Talk:Good Will Hunting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

Contents 1 "Sociopathic" 2 Source of script? 3 Parseval's theorem 4 Quotes 5 Opening 6 Synopsis 7 Title 8 Removed

[edit] "Sociopathic"

"sociopathic" seems much too strong here. -- incandenza 17:09 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it was a pretty accurate description of the character, at least at the outset of the movie. Will has a criminal record as long as your arm and brutally beats a man against whom he holds a 15 year old grudge. He has no tolerance at all for authority. Sure sounds like a sociopath to me. But, OTOH, I can live with "troubled". Bill 00:39 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I am thinking of adding themes to this page, including duality, coming of age, love, and the intangible antagonist. Any suggestions/objections feel free. --Asuskay 03:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I added another theme under the Themes category because i think that it is a really important lesson that is learned in the film.--Precious3230 21:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I added an external link to the webpage "Screen it" because it seemed like a really good review page, especially for adults to review the bad content in the film.--Precious3230 21:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I added an 'intangible antagonist' section to themes because I feel it is essential to undertstanding this to appreciate the movie.--Asuskay 23:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I took out the theme about Will searching for a home because he has a home in the film, and it is obviously the only place that he feels safe. In his home, it is only him and his friends that he trusts, whereas, in the outside world, he is exposed to people that he feels could potentially hurt him. Also the movie shows how important home is to Will and how guarded he keeps it, because he will not open it up to Skylar and let her come see it. --Precious3230 15:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I feel that under the synopsis section for the page the conclusion indicates to the audience that Will is seeking Skylar first before he seeks the opportunities Lambeau has provided for him. I am not sure this is true, in fact I think it is insinuating that he is eventually going to come back, which I feel is inaccurate to the concluding scene of the movie.--Asuskay 23:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I re-worded the second to last paragraph which discusses "Chuckie's one great hope." I feel this is very valid to this film page, but the wording seemed a little off. I simply took out and added a few words to make it a little more accurate. Originally this paragraph indicated that the one time Chuckie came to pick Will up he wouldn't be there. For the reader, this suggests Chuckie does not pick Will up every day, which he does.--Asuskay 23:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I added a reception category because i think it is important for viewers of this page to know that it not only made a lot of money in the box office, but people actually liked it a lot, and it had good film critic reviews.--Precious3230 03:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I added on to the reception category, touching on what makes this regular story so intriguing on film.--Asuskay 15:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the theme section of this page flows well. Some of it seems copied and pasted from other papers. I am going to make it flow a little better by taking out the "three major theme" heading because there are more than three written about. there are also a few times the synopsis is replicated in this section, which I think is unnecessary at this point of the page.--Asuskay 15:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure the themes section flows very well. I am going to do some minor editing to the wording because certain parts don't really make sense in how they describe Will Hunting.--Asuskay 19:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I edited the synopsis section because i felt like it made sense to people who had already viewed the film, but someone who has not seen it and is looking for information on it would be really confused by this summary. i hope i helped!--Precious3230 01:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Source of script?

I am pretty sure the anon contributor who is saying this film is based on some 'unknown' MIT person is a vandal - after depositing their (unsourced) info they wiped out the rest of the page. But I am going to AGF and leave the info there for a while and stick a unverfied tag on instead. I am going get rid of it if a source doesn't appear soon tho... novacatz 14:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't find the any info - nuking that paragraph. novacatz 15:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Parseval's theorem

I realize that "Parseval's theorem" was on the board when a professor announces a problem-solving challenge at the beginning of the movie. But Parseval's theorem is a very old and commonly proved result. The professor would not be terrifically impressed if someone managed to prove Parseval's theorem. Therefore I think it unlikely that Parseval's theorem was the subject of the problem the professor mentioned, and I will remove all references to Will proving it.

According to this source, the answer Will is writing does tie to the problem posed on the board. --Arcadian 02:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Parseval's theorem wasn't the one Will solved.. he solved an advanced fourier system. The class was supposed to solve Parseval's. Dan 03:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

I removed the huge and badly-formatted Quotes section. Oh, and I added a link to the movie's Wikiquote page, which has more than enough quotes. riana 14:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening

What evidence is there that the movie had a weak opening? According to Box Office Mojo, the film averaged nearly $40,000 per screen in its opening weekend. It was a limited release, granted, but limited releases are common for Oscar-bait features. Stick Fig 04:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

At $1.72m on opening weekend, "weak opening" is almost euphemistic. The thing cost $10m.. if a film makes only 17.2% of its budget back on opening weekend, things aren't looking good. Dan 17:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It totally misses the context of what Oscar season is -- an attempt to get arthouse films into the theater before the eligibility period ends. How is a film realistically going to make back its budget in seven theaters? And plus, on its wide opening, it made back its $10 million budget in a single weekend. I'm adding some more context to it because the line is misleading.

In fact, according to BoxOfficeMojo, the number is wrong. It's actually much lower than that -- more like $200,000. Where did the $1.7 million number come from?Stick Fig 08:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep... looks like $272k. That would be rather devastating... anyway, you're right. Even so, $10m would have been a bit disappointing.. and then it [i]climbed[/i] ... a LOT. Which really doesn't happen very much... http://imdb.com/title/tt0119217/business Dan 17:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a little more context, either way. This is a movie that didn't make a lot in individual weeks, but had tremendous staying power. I also changed the box office totals to reflect both limited and wide openings. Stick Fig 20:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synopsis

By definition, this section should be relatively brief, but it's turning into a full re-write of the screenplay. What say we keep or shorten its current length and focus on keeping it as well-written and flowing as we can? Dudesleeper 17:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

-Heartily agreed. Unfortunately I don't care enough about the film to do it myself...Figureground 01:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Heartily agreed, too. I also don't care enough to do it myself...--Lord of the Ping 08:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If noone else wants to or does it first, I'll cut it down significantly in the next few weeks. Every time I look at this page, that synopsis makes me want to puke. It's practically the entire script. Randomjohn 21:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Can someone write something about how/why the title of this movie was chosen? I expected it to be about "The Search for People of Good Intentions", and instead it was about "William Hunting was a Good Boy". --Keeves 10:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed

I removed this from the intro paragaph: "The movie took 12 days to shoot which is astonishing."

It sounds like a 12 year old fanboy plus the making of the movie is already covered in detail below.

I told about how long it took to shoot the movie. Best edit-summary I've seen yet. - Dudesleeper 00:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)