Talk:The Road (2009 film)

Abandoned Pennsylvania Turnpike
It is filmed partly in PA, location of the Abandoned Pennsylvania Turnpike - wonder if it's one of the sets. The one picture currently in the article sort of looks like it. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This was in fact filmed on the abandoned Turnpike. In slide #6 of the referenced USA Today article, the unique & unmistakable mouth of one of the tunnels (eastern mouth of the Rays Hill tunnel; note the lack of a ventilation port above) is clearly visible in the background (photo of tunnel here: ). 68.83.149.113 (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Headlines
Headline for use. — Erik (talk • contrib) 19:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Taking the hard Road

Plot?
"same as the book" is kind of abrupt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.132.204 (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * One editor wrote an appropriate plot for the movie. However the editor's plot description continues to be deleted.  I belive this editor's summary was helpful-- and no it's not me.  I just happened to see that someone reverted that particular editor's changes, which I believe to be relevant.  I continually see similar film posts on wiki and believe the more extensive explanation of the plot is appropriate.  Joe bob attacks (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's fine that you think so, but such a long, heavily-detailed, blow-by-blow, plot description is against policy. The fact that other articles have such plot descriptions just means they need to be edited, but it's no reason this article should be like that. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  04:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It may help to read WP:FILMPLOT. Erik (talk &#124; contribs &#124; wt:film) 13:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Release Date
As the article says "sometime in 2009", I thought I would post this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0898367/releaseinfo. It claims it will be released in October 2009. 86.167.62.172 (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Adbusters review
The Adbusters review seems to digress from the subject of thie article (The movie "The Road"), into a tangentially related controversial topic.

Being a fan of Cormac McCarthy (the novelist whose book this film is based on), I can tell you that there is more to the existance of brand-name products in the film than product placement.

Reproducing the Adbusters review in this article serves to agitate and distract readers, rather than inform them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael6655321 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The AdBusters review is relevant as part of the "critical reception" to the movie. Your being a fan of Cormac McCarthy is utterly and completely beside-the-point. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  14:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Road (film) is based on a book of the same name by Cormac McCarthy. Coca-Cola appears in that book, and not as a product placement.  The use of brand names in the book contributes to the sense of how foreign the world of the main characters is to the world we are used to.  Neither the film nor the movie has anything to do with consumerism, environmentalism, or any current events or politcal issues.


 * The Adbusters review digresses very far from the film. It picks out a rather insignificant part of the film to launch into a flame-worthy political rant.  Rather than inform readers of the article about the film, it attempts to divert their attention to the editors political views.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.183.229 (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything you have just stated is simply your opinion, not fact. Adbusters is a notable publication, and the review is relevant.  Just because you do not like it, or do not agree with the views expressed, is no reason to remove it. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  22:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the Adbusters review holds-up - much as I love the magazine the comment about product endorsement is unsubstantiated. I say this just having seen John Hilcoat discuss the film with an audience in Brighton and he referred to wishing to create a world that was an extension of our own and grounded in reality - hence the combination of the familiar with post-apocalyptic scenography. Also the scene with the Coke - uncomfortable as it is for someone who doesn't like the company - is in the book. Very clearly stated. So there isn't any evidence that the film was financed through product placement - the Adbusters review is mere supposition and if we're going to use that then it needs to be framed in the language used to set the quote up, and if you do that - well it is doesn't feel particularly interesting or relevant.

Oh here's a quote from the man himself.

“There was a big problem getting any of those products because all of those companies said, ‘No way, we’re a family company, we don’t want to be associated with cannibals.’ It’s weirdly misinterpreted. Some people thought, ‘Oh my God, this is just cynical product placement and they’re getting all this money…’ It took Viggo pleading to the head of Coca Cola on the phone, direct, to let us use it.”

http://flavorwire.com/52630/the-roads-john-hillcoat-on-cannibals-product-placement-and-the-apocalypse

I think that should close the matter off... I've attempted to include the above quote but it doesn't sit well with the rest of the article and took it down because this isn't a big enough issue to merit a separate heading... sorry but I say cut it... any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.153.112 (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The above comments are correct, and the RJ comments are too rudely dismissive. There have been dozens of reviews of The Road, and this "controversy" raised by a single author is not a notable one, which was given greatly WP:UNDUE weight in this article.  It should probably be removed completely, but I have taken the less drastic of trimming it down to a sentence, rather than with extended quotes (which no other review is documented with).


