Talk:Dead Man

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• King, Mike (2008). "Dead Man". The American Cinema of Excess: Extremes of the National Mind on Film. McFarland. pp. 141–144. ISBN 0786439882.

Lower sections

Um, what's going on with the lower sections of this article? I'm removing this stuff for now. Looks like it maybe belongs more at WikiSource than here... --Chinasaur 03:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bounty hunters

I didn't think it was really accurate to call them "'amoral' bounty hunters". After all, when Lance Henriksen shoots the black kid, Conway Twill says "Geez, [Lance], he was just a kid." So he has some sense of morality, at least. Shame that he has to get eaten later on.

• The only one who can conceivably be called "amoral" is, IMHO, Cole Wilson, because Conway Twill actually does call him that ("he ain't got a f***ing conscience—know what I'm sayin'?"). Notcarlos 16:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

When Twill says that Cole Wilson "fucked" his parents, I think he means that he killed them. Did anyone else read it this way? Where the article says that Twill "fucked, killed, and cannibalized" his parents, it seems to imply that he had sex with them. Also, it seems kind of un-wikipedia to swear in a plot summary...

Plot summary: "takes peyote"

Having seen this movie a few times now, I'm not sure at what point Blake takes peyote, especially given that, when Nobody takes the peyote, he says that it is "not for use, even by William Blake." Lack of food causes Blake's vision quest, not peyote. Notcarlos 16:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

A little change made

I changed Blake's job in the Machine town from "book keeper" to acoount manager please change back if Im wrong —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.91.136.5 (talk • contribs) .

Plot

The page says " formerly a prostitute (not explicitly stated), who is selling paper flowers" but in the movie one man in the bar says "we'z liked you better when you wore a whore" before he pushes her in the mud. Sounds pretty explicitly stated, unless one assumes that the man mistook her for someone else. --Jasonnolan 22:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree.

However, the entire plot section needs to be vigorously copyedited and reduced, for proper tone and content. This is an encyclopedia, not a film review/guide. See WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Article body for a style guide. --Quiddity·(talk) 22:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Why the revert?

Hey folks, Bobo192 just reverted a few hours of edits I made to "Dead Man".

I understood that editors are encouraged to be bold with changes, and of course it's always possible to make subsequent changes to anything editors contribute, so I tend to make bold changes and hope they'll be considered as the suggestions they are. But if in any way I've violated the ettiquette of this specific page, I'm indeed sorry - I meant to be constructive, not rude.

That said, is it possible that contributors to this page might overlook any impetuousness of mine and "un-revert" my hard-worked changes (I researched footnotes and everything!), if only to re-work them as deemed appropriate? It only hurts to have them wiped out en-masse, and as a devoted fan of the film in question, I think they're actually pretty good.

As I may have inspired this revert by not pitching in here first, and as I don't like revert wars any more I'm sure than you do, I won't contest Bobo's revert but wait to see if anyone here thinks my edits worth unreverting, if only to spur further development of the page.

Thanks, "71.228.57.147 (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)".

Hi there. I now understand what you were trying to do, and have restored the necessary changes you made to the page - which were many more than I had originally realized, over a much greater length of time. Hopefully the article now reads as it should. Bobo. 01:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! 71.228.57.147 (talk) 12:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

2008 plot discussion

There's a lot of noteworthy anecdotes in this movie that are worth more than the 700 word limit guidelines in the wikiproject. I will continue to watch this article and re-post this every chance I get. I love this movie. - My2sense2wikip —Preceding unsigned comment added by My2sense2wikip (talk • contribs) 02:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If in doubt, refer to any Wikipedia:Featured articles#Media and the style guidelines for guidance.

Please don't editwar, see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for the best dispute resolution method. You boldly rewrote segments, the edits were reverted, now we adjourn here, to the talkpage, to calmly discuss the changes. (Start a new thread at the bottom of this page)

Please also see Wikipedia:No original research (the policy, not guideline). We want to describe the plot, not interpret it ("like bambi", "like a pumpkin", etc).

I'll leave a welcome template on your talkpage, which has a number of useful links. I love the movie, too. (I own the vhs, the dvd, and the Rosembaum book - which I highly recommend) :) -- Quiddity (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert this right now, but if it isn't significantly shortened to remove the excessive narration then I might in future. I appreciate that a lot of effort went into this rewrite, but the goal of our film articles isn't to give the reader the plot - it's to discuss the film's significance to the world. Right now, the plot section is about three times longer than that part of the discussion.

