Talk:There Will Be Blood/Archive 1

More list stuff
How about if we convert the Top Ten List list to prose? It will make the article more readable if we summarize the list, identifying the significance and mentioning a few of the more notable lists. As it stands now I think eyes just glaze over and the import of the achievement is lost in the detail. Jim Dunning | talk  04:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I split the list into 2 columns. I suppose we could list every critic who named it the #1 film on one line, #2 film, etc. I guess we could turn it into prose:


 * Ella Taylor of LA Weekly, Glenn Kenny of Premiere...named it the best film of 2007. David Ansen of Newsweek, Nathan Rabin of The A.V. Club...named it the 2nd best film of 2007, etc.


 * It could be put into a table. I think all the critics should be mentioned. I think the import of the achievement is conveyed by showing that 25 critics put the film on their year-end top ten lists. --Pixelface (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I Drink Your Milkshake
Might be getting close to the time when we need a short mention in the article of the movie quote "I Drink Your Milkshake" being an oddball cultural catch-phrase. Otto1970 (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

AFI citation

 * This should be incorporated somewhere in the article: THERE WILL BE BLOOD is bravura filmmaking by one of American film's modern masters. Paul Thomas Anderson's epic poem of savagery, optimism and obsession is a true meditation on America. The film drills down into the dark heart of capitalism, where domination, not gain, is the ultimate goal. In a career defined by transcendent performances, Daniel Day-Lewis creates a character so rich and so towering, that "Daniel Plainview" will haunt the history of film for generations to come.--Harac (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Headlines
Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Day-Lewis digs deep for role as oil tycoon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.112.139 (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The New Frontier’s Man
 * There Will Be Music
 * Early Reviews Say ‘There Will Be Blood’ Is a Masterpiece That No One Will Like
 * "There Will Be Blood" screens at Fantastic Fest
 * Standing ovation for 'Blood' last night...kind of.
 * Kudo season kicking and screening
 * Daniel Day Lewis gives blood, sweat and tears
 * Jonny Greenwood Draws Blood
 * Daniel Day-Lewis has recognition in his 'Blood'


 * This is very helpful. I am going to work on this article over the Christmas holidays and flesh out some more. --J.D. (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad you can make use of them! I'll see about looking for earlier headlines since this film began production some time ago, and I didn't have Google Alerts set up to capture headlines.  May be some print sources available to reflect the chronology of the project's production. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * PTA's fan site is also a good source for info and links to articles. I don't have the link readily available but I'm sure it is easily found. --J.D. (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * P.T. Anderson's There Will Be Blood —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Onion A.V. Club interview with Paul Thomas Anderson —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.D. (talk • contribs) 21:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Tell the story! Tell the story!' --J.D. (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Giant Ambition --J.D. (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Kern’s past helped fuel new film - an excellent article on how they researched and built wooden derricks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harac (talk • contribs) 15:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blood for Oil from American Cinematographer magazine.
 * Paul Thomas Anderson: Blood, Sweat and Tears--J.D. (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

SPOILERS STOP POSTING!!!!!
Why did someone put the ELI SUNDAY/PAUL section?

People haven't seen the film...put spoilers warnings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.40.214 (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia includes the complete contents of the fiction work (including films) and does not warn readers about spoilers. The style guidelines states, "In Wikipedia, however, it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail. Therefore, Wikipedia carries no spoiler warnings except for the Content disclaimer."

Jim Dunning | talk  00:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Consequently, the spoiler warning was removed.


 * The current wording of that style guideline is disputed and I highly doubt 71.109.40.214 has ever read the content disclaimer. --Pixelface (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. All I ask for is to put SPOILER WARNINGS on WIKIPEDIA. Just one disclaimer and you guys discontinued that? What for? Nothing is worse than finding out intricate parts of the story through WIKIPEDIA. Every site about movies had spoiler warnings; it's common courtesy. You can keep it detailed but why don't you just put a SPOILER WARNING? Is it really that hard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.40.214 (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  19:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that you might have been frustrated at finding out some aspect of the story that you wanted to first experience at the movie theater, but Wikipedia is not like a newspaper or magazine where you go to find out whether the film is something you might like to see or to see how audiences and critics are responding to it. It is an encyclopedia that includes descriptions and discussions of all aspects of the work. To place a warning in every plot description (or themes or proudction section) is redundant or superfluous. As Pixelfaces points out, this guideline and practice is under dispute and discussion, and you are invited to add your perspective and respond to those of others. Your arguments may alter this practice down the road. Good luck and enjoy WP.

Thank You! Finally a polite answer compared to one I got from WIKIPEDIA a while back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.40.214 (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Nest weekend line in first paragraph
There's a line that says next weekend in the initial paragraph for the page. Does anyone know which weekend this is referring to? I can't believe that someone would make an edit with wording like that. ModernTenshi04 (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