 * In addition, there should be common-sense editorial judgement. To wit, the argument in Adbusters is absurd.  Calling these companies "beasts", or that Coca-Cola drives climate change, is dubious, but in any case neither the book nor the movie depicts a global warming apocalypse.  Nor is there evidence of "funding" from these companies for the movie.


 * Tyuia (talk) 07:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Abandoned Pennsylvania Turnpike OR issue
Just saw this film, was reading article, noticed huge chunk of material about renovations to a bridge somewhere on the Abandoned Pennsylvania Turnpike?? this is one very short scene in the movie, clearly undue attention shown to this, no cites, who's making this observation about renovations to the tunnel etc.??? unless this can be attributed to a reliable published source, that discusses the detail in direct relation to the film, it should not be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.210.68 (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

misinterpretation
The New York Times article cited as reference 5, the one given for this phrase "Pennsylvania, where most of the filming took place, was chosen for its tax breaks and its abundance of locations that looked abandoned or decayed: coalfields, dunes, and run-down parts of Pittsburgh." is incorrect. the article says Pennsylvania was chosen for it's tax breaks and NOT the subsequent list of things.72.87.104.220 (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually it says "The producers chose Pennsylvania, one of them, Nick Wechsler, explained, because it’s one of the many states that give tax breaks and rebates to film companies and, not incidentally, because it offered such a pleasing array of post-apocalyptic scenery: deserted coalfields, run-down parts of Pittsburgh, windswept dunes." This seems to line up with the article. Joshua Scott (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

missing thumbs
does anyone know the signifgance of the thief's missing thumb, or the man at the end's missing thumb? Megapeen (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In the book, the thief is missing fingers. There is no description of the man at the end missing digits. I don't think there's any significance, other than to show what a brutal place the world has become.Mk5384 (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the implication is that people are eating their own thumbs and fingers. Just a personal guess. PiCo (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I doubt it was some sort of punishment, as the other people would just kill you outright. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is open to interperatation, but seen as a punishment by John Hillcoat, interview here . You have google for stuff like this you know. magnius (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's more specific than than in the book. The thief is described as "an outcast from one of the communes and the fingers on his right hand had been cut away".
 * Peter Isotalo 16:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In some African civil wars the members of opposing groups had their right hand cut off to make them less capable to fight in future conflicts. It could be a cannibal strategy, disable the members of a commune enough so they can't fight back, but not so much that they won't be able to survive until they come back to harvest. --Scandum (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Eating their own fingers and thumbs makes no sense. The nutrition you would get from that tiny bite vs the loss of function makes the theory ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.61.208 (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Not at all, it's quite sensible. I've done it myself when I've felt a bit peckish. Haven't you ever heard of "finger food"? Myles325a (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Bullet vs Cartridge
A bullet is merely the projectile fired from the firearm. A cartridge (firearms) is what you load the firearm with, of which the bullet is merely one part. Using the word 'bullet' to refer to a cartridge is wrong. See the respective articles.Geoff B (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For the sake of simplicity and understandability, bullet is preferable. We do not have to get technical about every bloody thing. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  14:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that cartridge is technically correct, but bullet is a more common and generally accepted word (albeit inaccurate). magnius (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to calm down a bit, RJ, there's no need to swear. You wouldn't put up with people calling a hubcap a wheel on a Wikipedia article, so why intentionally use a word you know to be wrong elsewhere? 'Cartridge' may not be widely known to refer to modern ammunition, but 'round' certainly is, hence the piping. Geoff B (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, you could always link it to bullet, but that would be wrong. Because that's not what you mean.  You could put as many bullets in your gun as you like, it won't fire.  Geoff B (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Or you could just keep reverting. Genius.  Wish I had thought of that one.  Geoff B (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For the sake of consensus, I'm happy with the current edit applied by Geoff. This is getting petty, time it stopped right now. magnius (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

