Talk:The Horse Whisperer (film)

denies
I have corrected a previous editor's change of the article that falsely gave Monty Roberts credit for inspiring writer Nicholas Evans' concept of the Tom Booker character. On Evans' website faq, he states
 * >I spent many weeks traveling across the West and met three amazing horsemen: Tom Dorrance, Ray Hunt and Buck Brannaman. Some of you may have read that someone called Monty Roberts was the model for Tom Booker, The Horse Whisperer in the book, and that he helped me with my research. It's not true. met Mr Roberts once, briefly, in England but have never seen him with a horse or seen him since. He had no involvement whatsoever.

> The false claim keeps popping up, as though repeating it often enough would make the falsehood true. Lil 14:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Monty Roberts says that 70% of the main character was modeled after him and says the author met him and asked him a lot about his work with horses. The documentary on Roberts gets its title from this: it calls roberts "The Real Horse Whisperer".

The author ackwnoledges meeting Roberts but denies "basing" his character on Robrets. Uncle Ed 01:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Claim about inspiration of the main character

 * Other people have called Roberts the "Horse Whisperer" because Roberts was an inspiration to Nicholas Evans, the English author of the book "The Horse Whisperer," from which Robert Redford adapted the movie by the same name.

I think the above claim should be mentioned in the text of the article, but I'm not sure how to do it. Uncle Ed 19:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Separate page about the novel
This article is mostly about the film, but the novel doesn't seem to have an article of its own. It ought to have one especially that the book makes the reader think over the life, reassess the values. The book is also worth rereaging to "catch the upstreams". 169.230.94.21 21:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting trivia
A bit of interesting trivia about the movie: Brannaman actually doubled for Redford in several of the horse training scenes; you can tell which is which because Brannaman is right-handed, Redford is left-handed. Also, I had a chance to speak to Tom Dorrance before he passed away about the book and the movie. He was not at all impressed with the fact that the main character was based in part on him. He was most offended that the character 'stepped out' on his wife, something that was not in his character. --AeronM (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Move?
This page could do with moving to "The Horse Whisperer (film)" to make room for an article on the book. Currently the link to the "1995 novel" in the first paragraph leads to a page on novels published in 1995, and the link there leads to here. Are there any objections to this? Swanny18 (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversy
It says in the Controversy section that the scene where Pilgrim was hobbled “more closely resemble(s) the more gimmick-laden methods of Frank Bell than of a true natural horsemanship model” yet the same process is referred to in the article on the Rarey technique, which also claims to be a source for the film.

And it refers to “basic safety problems in the film (which) include Redford kneeling in front of a horse known to charge humans in one scene”, but the picture at Natural horsemanship depicts just that.

Comments? Swanny18 (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Move, again
I suggested a move in July (see above), but there's been no response. Any objections if I go ahead and do it? Swanny18 (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Swanny18 (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

References to use
Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik (talk • contribs) 28 October 2010 18:51 (UTC)
 * Section moved here from Talk:The Horse Whisperer since that is now a dab page. --Mirokado (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Inline references required
Most of this article requires inline references. It is not practicable to add throughout the article, but I have tagged the two most problematical sections and will, in accordance with the tag notice, remove unreferenced material, which is not immediately obvious to anyone, one month later. Here are the detailed reasons for the tags: This section contains apparent original research and opinion, unsourced information and an unsourced quotation. Everything mentioned in a section about controversies must ipso facto be referenced in detail. This section quotes reviews without providing inline references. Mentioning a web site which is alleged to have had some information is not enough. – Mirokado (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Horse training methods and controversies:
 * Reception:


 * The tags are there for references to be added. There is no need to randomly delete material just because it's tagged.  You are sort of exaggerating the WP guidelines on this.  A refimprove tag at the top really is all that is needed her, IMHO.   Montanabw (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Har. I have corrected and dated the new tag. My intention was to have knowledgeable editors focus first on the sections which must be updated for the reasons I stated, thus reducing the probability that material must be deleted, so I don't at all think the two tags were overkill. However I am delighted that you are taking an interest in this so let's see how the article looks in a month's time. I won't "randomly delete" anything, but you, as (so it seems) an expert, need to bear in mind that most readers will be, like me, quite unable to tell which parts of the controversies section are accurate descriptions of notable contentious issues and which if any are complete nonsense or an editor's point of view. While I could of course try to find references myself I lack the knowledge to evaluate them, so there is a risk that any changes I made really would be nonsense. This is precisely a situation in which unverifiable material must be deleted. I will though try to look for some well-sourced critics' reviews during the next few weeks. – Mirokado (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the Reception section: I think there is no longer a serious problem with that. – Mirokado (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't say this article is high on my list of things to do (I only have about 1500 articles on my watchlist). I actually don't really care a bunch about movie articles, I only have some interest in the actual equestrian stuff and seeing that any complete nonsense gets tossed.  No interest in an overall rewrite. The plot synopsis and such and the general reviews anyone else can edit as far as I'm concerned.  I mostly added that John Lyons paragraph a while back because it seemed a balanced critique, and as I edit the equestrian stuff a ton, I know that the whole natural horsemanship crowd has a lot of competition, (more than one edit war here, too) and a lot of romanticized nonsense out there (that this movie did nothing but fuel, IMHO).  I tried to find a source for one bit of content and could not, so tossed it, and also tossed some stuff that is just a slap at yet another person in that field.   So I guess if you want to run any ideas or sources past me, I'd be glad to provide input, or if you think we need some "dubious" tags to trigger specific discussion, that's fine.  But I just don't see this as a BLP where every sentence must be verified else it's gone...   Montanabw (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Follow up The Lyons bit is reffed.  I suggest that instead of complaining, those who care should try to source the rest.   Montanabw (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added a couple more references. The major remaining problem is "Some argue ... more gimmick-laden methods". Not only does this use weasel words, but I have looked for such arguments and not yet found them. I've tagged this bit explicitly. The Synowski ref supports the phrase it appears after, but may even contradict the rest of that paragraph, so more attention is needed here too. Some of the other comments are basic common sense really, so refs are not so essential but would certainly improve the article if they can be added. --Mirokado (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess at this point, we shall see if anyone else cares. I have no beef with tossing the two you've tagged.  I suspect the sources were blogs, which is where all the horse gossip goes.   Montanabw (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Section moved here from Talk:The Horse Whisperer since that is now a dab page. --Mirokado (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Ran out of room in the edit summary
I need to leave a note about my removal of two EL's with this edit. Neither of these had anything to do with this film so per WP:EL I did not think they belonged with this article. That does not mean that they can't be used on WikiP. The one for the book can go with its article and the one for the person can go with his - if they aren't already there. MarnetteD | Talk 21:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Soundtrack
There's no mention here of the original soundtrack by John Barry, which was rejected by Redford and replaced with Thomas Newman's one. (Barry eventually released the material as part of his 1990 album "The Beyondness of Things".) Perhaps someone with more detailed knowledge could add something about this? 87.194.150.80 (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

"British novel" category
I would like to discuss the Category:Films based on British novels. I am not certain that a British-born author makes a novel "British," particularly when it is set in the American west and the author was living in the American west (he actually crashed at the home of someone I know) when he wrote the novel. I am willing to look over the criteria we use to designate novels by nationality, but, for example, we cannot think of Lolita as a "Russian" novel even though the author was born in Russia... discuss? Montanabw (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Novels in general are categorized by the nationality of the author, not by their setting. Murder on the Orient Express is mostly set in Yugoslavia, but we do not call it a Yugoslavian novel. Dracula is partly set in Transylvania, but we do not call it a Transylvanian, Hungarian, or Romanian novel. Frankenstein is mostly set in Geneva, Switzerland, but we do not call it a Swiss novel. Moll Flanders is partly set in the Colony of Virginia and the Province of Maryland, but we do not call it an American novel.

The nationality of an author and the setting of his/her novel can differ significantly. Dimadick (talk) 04:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, the Lolita example has both "Russian novels adapted into films" and "American novels adapted into films." Given that, like Nabokov, Evans was living in the USA at the time he wrote the novel, would a joint categorization be a reasonable solution?  There seems a bit of IAR possible here.  Montanabw (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, though I am not certain Nicholas Evans ever gained American citizenship. Dimadick (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Good enough. :-)  Montanabw (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)