After looking through the changes, the line appears to have replaced the date of January 18, 2007. As such I felt it appropriate to restore the exact date, instead of keeping the generic term of next weekend. ModernTenshi04 (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Awards and nominations
I suggest trying to convert this list to prose and perhaps find some real-world context behind certain wins (such as the tie with The Diving Bell and the Butterfly). Before doing so, I'd suggest removing "The Austin Film Critics Association", "The Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association", and "The EDA Awards" (unless someone wants to determine their actual notability and provide stubby articles on them). It just seems to me to be awardcruft, and I don't believe I've ever used that term before. :) Either convert to prose, or maybe create a table in which everything for a win can be on one line.  It's just that the list is rather long and narrow.  Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well this is the way it has been done for other films... some brake them in two rows (I'm not sure I know how to do that)? As for the notability... I don't know if it is diminished by the fact that there is no article about them (and again these awards are cited for other movies as well). I agree that there has been an inflation of these critic awards (every village has it, let alone a city) --Harac (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not done very much with details about awards and nominations, and the style guideline does not have any guidance on the matter. It looks like such a section should be shaped on a case-by-case basis, driven by consensus.  I would suggest to first attempt a rough re-sorting of the list so the more prominent or national awards are at the top.  Then we can perhaps look at the bottom and review the lowest award's relevance and move or delete it accordingly.  I think that considering that this is the English Wikipedia, we should veer away from local and regional awards in a particular nation and try to include awards in an international scope (such as the BAFTAs and so forth).  Afterward, perhaps we can work to convert the list to prose, answering questions like why the tie, was There Will Be Blood a dark horse, or which films it was expected to have a hard time against. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but local and regional awards (particularly in LA, NY and other large cities) often solidify a film as an "awards film". If a movie wins a NY critics award, the movie receives rep that could sway Academy voters. I'd say keep at least the biggest local awards because they're pretty relevant to the big picture (no pun intended). --Savethemooses (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I for one thing would wait for few weeks until at least these critic awards are over, until then do this almost trivia thing, and then reshape it (to look at more active articles, like No Country for Old Men, for consensus of sorts - they, for example, have done it in alphabetical order) --Harac (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  20:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The long list was still unsourced so I cited the notable nominations and awards and converted the list to a more readable prose format.


 * well, I think that the list should be kept in mind, since it coveres much more awards then what is mentioned in the article. I suppose the only way to source it is to go to every website of every critic group and cite it like that? --Harac (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The 2007 Village Voice/LA Weekly Film Poll: There Will Be Consensus - a poll of 102 critics (it also won IndieWire's 107 critics poll, don't know if it is mentioned in the article?) --Harac (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the whole awards section should be put back in the way it was, because we either have to name all the awards it has won, or write a general section. --Harac (talk) 10:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Condense and write up a description that adds context for the reader so the import of all those awards/noms is presented. Long lists like these aren't readable and you miss the forest for the trees. Wasn't it Balzac who apologized for writing a long letter, saying "I didn't have time to write a short one"? Let's take the time to write an informative short section. Jim Dunning | talk  11:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  11:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that with the current awards format, any Academy Award nominations today should come after the critics' lists. Good thing they start with an "A" so they come before BAFTA (but after AFI (I think)). (Yes, sarcasm is intentional (but no offence intended to the Brits), but I think you get the list, uh, gist -- we really need to put some work into this and convert it to prose with some added-value summarization.)

Plot location
Any particular reason the plot comes before the contents in this article? It doesn't seem right to me. Mogwit (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fanny Clark
Who is the Fanny Clark character listed in the "Cast"? I just saw this movie and don't recall that character. 24.158.8.227 (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  05:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not anyone I saw in the film either, nor is she listed anywhere else except all the mirrors of this article. I removed the entry.

Relation to Oil!
One thing I hoped to find here, and didn't, was a description of where the plot follows that of Oil! and where it diverges. I know that the book has a subplot about organized labor, which was dropped. I'm sure there are other important differences. - Jmabel | Talk 07:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the movie follows the plot of the book at all! P.T. Anderson might have copied a couple of scenes from the book, but it would make more sense to describe the few bits of the book that are in the movie instead of trying to compare two drastically different stories. - Lontano (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  16:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind we can only reference comparisons or analyses done by reliable, credible sources. We cannot perform the comparisons ourselves: that would be original research.


 * It's not original research to summarize/describe the plot of the book and the plot of the film. Any critical analysis indicating the influences or impact of either work should not only be cited, but should also be attributed. Robert K S (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  17:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The novel's plot cannot be summarized in this article at all (unless we are referencing the summarizing done by a reliable source): WP editors can only summarize a story in that story's article's Plot section. And for a WP editor to identify any similarities or differences between, say, a novel and a film adaptation of it, that is synthesis and is not permitted. That's why we must find secondary sources who have performed the analysis for us, even what seem to be simple comparisons. Then we cite them.


 * All I can say is I don't concur with your interpretation of the OR policy, and I would point out that the synthesis section you linked to is specifically with reference to "synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". Suffice it to say, I don't think any editors would be advancing a position in describing how the plot of the book differs from the plot of the film.  It is not a unique idea or an opinion to say that "This happened in the book.  This happened in the film."  And since the film is based on the book, it is acceptable, IMO, to provide such a summarization of book plot points in an article about the film. Robert K S (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if what I wrote appeared confusing. I cited Synthesis vis-a-vis making comparisons between the novel and the film:

''Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.''

The "material" or "individual elements" would be the plot of the novel and the plot of the film. The "conclusion" or "position" would be the editor's assertion that novel-plot differs from film-plot (or is similar). This policy says that a WP editor cannot make the assertion unless novel-plot source or film-plot source first draws same conclusion. I'm attempting to address the suggestions made above by Jmabel and Lontano that we include the differences/similarities between the two works in this article. We can, but WP:SYN says a reliable source must do it for us first.

Based on your statement, "Any critical analysis indicating the influences or impact of either work should not only be cited", I think we are in agreement on the analysis element. However, why would we summarize Oil here unless we were including a reliable source's analysis in the relevant passage? The source's material should contain the relevant plot summary.