People who don't know what they're talking about (calling a cartridge a bullet) presume no one else knows the difference either. The precise use of language and meaning comes with education, and it's obvious that those who run Wikipedia aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer, or else they wouldn't cave in to political correctness. At least the Washington Post reviewer stood up and said this movie sucks. It does, and so does the book. They are dreary, depressing, boring and make no point at all. Why does this clown only have two bullets? .38 Special ammunition is the most plentiful there is outside of .22LR. Why does the fool leave the food bunker? It's just on an on with the drearyness and no one with any courage or compassion for others. Book or movie, they both suck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.21.81 (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I made comments here but someone removed them without giving a reason. It only seems polite to explain your action.Risssa (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

IMDb quotes the wife as calling them "bullets". Anybody remember what the man said? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Subgenre
Suggest adding subgenre

'Dying Earth (subgenre)' seems to apply as well or better than 'Apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction'

Sedgefield (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Duvall
I checked both imdb and allmovie, and neither listed a name for the character played by Robert Duvall---whether spelled Eli or Ely---other than Old Man. The ref. provided in the cast section is a NYT article which requires a login in order to read it. Unless some other source can be provided, I suggest it be left as that. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 04:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I recently saw the movie on DVD and with English subtitles on. Duvall's character gives his name as Ely, and this is printed on the screen. But the Cast credits at the end list him merely as "Old Man", probably because the director did not want to leave him as the only character who has a name. This means that, technically, the "Cast" section of the article is wrong: one character is given a name. (I note also that the Cast Credits such characters as "Archer's Husband" or whatever, who never appear in the film. Maybe the guy on the floor with flames coming out of his chest will be nominated for "Best Supporting Actor". It was a "fiery" performance.) Myles325a (talk) 07:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I left it as "Old Man", which is how it's credited, and inserted "(Ely)", which is the character's name in the book, and the name Duvall speaks in the movie. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, it seems McCarthy intended this character to represent the Prophet Elijah, so the name "Ely" is more symbolic than literal. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Recommend semi-protection
The ip address currently editing this article is block evading from a 72 block imposed under another ip account. The matter has been raised at ANI. I recommend someone semi-protect this article. The user operating these ips has made it clear that they will continue to simple rotate through different ips until they get their way. -OberRanks (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a bit bizarre to edit war to retain POV and promotional material in the article. What I removed has no place here.  None of the reverters have even attempted to justify their actions.  They are simply being disruptive.  Why would you go to the lengths of locking the article, just to keep bias in it?  201.215.208.83 (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Protection shouldn't be necessary. The solution will be to deal with this block evading disruptive editor.Cúchullain t/ c 14:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Disruptive is edit-warring to restore POV, while failing every single time to even attempt to justify it. 201.215.208.83 (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

At this point, there is a pretty blatant WP:3RR violation here by the ip address. Since this is already at ANI, probably shouldn't post it to another noticeboard. I do strongly recommend semi-protection. Since I don't have much knowledge of this article, I wont edit war/revert any further. -OberRanks (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone going to try to explain why there must be biased promotional material in this article? 201.215.208.83 (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