The 700-word limit is intended to prevent people from adding in all the "noteworthy anecdotes" in a film. By preventing people from being able to narrate the entire film, it is hoped that articles are made to focus on themes, direction and external influence. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I complied with taking out the subjective descriptions, but emphasized the absurdness, the irony, eccentricities, the weirdness, and perversity of certain characters and situations. Before I began editing the plot description seemed to portray Nobody as having an agenda of using William Blake as a tool to commit genocide against "white men" which is absurd considering William Blake and the real William Blake are both white man which Nobody reveres. So I would appreciate if some rule crazy by-the-book Wiki guideline zealot is going to condense the Plot down to 700 words again while I'm away, I ask that you please at least leave the following details which emphasize the nature of an acid western which "conjure[s] up a crazed version of autodestructive white America at its most solipsistic, hankering after its own lost origins." and the history of how the west was really won.

1. The foreboding encounter with the engineer ( crispin glover ) 's character. 2. The buffalo slaughter scene. 3. The allegations Conway Twill makes about Cole Wilson's experience with his parents. 4. The ruthless, cruel, callous, predatory, perverted, sadistic, diabolical, sociopathic and evil nature of Cole Wilson. Simply mentioning he's sociopathic is not enough. His attitude towards his prey, victims and rivals is very consistent with the real story of how the west was supposedly won. 5. The ridiculous feud between the 2 fur trappers over "who gets Blake" - My2sense2wikip

I've edited the plot section to fall in line with the manual of style, which included condensing the section, adding an introductory premise, and adding cast names. I've left in some of the topics you feel are important, but ultimately space does not allow too much specific detail for this section. If you feel that the acid western genre details are important, you might include comments or analysis from critics in the Reception section or place them a new section. -Captain Crawdad (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Crawdad, Based on your truncated Plot revisions, no racist slur intended, I have to remark by using a word used by the character Sally (Iggy Pop) the transvestite cook in the fur trapper camp, some dictionary.com definitions, and the wikipedia entry that you are indeed a philistine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistine#Other_uses_of_the_term_.27Philistine.27. You want to simplify the plot of this film as an American Indian and an s.o.l. disgruntled unemployed accountaint turned outlaw extracting revenge against white people when it's a way more complicated story. It's a film about dark facets and ironic musings of the history of not just the American Old West, but encroaching destructive elements of an expanding civilization. Complicated plots deserve way more words according to the very anal retentive manual of style you keep insisting is absolutely necessary. "Nobody" the Indian finds solace in William Blakes's work during his kidnapping. William Blake was white. I suggest before the next time you edit the PLOT you watch the film one more time and actually glean something out of it.

- My2sense2wikip 11-26-08

The plot section is not the place for you to analyze the film's themes and messages. In fact, in Wikipedia we're never supposed to analyze the films ourselves. That would be original research. Like I said before, if you think that the purpose of the film are not sufficiently conveyed in a brief summary of the plot, then feel free to add a new section with references to previously published critical analysis. A good starting point would be Rotten Tomatoes. You could also look for interviews with Jarmusch himself and grab quotes on his artistic intentions. If this does not meet with your satisfaction, and you find the rules of Wikipedia too stifling, then perhaps this isn't the place for you. Also, be advised that civility is a core principle of Wikipedia. I don't want to get into an edit war, so I'll hold off and give you a chance to edit your own contributions back in line with policy. -Captain Crawdad (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I take a lot of time and care to use concise language as I witness scenes in the film, and write nothing more than an account of the concise facts of a published movie and a published transcript of the movie. I take a lot of time to distinguish the facts that seem necessary in the plot and distinguish them them from trivial personal musings. I do not consider doing that original research. I think we can agree that the plot section of the article should be as objective and concise as possible and should have a Neutral point of view. I want my opinions of the movie to be reserved for discussion, not injected into the article. I do not wish to get into an edit war either, but a trail of my edits will continue whenever I find anyone over-simplifying the plot, riddled with personal bias, excessive words, musings, and opinions even if it's brought to my attention I'm the perpetrator. I'm open to removing certain movie quotes from the plot section if they can be added to a new spoiler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spoiler) section of the article, but I'm a bit reluctant to incite another slew of debate and edits over whether a spoiler section is something that is necessary. My2sense2wikip (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at featured media articles to see how a concise plot description should look. As far as the quotes, you can move them to wikiquote and provide a link in the article. -Captain Crawdad (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

the plot sections is way out of order oh the film at many points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.58.1 (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

References

Dead man and Deadman what's the difference?