Oil's plot cannot be summarized in TWBB. Fiction guidelines permit a fiction article's Plot section to be an exception to WP:OR as long as it is an objective description of the plot and is validated through consensus. The description is limited to the article's Plot section. And since we can't cite WP itself, we can't pull Oil's Plot section content into TWBB. (And it can't be summarized here on its own, since it would be outside this article's Plot section and wouldn't be availalble to the Consensus process.) Jim Dunning | talk  18:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Such a section would not need to assert that such-or-such plot elements were similar or different; the reader could draw that conclusion for himself/herself. It is not original research to say "The main character of There Will Be Blood is oil man Daniel Plainview, while Oil! centers around 'Bunny' Arnold Ross Jr., son of an oil tycoon." No citation to some critical anaylsis of either work is required to state simply and plainly the facts about two works.  A section containing such statements would be relevant to this article.  If this discussion has been conducted before for some other pair of works, please provide a link, so that we're not rehashing arguments that have already been conducted elsewhere. Robert K S (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I was unable to locate the fiction guidelines you refer to above; I could only find Manual of Style (writing about fiction) which doesn't speak to our issue at all. A Google search brought up the following articles that may or may not be relevant to someone wishing to construct the comparison section in question:
 * An American Primitive, Forged in a Crucible of Blood and Oil - NYT review that also draws comparisons to McTeague and Greed
 * There Will Be Blood: a promising subject, but terribly weak results - WSWS review with some comparisons
 * Upton Sinclair’s Oil!: A High Octane California novel! - review of Oil!
 * Robert K S (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  05:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The NYT and WSWS articles have information that would be great to add to the article. I'm uncertain of the value of the others since they are blogs. I'm going to mine the two good article for material unless you beat me to it. By the way, this discussion prompted me to make this suggestion for an addition to the Film Style Guidelines. Feel free to join in the discussion. Thanks for finding those articles.

Subsection overkill
There is an overuse of subsections in the "Awards and nominations" section. Anyone know enough coding to put all the award information in a nice-looking table format and not make the TOC a monstrosity? — Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  21:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A couple thoughts. Instead of using section headings ( === and ==== ) for organization formatting (do we really need a link in the TOC for every heading and sub-heading &mdash; the section isn't so big it requires navigation assistance), why not just use Bolding, bullets and indents? My other suggestion is to convert the list format to prose, summarizing each recognition type (with some significant details).

Top ten lists
I've removed the long list of critics' top ten lists, which didn't add anything to the references provided, and seemed to serve more to advertise those lists than to say anything about the film. I've merged the remaining sourced sentence about the top ten lists into the "Critical reception" section where it belong. --Tony Sidaway 14:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You have to return the lists since the sources have been referenced and it is a norm with other movies (see NCFOM)! --Harac (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  21:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Harac, I'm not sure I'd call them the "norm" since they've only recently been added to articles of current releases by a specific few editors. I admit my bias, here, since I agree with Tony that, as currently presented, they add little to the articles. It would be better to summarize the significance of being named to top ten lists rather than listing them. Three-quarters of the referenced critics are unfamiliar to me, so I, as a reader, am in the dark as to whether the list is truly impressive or just merely long. A film can be more notable being on just the lists of three or four respected or popular critics as opposed to many lists of unknown (or widely unknown) reviewers/critics.


 * I disagree with taking out the top ten lists. The point of having it on this page is that along with No Country For Old Men and Zodiac this film was on more top ten lists than any other film this year. That should be ackowledged. annoynmous 00:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  01:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So, go ahead and say that; there's no need to actually list every list (but make sure you find a credible source who has made that analysis and cite her/him).
 * Yes, I see now that the sources were merely a link to metacritic and the statement is original research. --Tony Sidaway 01:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

How is this original research, it is simply a fact that this film is on a lot of top ten lists. Outside of your own personal tastes there is no reason not to have this list. The point being that this film along with Zodiac and No Country For Old Men were on more top ten lists than any other film for 2007. What is wrong with showing what lists it was on. annoynmous 02:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  05:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is not a matter of our "personal tastes", but Wikipedia policy. If a credible source has made the observation or analysis that the film is on more top 10 lists than any other film, then we can include that fact in the article. However, we, as WP editors, cannot be the ones to count and compare the number of lists: that is original research in the form of analysis or synthesis. However, Tony recognizes there may be some uncertainty here and is requesting an opinion from another party through a lightweight dispute resolution process. Let's see what happens.


 * I've produced a RFC for this. I've made my points above. --Tony Sidaway 02:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * RFC comment: I would say that the list could stay as long as the original sources of those top ten lists are cited not some mega list of top 10s. If Sometown Post published in Sometown in Small State in Some Country has a top ten list, and this film was on it, put it on the list, but cite the Sometown Post, not the mega list of top ten lists. - LA @ 08:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Newsweek...
...is not trivial. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Milkshake?
Why is there so many mentions of the term milkshake, and why has it been left in for numerous edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.158.111.130 (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  12:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I count the word "milkshake" appearing only twice. Not sure what you mean (unless you're referring to the recent vandalism, which anyone could've removed).
 * Here's a couple of cites examining the final scene and the popularity of that line: USA Today and David Bordwell. Alientraveller (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There's also the Sat Feb 23, 2008 Good Morning America, I think. Maybe it's Friday's, but now it's a YouTube meme. MMetro (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisted Link
In related news, I removed a blacklisted link an earlier post, just FYI. ~ Dancemotron (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  03:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but please use Edit Summaries.