As I noted at ANI, I have no personal opinion on whether the material should stay or go. However removing it should stop until some consensus is reached via discussion as the removal is apparently disputed. I suggest people refrain from evading blocks during discussion, as it doesn't exactly help the discussion. The stuff on the London film festival does need to be sourced or removed. Nil Einne (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I reported the matter here, the user has been blocked (again). I would suspect the user will simply return under a different ip unless the article is semi-protected. -OberRanks (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Kodi Smit-McPhee
I still have no opinion on whether the line should stay or go. But I've had trouble finding a source for the 'youthful, innocent, wise' bit nor for the 'four finalists' bit. It was first added here and the source added here. I don't know if the source ever actually mentioned the info, I've looked at archive.org but TorontoSun blocks it. It does mention Mortensen's feeling Smit-McPhee is like a son and stuff about how the director felt choosing the actor was very important. My gut feeling is the source probably never mentioned the specific stuff in our article, the person who added it simply felt it was relevant since it discussed opinions of the actor and part somewhat. It's possible the person who added the original line in the article saw the interview on TV so perhaps it wasn't really written down anywhere? If a source can't be found, and there is some desire to keep something, perhaps replace it with something else either from the TorontoSun or another source. Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Now we're talking. If there is an issue with the text by all means let's fix it. Honestly some of what's currently in the cast section may be more useful in the production section, though much of it is good info and there's no reason to delete it outright (especially in the way the anonymous user was attempting to do it).--Cúchullain t/ c 18:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That is precisely my feeling, Cúchullain, which I would have been more than happy to discuss with the anon. if he were not so consistently abusive and rude. If the reference is wrong, or the information quoted is not in the ref., that has to be changed.  If we decided to remove all of the quotes and refs from the cast to the production section, I would be in favor of that.  Honestly, I think that works much better. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  22:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Plot
Would like advice from outside input. Ok, last attempt to get this in. It has been some time with others editing this, but this is the plot I am trying to put forward to replace the one in the article, it basically is the same with some important differences here and there:

A man (Viggo Mortensen) and his young son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) struggle to survive after an unspecified cataclysm has killed all plant and animal life. Civilization has collapsed, reducing the survivors to scavenging, and in some cases, cannibalism. They search for supplies as they travel south on a road to the coast, in the hope it will be warmer. -This is more concise than what appears in the article, which cites threats of cannibalism that are not needed because they are illustrated by the events later

Throughout the journey, the man carries a revolver with two bullets in case they need to commit suicide and suffers repeated bloody coughs. He remembers his wife (Charlize Theron) who, shortly after giving birth to their son, lost the will to go on and left them, most likely dieing. - '''Notice I removed the sentence "who has a much larger role in the film than in the book" from this paragraph. I cannot understand how real world information was allowed to get included for so long without removal, as I already tried to edit the plot and remove this, I was reverted by RJ so I hope he sees this bit. There shouldn't be any real world information or reference to the book, it is about what happens in the film only. Also strangely missing was the mention that the man keeps coughing in the film which I added here. The wife bit is pure speculation, she basically left them in the film by walking out of the house, we dont know what happened to her, so help is needed here on this sentence.'''

After shooting a member of a gang who inadvertently discovers them, the man is left with only one round. They move onto a mansion, discovering a basement of mutilated prisoners who serve as a food supply for their cannibal captors. When the armed cannibals return, the two hide. With discovery imminent, the man prepares to shoot his son, but the cannibals are distracted by an escaping captive, and the pair get away. - basically same as article

The man tells his son that they are “good guys” and must control a “fire” inside them, as they succumb to the effects of starvation, with the man breaking down to his wife's memory and his son seeing a vision of another boy when they come across the man's old home. However they are soon overjoyed when they discover an underground shelter full of canned food and supplies. After filling themselves and taking a wash, they hear something rummaging around above, so the man decides they must leave and packs the supplies. -apart from the supply and food bit, the other events are missing, the fire and good guys bit is necessary to understand the ending

On the road they encounter an old man (Robert Duvall), and the son encourages his reluctant father to feed him and the old man leaves the next day after dinner and discussion of the catastrophe. At the coast, the man goes to scavenge what he can find on a beached ship, leaving his son to keep watch. The boy falls asleep and they are robbed of everything. They chase the thief (Michael Kenneth Williams) down and the father forces him to strip, leaving him naked. When the boy remains upset over the action, the father relents. They cannot find the thief, so they leave behind his clothes and a can of food. -again the same, but removed the sentence "When the boy remains upset about what is essentially a death sentence" completely OR and a judgement not in the film.

