  of the dam scene. --M ASEM  (t) 16:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That very well might be true, but I don't know if it's truly possible to ascertain whether the character of Gerard "alters" his approach to the manhunt after that particular escape attempt. It doesn't appear to be technically relevant at that stage of the article. Those assumptions can be discussed in the production or casting sections. A reader viewing the article is not going to delve into the technicalities of the scene-by-scene dialogue in a couple of short sentences. That type of graphic input doesn't belong in the plot section. We're just looking for a rough summary of what goes on. Not minutae. Moovi (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If we have sources that discuss a costly/important scene to film, even if the scene is "trivial" in the overall plot, not mentioning where that scene occurs in the plot is not helpful. I compare this to the bus-ramp jumping scene in "Speed" - it has zero impact on the narrative and only exists to create a moment of dramatic tension, but the stunt is well-sourced and described in sources, so it makes no sense to remove that scene from the plot. Same thing here. --M ASEM  (t) 16:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, we can include it then, or perhaps we should wait for a consensus. I agree with you on the importance of the content being included in the article, however I don't agree on the placement of it in that particular area, the plot section. You couldn't have described it better as being "trivial" amongst the rest of the plot summary. It's an "interesting climactic" point in the film that could be expanded on and talked about, but in a more relevant section, like the production section. Moovi (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It of course will be discussed in production, but that means the introduction of that scene will be awkward. "A scene involving Kimble jumping from a dam cost $x million to film at suchandsuch damn in..." comes out of nowhere. Again, if we were fighting against a tight 700 word plot, I'd be more reasonable to leave it out, but we're talking 510 words which is well within lines. --M ASEM (t) 18:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Fine, that's a good point. So we can include a minor sentence, so as to connect the references, while not making the plot too overlong. Moovi (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's why the addition, at least as I originally added, was only like 20 additional words at most. Now for rewriting it better, that still needs to be done. --M ASEM (t) 18:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I tried to word the sentences with the least amount of phrasing to make it as concise as possible. Also, the previous wording from the anonymous ip contained grammar that was dubious, such as: "into the sewer system" Which particular sewer system is that?  or the other sentence, "jumps off the dam"   The dam ?   Which dam in particular?  The writing is phrased in a way as if we know what the plot is referring to. Which in these cases, we don't.  I phrased it in a way so as not to specify any particular place. I wrote "a" flowing dam etc.... The sentences are minor additions, so we fully understand what's going on. And by the way, the fact that the character entered a sewer system is excessive details. We don't need to know that to fully understand the plot at this stage in the story. The piece with the character being cornered on a desolate platform and escaping, is the important part. Moovi (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)