I Drink Your Milkshake

 * First, I would just like to say that I know this is a very minor point, but whatever. In the plot section, the quote reads "I... Drink... Your... Milkshake!" which looks terrible. It should read "I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!" because (a) that is how it is written in the script and (b) it conveys the tone much better than a series of ellipses. I tried to change it once, but it was reverted, so now I am putting it on the talk page. ~ Dancemotron (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  03:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. I reverted because your purpose was unclear (please use edit summaries when making changes. I agree the ellipses look ungainly, but are solid caps the way to go? How about: "I. Drink. Your. Milkshake! I drink it up!"

Jim Dunning | talk  03:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Upon further thought, do you have a source for the script reference? I could see going solid caps if Anderson put it that way in the script.


 * Script is here http://www.scribd.com/doc/2083473/There-Will-Be-Blood-Final-Script The Equilibrium (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; it answers the question about the caps. However, since the solid caps in a script indicate emphasis, which can range from hysterical screaming to an intense whisper, I don't think they should be duplicated here. If we did, then why not the "DRAINAGE" phrase as well? I think we're really trying to convey Day-Lewis's performance in what may become a classic scene, but I'm not sure there is an effective way to do that in just words on a page. My recommendation is to leave the phrase as a quote (thus acknowledging the potentially enduring nature of the scene), but just present the words in plain type. Either that, or go completely in the other direction and capitalize DRAINAGE and put "aaaaaccccccrrrrrooooosssssss" in as well. Jim Dunning | talk  13:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The other direction. I think I know the source of the ellipses. Alientraveller pointed out this review &mdash;

Daniel, loudly, drooling: “Drainage! Drainage! Eli, you boy. Drained dry. I’m so sorry. If you have a milkshake and I have a milkshake — there it is. [He holds up his index finger]. That’s the straw, you see. [He turns and walks away from Eli] And my straw reaches acrooooooossssss [walking back toward Eli] the room … I … drink … your … milkshake. [He makes a sucking noise] I drink it up!”

Jim Dunning | talk  13:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I find the parenthetical action description effective &mdash; especially inclusion of the sucking noise &mdash; and could see using this passage (cited) in the plot description. I agree the ellipses are awkward looking, but they do convey the emphasis Daniel places on each word in the phrase.


 * Well, regardless of how the quote is formatted, I maintain that the last sentence before it should read "starts to drink your milkshake:" as opposed to "starts to drink your milkshake..." ~ Dancemotron (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have an even more radical suggestion: take the milkshake lines out completely. They're really not necessary here, this is not an essay for an literature or film class. It just seems pretentious to have it here, esp in a block quote. If anyone wants to read it, go to IMDB, it's there. Tommyt (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tommyt, surely this is for Wikipedia's sister project Wikiquote, with a link here directing readers who want quotes from the movie over there, such as something like this (over there, on the right >):

peace Warchef (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree: delete the quote.  The plot sysnopsis is lengthy enough without quoting chunks of dialogue.  Plazak (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

and in contact with the priest, he reveals his addictness to that space. The widow popowa herself in a shape of oil-man is visible!
 * If the son H.W. doesn't like to drink a sadists milk shake, he is no sucker. Education in this motherless surrounding, is hard to stand, if daniel represents the negative mother and poisons the milk with whisky, he is the sucker.Real Mothers mirrow missing?!

Reinterpretation of the Bible
I just watched the movie tonight and came to read about it here and I'm surprised to not find a discussion on how the movie interprets the bible.

First there are the names. Eli, the preacher, is another name for God and in this movie I think represents the Old Testament. Daniel, a prophet in the bible, in the movie kills Eli (destroys the Old Testament which is replaced by the New Testament). Paul, the biblical creator of Christianity (and the New Testament) informed Daniel of the oil on the Sunday ranch. The bastard child and Daniel's adopted, deaf son, H.W., represents the HebreWs (HW) (they were/are deaf to Christ's message).

Eli and Paul are brothers just as the Old and New Testaments could be called brothers. I read below that they may be twins which would make even more sense.

Anyway, I don't see any of this discussed on this page so I thought I'd bring it up. 198.5.223.122 (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As I'm thinking about it more, Daniel represents the Old Testament. Eli, whose name means God, is killed as Daniel the prophet (profit?) predicted, fulfilling the role of Jesus.

The oil represents souls. Standard Oil is Satan, trying to take those souls.

Just adding some additional thoughts I've had. Like I said, I've only just saw the movie and am still running it through my mind. If it's not appropriate to discuss here, let me know. I was just really surprised to not see any of this mentioned in the article.

198.5.223.122 (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  12:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This page is for discussion of the article, not the film, so as long as the focus stays there . . . . If a reliable source supporting these positions can be found, then the material can be added to the article and cited.