As they pass through a ruined town, they are surprised to find a living beetle, which flies off. The man is suddenly shot in the lower leg with an arrow but kills his ambusher with a flare gun he found from the ship. Going inside to see the dead man with a crying woman, the man staples and bandages his wound but his condition deteriorates. -'''here in the article the sentence "(unlike the novel, where there are no animals)" appears which is again more real world information. basically the same paragraph with details on his wound and then he coughs up and dies here'''

Realizing he is dying as he coughs up more blood, the man emphasizes survival values to his son and passes away. Soon the mourning son is approached by a man (Guy Pearce), who gives him the choice of joining him, a woman (Molly Parker), their two children and a dog. The family have been following the man and son for some time out of concern for the boy. The child joins them after being assured they are “the good guys”.again the same, part that was changed is from "emphasizes to his son the values of self-preservation and humanity" to emphasises "survival values" Im pretty sure in the film he doesnt really say anything when dieing apart from a sentcne about surviving, and then we have the ending which matches up to the earlier paragraph

Please discuss. JTBX (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with it, and someone is clearly usurping the control over the article (Ownership of articles). --Niemti (talk) 05:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm the one who added the comparisons to the book. I feel the beetle is significant, though the wife's importance may be a bit more borderline. It's not enough to justify a separate section (as in some other films) so I stuck it in the synopsis. The plot has gone downhill since I was here last, so I'm going to make some changes. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi JTBX (talk)!

I thought this would please you:- Substituted first paragraph with JT's version on the Talk page. 10:01, July 17, 2012 Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk | contribs). . (22,582 bytes) (-58). . (→Plot:  Agree with you JT on this!) THIS REFERS TO THE SECOND PARAGRAPH's reference to the book.

Hope you are keeping well. All the best, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Gareth: I am glad you agree with me on this. Thanks.


 * Niemti: Thanks for the support? (I think you said there's nothing wrong with the plot I put forward.) And yes I agree wholeheartedly, there are so many "reverters" as I call them across the film articles, especially a major conflict I had with someone on Godfather even after laying out my reasoning multiple times. The person in this case here would be RepublicanJacobite, he reverts a lot across film pages, though I should add he usually provides sufficient reasoning. However I have to disagree with his recent case in Talk: The Shawshank Redemption. It is a textbook example of this behaviour, namely an editor (such as yourself) putting in a lot of effort and reasoning to add to the article, then someone coming across and reverting it all with a sentence.


 * Clarityfiend: I have liked your style of edits so far, especially to Last of the Mohicans (film) for example. But I have to disagree on your addition of real world references to the book (sentences like "this happens in the book" etc). The beetle and so on is fine and I agree, because they appear in the film.

--JTBX (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like I'm going to have to justify everything I do, so here goes:
 * Readers do not need to be told the obvious: "because of the thievery", "so he could survive out in the cold", "leaving him his guns and possesions".
 * It wasn't stated that the man stripped the thief of all his property as well as everything he stole.
 * If someone "relents", he has a "change of heart".
 * "but they did not show up in front of them because they were concerned that the boy's father would not trust them at all" is WP:OR, while "which he keeps in case they need to commit suicide" verges on it. The man only instructs the boy to do so if necessary. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have nothing to do with any of the above sentences, so do as you wish. I kept them in, the part where it states "he relents" etc, when I was editing it.--JTBX (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing the actors names & hyperlinks within the Plot summary
(cur | prev) 08:05, July 18, 2012 Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk | contribs). . (22,070 bytes) (-137). . (→Plot:  Removed actors names & hyperlinks ... reference to cast list is sufficient, in line with other film articles) (rollback | undo)
 * -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to restore the plot I showed above, incorporating Clarityfiends changes. I have support from Neimti and Gareth (on hyperlinked names and real world references). In short, my plot edits reflect the film rather than the book on which it is based. We do not know for sure if the wife died, so I placed most likely dieing as she left them in the film. The other changes are to fill in missing scenes of the film of importance (seeing a beetle, seeing a double vision of another boy, etc). --JTBX (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have moved the following post from my Talk page to this, in order to keep all conversation together:

''You are restoring a version of the plot how it was before only with the real world book references removed, I reedited the plot to include what happens in the film, see the draft on the talk page, and readded it. Look at my edit JTBX (talk | contribs). . (22,279 bytes) (+45). . (→Plot: added cast names, these can be removed later) because I already knew you had removed them before but I couldn't find any guideline as to whether they should be included or not, as a result I undid your revert just now but removed hyperlinked cast names. --JTBX (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)''