Seriously, I am not a native English speaker so that question just popped up in my head. Sometimes i see the same words spelled separately sometimes they fused together. But maybe there is something more what different spelling might tell? Are they really have the same meaning - deadman and dead man?

There is also seems to be a minor plot glitch in the article. I think Blake cries over a dead fawn AFTER he kills marshals. I might be wrong though, plus I don't think that is worth editing.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.46.179.50 (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"meek accountant" to "account" & "twisted version" to "sordid depiction". 4-21-10 edits

In the Plot section:

"meek accountant" changed to plain "accountant" Why is he considered "meek"? Does a meek man defend himself to the death with a gun when a bounty is put on his head? I don't think so.

"twisted version" changed to "sordid depiction" The term "twisted version" implies the film is definitely inaccurate about the "American Old West" . There are some things about the American Old West that are definitely far more historically accurate in this movie than than traditional American Old West movies which don't portray industrial excess, the Buffalo slaughter, or genoicide of American Indians much at all. So saying it's a "twisted version" is an opinionated comment and goes against the neutral point of view NPOV objectivity guidelines.

Deadmanfan (talk) 06:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Portrayal of Native Americans Section [original research?]

User 68.34.65.29 added a few lines that seem to be original research and is tagged so. After re-watching this film several times for a critical review, I am of the evidenced opinion that the line "It follows that all of the individuals killed by William Blake have all exploited or disrespected Native Americans in general" should be removed as they are contextually incorrect. Lee (or Marvin), whom William Blake kills has not "exploited or disrespected Native Americans in general" unless their being white people in the West is exploiting or disrespecting Native Americans. I am removing it. If a revert is required, so be it. Kirkesque (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and have additionally removed the remainder of that paragraph. If citations can be found, it could be replaced. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dead Man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121034552/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/3380/year/1995.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/3380/year/1995.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dead Man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227233624/http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/105/Rea2.html to http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/105/Rea2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dead Man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101225063149/http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/cteq/01/14/dead_man.html to http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/cteq/01/14/dead_man.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Credits Order

About credits order: I relied on Imdb for my edit. NinjaRobotPirate says that's not a reliable source. I didn't know it, now I do, so thanks. I was gonna open this section even before they chimed in: I haven't seen the movie, but yesterday I came across a video of the full English movie on youtube, published by a Spanish-speaking user. No idea if that's director's cut, a Spanish dvd or what. The credits order doesn't match Wikipedia's before I edited the article.

Opening credits in the movie at You Tube: Depp-Farmer-Henriksen-Wincott-Avital-Pop, Thorton, Harris-Glover-Byrd-Thrush, Weeks, Bringelson-Byrne-Hurt etc

+ Ending credits (in order of appearance): Depp-Glover-Haines-Duckworth-Boes-Hurt-North-Mitchum-Avital-Schrum-Byrne-Henriksen-Wincott-Byrd-Farmer etc

According to Wikipedia before I edited: Johnny Depp, Crispin Glover, Robert Mitchum, John Hurt, Mili Avital, Gabriel Byrne, Lance Henriksen, Michael Wincott, Eugene Byrd, Iggy Pop, Billy Bob Thornton, Jared Harris, Alfred Molina, Gibby Haynes, Michelle Thrush.

Infobox before I edited: Johnny Depp- Gary Farmer -Lance Henriksen -Michael Wincott -Eugene Byrd -Crispin Glover -Iggy Pop- Billy Bob Thornton- Jared Harris -Mili Avital- Gabriel Byrne -John Hurt -Alfred Molina- Robert Mitchum.

According to imdb, and as the article is now: Johnny Depp, Gary Farmer, Crispin Glover, Lance Henriksen, Michael Wincott, Eugene Byrd, John Hurt, Robert Mitchum, Iggy Pop, Gabriel Byrne, Jared Harris, Mili Avital, Billy Bob Thornton, Alfred Molina

What to do?--Amlaib (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

quotation from the Odyssey

"My name is nobody," with "nobody" slightly misspelled, is a significant line in the Odyssey, by which Odysseus tricks the evil monster Cyclops. 2603:8000:AE43:CD00:10E6:9C10:9166:3DA2 (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Jarmusch: Dead Man almost killed me, but I was a lot younger then"

Comment by Jim Jarmusch to evaluate for inclusion in this article:

In a 2019 interview, Jim Jarmusch said:

"And when you add in the special effects … [The Dead Don't Die is] the hardest film I’ve ever made. It was rough, physically, to make. I mean, Dead Man almost killed me, but I was a lot younger then."

Source: https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-features/jim-jarmusch-the-dead-dont-die-interview-847447/ 173.88.246.138 (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)