 * Thank you Jim. Now that I've thought some more about the movie I believe my original thoughts above are not quite accurate but I won't go into that here as, as you said, this page is for discussion of the article.  I'll see what I can find. 198.5.223.122 (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Little Boston, Texas?
Isn't the town of Little Boston located in California in the film? Don't they build a pipeline from the oil town to the Pacific? Would certainly be pretty difficult if it's Texas. I see mention that this part of the film was shot in Texas, maybe that's where the confusion comes from. Perhaps someone could confirm this and correct if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obert (talk • contribs) 10:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In the script Paul Sunday mentions he's from Isabella County. The only Isabella Counties I can find are either in California or Michigan. Plumlogan (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The fictional town of Little Boston, like the fictional Isobella County, are definitely located in California. The film makes that clear.  Plazak (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I drink your milkshake in popular culture
Ok, that scene has been parodied several times, and that makes me think that a "cultural impact" section is warranted. We can mention the teeshirts with the scene on it, we can mention the SNL skit making fun of it, there is a lot, and it could be done with reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Eli Sunday/Billy Sunday
Eli Sunday bares a remarkable resemblance to popular evangelist of that day Billy Sunday. Even his hairstyle is the same. There is even a direct Billy Sunday quote in the film which you can find on "sermonindex.net" under the sermon titled "the atoning blood of jesus christ" In the sermon Billy Sunday says "the doctrine of universal salvation is a lie. I wish it were true but it isn't. You will never be saved if you reject the blood." This is a line used in the scene where Daniel comes forward. Also, in the same sermon, Billy Sunday closes with a story about Standard Oil. If the character of Eli Sunday is not atleast loosely inspired by Billy Sunday the similarities are eerie to say the least. 74.242.118.4 (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)preacherman1611


 * I agree this information should be featured in the article. Just like it's mentioned that Plainview is based on John Huston and Edward Doheny.
 * In my opinion, the Production section could use some segmenting, so this could be featured in it's own section about the characters of the movie.
 * Here's the direct link to the sermon, by the way: http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=418 --Nick 213.196.192.185 (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the name / connection to Magnolia
I came here to find out more about those topics and was surprised to see no mention of them whatsoever. Thus, I decided to create a section about it.

I make use of my right to edit articles very rarely, so please let me know if I did something wrong (e.g. with the quotation). Furthermore, I wasn't sure where to place those information. Feel free to move the section.

Originally, I wanted to expand the section with PTA's quote on why he decided to "rename" the movie but that has already been mentioned in the Production section. Would it be OK to move that part to "my" section or is that not necessary?

Regards, Nick 213.168.111.143 (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm just a casual reader to Wikipedia, but it looks to me like this section contains a lot of opinion and speculation, and not a lot of sources to back anything up. I added an Original Research template to the section with the hopes that somebody more disciplined in Wikipedia policy take care of it.
 * My first instinct was to delete the entire section, because I don't think it belongs in the article. Ethan (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I also think it should be deleted, that is, unless some sort of verification can be found. "There will be blood" to my knowledge is a common phrase, meaning: There is going to be a stuggle or conflict. I am also sure it's exact origins are unknown. All the same speculation doesn't belong on wikipedia, anything that can be disputed needs citations. I'm going to delete the section, and if anyone can find credible sources then they can recreate the section with the citations included.Johnnyeagleisrocker (talk) 11:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

SYNOPSIS PROBLEM
It says in the synopsis that Plainview invented a fake dance to test whether Henry was actually his brother from Wisconsin. I don't think that's how it went down. The dance was real and Plainview was genuinely celebrating with Henry and mentioned the dance, but when Henry didn't react-even when prompted a second time-Plainview realized that Henry didn't recognize the name of their hometown dance. I think this is important because Plainview wasn't looking to test Henry, he was enjoying having a brother and, despite his cunning nature, never really pressed Henry on his background.

I agree, it says here in the article "but soon becomes suspicious that Henry is not who he says he is, which he tests by referencing landmarks and events from their hometown" I don't believe that their is a suspicion until Henry fails to react to the "Peachtree Dance" line. Plainview is not testing Henry he is simply reminiscing and becomes suspicious when Henry fails to react to a memory of their hometown which they would both presumably share. I think it would be better to change the article to explain this because there is no evidence that Plainview is secretly doubting Henry's identity up until this point and it compromises the accurate description of Plainviews character if it is suggested that he is concocting plans to catch his fake half-brother out. Kurushi (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC) he burns down the house. But his father doesn't understand this signal. Lateron he realizes that henry is the wrong.( : it#s slow-fox!) But I didn#t understand H.W. from beginning on being an orphan. Cut they thus out?! To me Plainview declares him at the end, not to be his real or legimate son, because H.W. wants to leave and become indipendent.Stories are told out of which's perspective?--Hum-ri (talk) 10:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You may start up with being suspcious at an earlier point either. H.W. investingates the false brother and recognizes something, so

There Will Be Blood and Anti-Christianity
Perhaps a small part of the article could discuss the blatant anti-Christian bias that is found in the film? The film has been boycotted by some churches and Christians in the USA because of its very strong anti-Christian message and themes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.157.178 (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

-- Interesting that you find the portryal of a faith healing religion anti-Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.34.10 (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  23:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to locate a credible source that provides material on this, then feel free to go ahead (and cite it). Keep in mind that there's a difference between a fiction work that is interpreted as promoting a particlular viewpoint and a story that contains a character who is depicted in a particular way. Consider Huck Finn, which has been derided as being racist while simultaneously lauded as being anit-racist.


 * I wonder if the IP address was here complaining about the anti-Jewish bias in the Mel Gibson flick a few years back? I'm guessing not. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Following that line of thought, couldn't Eli be described as a wolf in sheep's clothing? To mix metaphors, shepherds use their flock to serve their own purposes. If people do not want anyone to point this out then I find their motivations suspect. Nino137.111.47.29 (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The question is: whether the film makes Eli and Paul the same or different persons?
And also: according to the answer on that question, how the film should be reflected in the Plot section of the article?