 * Just step back for a while. There is no need for haste.  It will be interpreted as reactionary by others.  -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/ GG-J's Talk 17:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * ahahaha, you do know what reactionary means right? You gave me a chuckle. JTBX (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * reactionary denotes "a movement towards the reversal of an existing tendency or state" and a "return to a previous condition of affairs." -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/ The Welsh Buzzard 23:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am not the one who is reactionary.--JTBX (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I wrote above, "... It will be interpreted as reactionary ..." -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/ The Welsh Buzzard 17:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You wrote that me in haste will be interpreted as reactionary and I replied that I am not the one who is reactionary. Who do you think is reactionary? I'll give you a clue. --JTBX (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * But I did not say that you were, did I? ... a clue? Where is it? I have looked for an edit summary, but as so often the case, not completed. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/ The Welsh Buzzard 23:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Stable plot
Before JTBX's edits this week, the plot summary was stable (with the exception of a few minor changes in wording) from 18 July, when Gareth edited it. Per BRD, JTBX should have posted here on talk when he was reverted the first time, rather than reverting back. He has now violated 3RR, again, for the 2nd time in a week, repeating the same editing pattern we saw over at Shawshank. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  18:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I happen to come across this and had been wanting to follow up on this discussion for some time, but was unable to, I had a lot of time these past few days and so I did, the problem is that you are reverting for no reason other than seeing a false connection with the Shawshank dispute, I have already laid out my reasoning which if you could be so kind, to follow it. --JTBX (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As I have said elsewhere, I find your protestations of innocence unconvincing. You made a wholesale change to the plot, you were reverted, you did not post on talk 'til you were reverted multiple times.  You repeat the same pattern of edits across multiple articles, constantly reverting to your preferred version despite previous consensus and reverts by multiple editors.  This has been going on long enough that your claims of being misunderstood and having the best of intentions now ring painfully hollow, like St. Mary Woolnoth with a dead sound on the final stroke of nine. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  00:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have laid out my edits above and it would be nice if you could read through and give me feedback from them, as to why they do not merit inclusion. I self-reverted because you wanted to discuss this so here we are. --JTBX (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You self-reverted because you were in violation of 3RR and were in danger of being blocked again for edit-warring. I have read your proposal and am not moved by it.  The current stable version of the plot is fine as it is. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  14:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I self reverted because I am honestly trying to discuss this out without warring into the article, at least explain why you think the current version is fine so I know. --JTBX (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There are some issues in this plot. Not necessarily with the content, but in the way it flows. I for one dont like it and wonder if it could be changed (with consensus) so that it does read better. But not having seen the film in some time (I didnt like it) I cant make any changes. So leave it to better informed minds, to form a consensus. MisterShiney  ( Come say hi ) 19:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Jacobite hasn't explained why my changes are not worth inclusion, so I'm waiting on him. --JTBX (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

When editors refuse to explain their reasoning and engage any longer, we don't need a consensus. Okay? --JTBX (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The consensus has been reached. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones / The Welsh Buzzard 16:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken, there has been no detailed explanation of the refutation of my edits.--JTBX (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, I recommend your biding your time and resist the temptation to start yet another edit war on a respected film. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones / The Welsh Buzzard 16:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

