Talk:PCU (film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Article upgrading needed: You can help. |
WP:IA |
|---|---|
|
Stub to Start-Class Upgrading Instructions To contribute in upgrading this stub article to start class, the following requirements must be met:
Helpful links: WP:BETTER, WP:LEAD, WP:REF Once this article has fulfilled these requirements, the film can be reassessed to start class and this template will be removed automatically. |
|
 |
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. | ||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
[edit] Caine-Hackman Theory
I changed the heading "Caine-Hackman Thesis" to "Caine-Hackman Theory," as it is a theory created by Roger Ebert in his book, Ebert's Little Movie Glossary. This is the term given by Ebert in the book, and the film borrows the concept. Ebert describes the concept exactly as it is used in the movie (although, the A Bridge Too Far reference is only used in the film). The character "Pigman" uses the theory as the basis of his thesis. The concept created by Ebert should be listed by the name he gave it, not solely as a thesis, as it is used in the film. Wavy G 02:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Have you checked your chronology? The Ebert book seems to be from May 1999, whereas PCU is from 1994. The article doesn't imply a particular causality, but it's worth noting. That is, unless I've gotten something mixed up myself. --GargoyleMT 20:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I just happened to have the book sitting here as I saw your message, and I checked and (at least the addition I have, where I first read the reference in question) it is (c) 1994. That's a tough call, since the movie is from the same year, but the book is actaully a compilation of previous terms featured in Ebert's column in the Sun, created by Ebert/his fans. Although, like you said, it doesn't really matter, but would be nice to note. Wavy G 06:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Aha. I just researched and found he had another book called Ebert's Bigger Little Movie Glossary, which was from 1999. The book I have was titled "Ebert's Little Movie Glossary" (1994). Hope this clears things up. Wavy G 06:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, confusing book titles. The fact that the movie and your book are from the same year, and that the book is compilation of preexisting works does indeed indicate that the movie is making a reference to Ebert's work. Maybe the DVD commentary has some mention that can be cited as a source in the article (WP:V and all). --GargoyleMT 16:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Aha. I just researched and found he had another book called Ebert's Bigger Little Movie Glossary, which was from 1999. The book I have was titled "Ebert's Little Movie Glossary" (1994). Hope this clears things up. Wavy G 06:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I just happened to have the book sitting here as I saw your message, and I checked and (at least the addition I have, where I first read the reference in question) it is (c) 1994. That's a tough call, since the movie is from the same year, but the book is actaully a compilation of previous terms featured in Ebert's column in the Sun, created by Ebert/his fans. Although, like you said, it doesn't really matter, but would be nice to note. Wavy G 06:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Womynist conspiracy?
I don't think the Womynist's really conspire with Balls and Shaft and Garcia-Thompson against The Pit, as such. Rand nudges them in the right direction to support his plans, but he despises them about as much as he does The Pit. Anyone want to refute the argument before I adjust the article accordingly?--MythicFox 07:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, that was wrong. I went ahead and adjusted it. Wavy G 22:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