I removed the Eli and Paul debate section because there doesn't appear to be a debate. The contribution mentioned that "many critics and film goers" wondered whether the twins are really twins. While I'm sure there are film goers who are discussing it, there isn't much mention of it by any reviewers or critics. The cited Ebert review makes only passing mention of the twins, and the other source cited has Anderson saying it was simply a casting convenience, not a story element. Hardly supports a "debate". Jim Dunning | talk  05:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually thought Paul didn't exist and was either an invention of Eli's or one of his two personalities. The fact that Daniel in the final scene with Eli says something about having given 10,000$ to Paul (which doesn't make much sense if they were really brothers) seems to prove that. It would make the movie much more compley, too, if Daniel and Eli were both borderline-type characters. What speaks for Paul being Elis twin brother? And (where) can I still read that deleted "Eli and Paul debate section"?--FiltorDE (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  00:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You can look through the article's History section and see the deleted material here.
 * I am very surprised by the fact that Paul and Eli were supposed to be twins. As I watched the movie, I thought Paul was Eli only when he was in his religious mood. I appreciated that. It gave the character a much better personality. Thierry Caro (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

When Paul Dano was interviewed on Npr, he said another actor had been cast as the boy preacher, but did not work out. So Dano, originally playing the smaller role of the other brother, stepped in to play both roles. It was done entirely out of a crisis on the set. Viewers may interpret however they wish, but the intention of the director is fairly clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.89.236 (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No appearing/mentioning of Paul until the final scene. Why would Eli ask for money if he had (a) a sister (Mary) whose husband is wealthy and (b) the brother who, as Daniel says in the final scene, makes 5,000 a week. Daniel also says that he gave Paul 10,000 at once, but, as a very strong and greedy character, he would never give anybody 10,000 only for information where, not the actual land (he hardly gave Paul 500, and never gave those promised 5,000 for the Church). And, finally, why would Daniel inform Eli about the line of work, the company, and the weekly profit of Eli's own brother. The conclusion: in this particular film, as it goes, Paul is the alter ego (or at least nickname) of Eli, and Daniel and Eli both know it; the article should receive corresponding changes. --SunnySideOfStreet (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What would make you say that there's no mention or appearance of Paul until the final scene? He's the one who tells Daniel about Little Boston to begin with. He makes a very obvious appearance.


 * I just want to respectfully point out that nothing you just said makes sense. 1. There's no indication HW had yet become weatlhy, and besides he was probably in Mexico.  2. It was explicit early in the movie that Paul was given 500, not 10,000.  Therefore saying he was given 10,000 is an obvious (to the audience) lie to inflict pain on Eli.  There is no reason to beleive anything else he said about the status of Pauls life was any different.  3. How can you possibly conclude that Paul and Eli are the same person from Daniel telling Eli about Paul.  If anything this proves they are different people.  It is an interesting theory, but none of those arguements hold water. --68.191.210.212 (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to your own interpretation, based on your own view of complex characters, but that does not mean that the article should reflect your interpretation. Leave it out of the article, and let every viewer decide for himself.  Plazak (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Let every viewer decide for himself. But the plot in the article should be based on the most obvious vision of the events, that is, the consensus between the majority of viewers. "Twin" is not said in the film, and it is "younger brother" in the screenplay (is public), as you may read yourself in the scene when Paul comes to Daniel to sell the info. Therefore, no less than, the non-ambiguous statements that Paul is the twin-brother of Eli have to be removed, and instead there should be put like "it is not completely clear about ... but they cannot be twins as ... and Paul does not appear any further ... "twin" is never mentioned ... the first what Paul/Eli asks Daniel after he is welcomed to sit down is "What church do you belong to?" ... so, most likely, in this film, it was a nickname that Eli used for the deal". Again, this article in the Plot section is about the film as it had been produced, not intended. The film subtitles are easy to be found, so any who doubts can see them and make sure. Please, answer my arguments (these and above), prove the opposite if you disagree. --SunnySideOfStreet (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is likely that two brothers would be similarly church-minded. This doesn't mean they are the same person. --68.191.210.212 (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely Eli has got some emotional problems if he's beating up Dad and blaming the absent brother after being viciously beaten for doing nothing more than being an assertive preacher. Any healthy person would run home and find comfort there, not beat the source of comfort. That could point to a single person with dual personalities. What I took from it is that the religious guy has his own greed and jealosies that ruin his relationships, like Daniel has. I gave up trying to figure out why Paul and Eli looked exactly alike. I wonder what the Paul/Eli characters do in the book. Natbe (talk) 05:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that Eli has emotional problems, and big ego. But it is still a long jump to conclude that it is a case of multiple personality disorder.  Also, in the book Eli and Paul are seperate brothers.--68.191.210.212 (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's an interesting scene, the most interesting one after Paul/Eli meets Daniel and the final scene. Again, it confirms the version that Eli, a religious young man ("What church do you belong to?") not indifferent to money (a mental conflict), found Daniel to sell the information (500 dollars, 600, again 500), but told Daniel another name: Paul, as that deal was associated with danger from Eli's boy-like point of view and, as he thought, it would be a huge stupidity to tell the real name; and, not to lie completely (as a "christian"), he mentioned himself as a brother. Then Eli goes back to the farm, waits for Daniel, tells him the real name: Eli, jacks up the price of the land (because of oil) when Daniel negotiates with the father of the family, and becomes preacher-like but, at the same time, very authority- and money-seeking (personality splitting based on that mental conflict). "Saint" Eli to Daniel (all the citations are from the film subtitles): You owe the church of the third revelation. Five thousand dollars as part of the arrangement that we made. Then goes the scene when Eli attacks his father and says him: You're lazy and you're stupid. Do you think God is going to save you for being stupid? He doesn't save stupid people, Abel. Now let's remember what Paul/Eli said to Daniel in the past about Standard Oil: Daniel: How much land did they buy? Paul/Eli: I'd like it better if you didn't think I was stupid. Next, in the scene with the father, Eli says him: Shut your mouth, Abel. It was your stupid son. It was Paul who told him to come here. I know it. He went to him and he said: My stupid, weak father will give away his lots, go and take him... And you let it happen. How could he know? Why there are all these "stupid"-connections? Isn't it about his mental disorder and self-appraisal? And doesn't the words above have something in common with that what Paul/Eli said to Daniel in the past: If I told you I knew a place that had oil... where land could be bought cheaply... All these confirm the final scene, when Daniel reproaches Eli with the alternative way, called "Paul", that Eli could choose that time. On 1927, Eli could already be a wealthy man with 5,000 profit a week, but he had followed the wrong way of being a "false prophet" in the religion of "superstition". Please, dispute or agree with me. But remember, this film differs from the book and even the screenplay (largely in the scenes where Paul is mentioned), and the article in the Plot section is about the film how it was produced, not about how it was initially intended. --SunnySideOfStreet (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again, I am sad to say this doesn't make sense. First, why would Eli give a fake name "Paul" to protect himself from danger, knowing Daniel would soon show up at his farm and see him again?  That doesn't hold water.  Secondly, there is nothing personality splitting about what you call this "mental conflict", since both Eli AND Paul are after money.  Third, just because they both use the word "stupid" doesnt imply anything.  That is just serious reaching.  Fourth, If Paul is Eli's fakename/nickname, why would Eli speak to his father of Paul?  Furthermore, the tone when he says he "knows Paul told him to come here", was accusative, not matter-of-fact, implying Eli resents his brother Paul and is speculating that that is what happened, rather than stating something he genuinly knows to be true.  Lastly, Daniel probably knows Eli resents Paul and this is the very reason why Daniel tells Eli all of this (probably untrue, atleast partially untrue with the 10,000) stuff about Paul's success, to further hurt him.  This is an interesting theory, but is not supported by anything really and has no place in the article. --68.191.210.212 (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Digital intermediate
Is it worth noting that There Will Be Blood did not use digital intermediates? It was already incredibly rare at the time the film was made. In fact, I'm not aware of any films released since There Will Be Blood that don't use digital intermediates used. But, this was apparently the case here. All petrochemical, all old school editing. Citation below.