JTBX, you have a deranged conception of how WP operates. You wanted to make wholesale changes to the plot - yet again - you were reverted, you failed to make a claim for your changes, you edit-warred, you were reverted multiples times, finally you deigned to post on the talk page, as though that was all you needed to do. We have seen this same approach before, and you have seemingly learned nothing. And, to top it off, you repeatedly act as if you are the injured party, the victim of bullies and article-owners who refuse to listen to anything you say. Are you simply incapable of self-analysis or self-criticism? Do you not realize that the attitude you have repeatedly evinced has turned off other editors, so that they are now loathe to cooperate with you? This is certainly where I am at, and nothing you have done or said here has given me cause to change my mind. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  19:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Because once again, you have enough time to post the drivel above but not actually write anything here which refutes my changes or has anything to do with the article. This is the same behaviour you exhibit everywhere you go, you add nothing but reverts, and back up you're edit warring buddys, chiming in with ridiculous excerpts and comments. It is your sloppy behaviour which has led to a No Country plot being so bloated, and now you are supporting adding descriptions of actors clothes in Godfather. Acting stern will not help, because you do not own anything nor have any authority. If you do not respond to any of the justifications I have listed, which accurately follow the film, and continue to parrot this nonsense, remove or not respond to my messages unless I edit an article, then I have see the real problem quite clearly. How apt that Gareth would name himself a buzzard and you too follow in these predatory footsteps against editors who wish to edit film articles, wouldn't this make for a nice report? How nice of you to stalk my editors request and have everyone involved against me when I only had problems with you, Ring and Gareth, surprise surprise. --JTBX (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The Old JacobiteT, your version is quite really bad
And I'm gonna tell you why:


 * Intermittent flashbacks reveal the man's wife had given birth to the child shortly after the catastrophe. She eventually committed suicide. - the paragraph that I've cited is only two short sentences-long, which is against Wikipedia's manual of style.
 * Removal of important scenes replaced by guessing (factually stated committed suicide - it's neither shown or told in the film, and is not in the script too).
 * Only one character's actor is identified (They later encounter a nearly-blind old man (Duvall) on the road.) which is just ridiculous. Also shows how you have been editing on the original ("unstable"?) plot, because the previous version had all of major character actors identified.

--Niemti (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this sanity, these are the exact points I argued, but you don't even want to know what happened, or what is happening, with film articles across the wiki.--JTBX (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

And what's happening? --Niemti (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you guys completely, TheOldJacobite has been editing a revised version of the plot. The version in place as of this post is much better and clarifies things that occur during the plot. It uses better vocab and describes the summarized scenes more clearly, but he keeps reverting it back to the old, boring, and unclear plot.

76.74.152.96 (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes to plot
The repeated changes to the plot by a determined anonymous editor are not an improvement. It is time for this to be discussed here and a consensus reached. At this point, the anon. has been reverted by two editors, so he needs to come here and explain himself. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  01:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Admin. has protected the article. — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 10:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, which gives us the opportunity to discuss the plot in a civil manner. As is, the plot is not perfect, but the recent changes were not an improvement.  If the anon. would like to come here and explain why he thinks his revision is better, he is welcome to do so. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  12:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

IP:50.193.40.13
I do not agree that the following is an improvement: ''They chase the thief down, and the man demands to know why the thief has been following them. The thief, however, denies that he has been following them.'' — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 19:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You are not the king of wiki. I and the other person have a consensus on the Road, and you and Jacob have your own. There are improper sentences in the article, and you choose to be stuck in your ways. This is why wikipedia is viewed so badly, people like you take control of the whole site and allow improper grammar and pathetic word choices and vocab to be used. You are not the king of wikipedia, and you have no reign over the Road article. Me and the other person were fixing vocab and improper sentences. Just because you like the last version (that you probably made) doesn't mean it has to stay that way. Special:Contributions/50.193.40.13|50.193.40.13]] (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You have been reverted by multiple editors, so it is time for you to stop and explain why your version is better. This has nothing to do with Gareth thinking he is the "king of wiki" or any other such nonsense. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  00:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Is "Me and the other person were fixing vocab and improper sentences" an oxymoron or just ironic? OMG how I wish he had said "fixing spelling and grammer". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:3C40:4F00:54:6494:DFFF:7095 (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry
Apologies for the reckless/sloppy editing on my behalf on this article recently. I was under the impression no one was really paying attention to it - I have no idea why I thought that, I must have confused it with a different article's history - and edited it piecemeal as I watched the movie over several days, with the intention of stitching it all back together at the end. I also didn't notice that others were reverting my changes as they didn't use the Undo feature and I didn't get any alerts, which added to the confused editing. Really should have been in my sandbox instead. Popcornduff (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)