http://www.theasc.com/magazine_dynamic/January2008/ThereWillBeBlood/page2.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.65.12 (talk) 07:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
I keep adding an Eli reference to the opening paragraph but for some reason people keep removing it. At the moment the opening paragraph makes only reference to Daniel which is hardly fair since although the film concentrates mainly on Daniel its central storyline is undoubtedly the rivalry between him and Eli, hence the films tagline: "When ambition meets faith." I have also been accused of violating WP:NPOV for describing Eli as "fanatical" but I hardly think that anybody is going to dispute his fanaticism are they? If I described him as "effiminate" that would be probably be POV, but fanatical? --86.138.52.77 (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You can not describe him as anything that you personally think. It has to be referenced. Sorry, but that's how it is.--andreasegde (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

PTA's Commentary refusal
Can someone explain the reason for Paul Thomas Anderson's refusal to record a director's commentary for the TWBB DVD release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.18.107.92 (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ask him. Who knows?--andreasegde (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Top critics films list?
There's tons of critics in the world. I don't understand why this is necessary. It seems as a certain EXTREMELY biased individual wants this movie to come off as a lot better than it actually is.

This whole section should be removed and only top critics should be considered to keep neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilbog (talk • contribs) 07:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Cast list
Where is it?--EchetusXe 23:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Little Boston
The film takes place in a village called Little Boston in California but the only settlement of that name I can find reference to on Wikipedia is in Washington. Is the village in the film fictional or is there actually a Little Boston in California? --194.81.33.10 (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Plot length
The plot length is currently 1,469 words, or more than double the maximum length called for in MOS. Looking through the history, I see one anon. editor after another adding minor details, and very few instances of established editors reverting them. This is how plot bloat occurs: a little bit added here, a whole new paragraph added there, everybody believing that there little addition is absolutely necessary to the plot. Soon, we end up with this travesty. I am going to go way back in the history and see if I can find a more succinct version. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 14:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Development Section
Part of the Development section reads, "[Schlosser] then thought that he would try to find a director that was as passionate about the book as he was, but Paul Thomas Anderson approached him first." The 'but' makes it sound like Paul Thomas Anderson was not a director who was as passionate about the book as Schlosser. It's like saying, "He was going to ask a really pretty girl to the dance, but Sally approached him first." I can see how the 'but' is supposed to contrast Schlosser's seeking out a director with Anderson's approaching him first, not contrasting levels of passion, but perhaps it can be phrased better. Onlynone (talk) 03:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Eli is Mary's father
Or possibly, Paul was her father. Able took her up, but she has realized Eli is.

She says that her father beats her for not praying hard enough.

When Daniel is talking to Mary about how her father won't beat her again, and then the camera pans to show that Danel was talking in front of Able. Able looks deeply saddened. Not taken aback, angry,or Guilty.

We see Eli attack "stupid" Able for not doing enough to help their situation with Plainview.

We don't know why Paul had left the ranch. But if the evidence points to Eli or Paul being the father of Mary, it makes his flight and subsequent selling out of his family's land more understandable. It also begins to explain why Eli loses his mind when Daniel begins praising Paul.

Finally, Eli repeatedly says "we are brothers now " while Daniel is attacking him. Not as in we are all brothers. As in we are brothers by marriage because your son married my daughter.

Considering that Daniel seemed to see through Henry immediately and then roll with it until the incongruity was just too bald for him to stomach. Wouldn't it fit in with the theme of the movie that Daniel was desperate for a brother and then killed him?

68.98.145.28 (talk) 08:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Nich Obert 68.98.145.28 (talk) 08:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC).8/31/13

Plot
Have added a little to the last paragraph in the plot section, the famous "drink your milkshake" and bowling scene. Hope it doesn't qualify as "bloat". --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on There Will Be Blood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091214153151/http://www.rollingstone.com:80/photos/gallery/31234572/peter_travers_10_best_movies_of_t/photo/10 to http://www.rollingstone.com/photos/gallery/31234572/peter_travers_10_best_movies_of_t/photo/10

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on There Will Be Blood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100114150503/http://www.rollingstone.com:80/photos/gallery/31234572/peter_travers_10_best_movies_of_t/photo/10ml to http://www.rollingstone.com/photos/gallery/31234572/peter_travers_10_best_movies_of_t/photo/10ml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080509081608/http://www.sagawards.org/PR_080127 to http://www.sagawards.org/PR_080127

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this movie an accurate representation of oilmen in the early 20th century?
Do you think this is more or less based on events that probably happened? Scott Niedecken (talk) 05:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless somebody says it isn't (with a reference) then it is.--andreasegde (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It faithfully represents the technology, mindsets, greed, oil (real oil used in the film (!!!), land grab, lawlessness, high oil transport costs by railroad (tool that brought monopoly to Rockefeller), etc. The film is worth watching twice. Or more. The oil flowing in an unprotected stream with people standing around it... :) Only two points were somewhat lacking and those only due to technological limitations. One of them was extinguishing of the burning gusher well by dynamite, it was obvious itwas only a poor imitation, with source of the fire turned off. In real life the oil continues to spurt and the explosion causes a massive shockwave. But altogether: film nearly of documentary qualities! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.4.54 (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Misanthropy
Would anyone agree with me that this film deals prominently with the subject of misanthropy? Take Daniel Plainview's statements; "I hate most people," and "there are times I look at people and see nothing worth liking." Should this theme be mentioned in the article? Worldruler20 (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have a reference, yes. If not, no.--andreasegde (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Your point was?! That's how things were in the 1900 and way before. Some people were very good and helpful and some were really bad. The film deals with how greed changes people into distrustful misanthropes and psychopaths (Daniel and Eli as prime examples.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.4.54 (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Plot
The first sentence says:
 * "The story opens in 1898 with silver prospector Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) accidentally discovering crude oil deposits in one of his silver claims."

On the contrary, the rock he brings back is visibly a metallic ore, and so he appears to discover silver on his mining claim. This allows him to open a small working mine, which presumably funds his entrance into the oil business. The oil drilling operation is at another location.

Jim Dunning | talk  21:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Jim Dunning | talk  01:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My impression is that the assayer's report shows us first that he is looking for silver (of which there appears to be none based on the analysis results at the top of the report), but as we scan down the report page we see there is oil. This would support the description that Plainview is initially mining for silver, but serndipity steps in and he switches to petroleum at the same location. I don't recall anything to lead us to believe he relocates.
 * That would have been historically inaccurate for a couple of reasons: 1) old-time assayers were not set up to test for traces of oil, and 2) there was no need to assay for oil, because old-time oil men would have tested it just as Plainview did at Little Boston:  rub it on his fingers, smell it, and put a match to it.  But I evidently didn't get as good a look at the assay certificate as you did, so I'll defer to what you saw.  Plazak (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * One of those things to look for the next time we see it.
 * This is wrong. I have the film on dvd (widescreen) and while only a portion of the report is shown, the assay is for "silver and gold" and the final calculation refers to a valuable substance present in "3 oz per ton" - clearly a precious metal and NOT oil. I am going to take the liberty of removing that sentence. RustavoTalk/Contribs 04:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The sentence later says:
 * "...refining his extraction techniques with self-designed drilling and rigging equipment."

Since there is no dialog in this section, how does anyone know that his equipment is self-designed? Plazak (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just watched it and I think I agree that it's dangerously close to original research to state this categorically. It is implied however in one scene; Plainview takes out a sketch pad and starts drawing a Pumpjack. The way they portray this with some hesitations as if he's adding elements as he thinks of them is what gives the implication, but that's all it is.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the reference to the "rule of capture" of U.S. oil and gas law, which Plainview illustrates in the Milkshake scene. Please feel free to edit as needed.LawHog2 (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey people, I was under the impression that Daniel Plainview IS the assayer and not the miner! He is certifying/signing that report and he mentions to his half-brother that "I worked for geological survey in Kansas... I couldn't stay there. Just couldn't. I don't like to explain myself." Plus, the rocks the miner has found in the shaft had bitumen-like gloss and had "negligible" precious metal content. It is thus possible that was when Daniel Plainview realized that the treasure is something the others do not see. (not silver, but oil) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.4.54 (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)