Talk:Point Blank (1967 film)

Questions

From my memory, there seem to be a number of flaws in the description of the plot.

1) "Walker...shot by his adulterous wife" I didn't think it was certain that they were actually married.

2) I thought it wasn't his wife that shot him, it was Reese.

3) "Walker pursues his money in a series of murders..." Few, if any, of the deaths, are directly caused by Walker. Reese is killed by accident, and three guys are killed by the sniper arranged by the Organisation. Walker may have some indirect responsibility for their deaths, but he doesn't actually kill any of them.

Does anyone agree / disagree with this ? If there are no objections, I will change the article accordingly. GeraldH 08:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

1) Firstly, it is Reese that shoots Walker to death in the prison cell at Alcatraz (see below).

2) According to Director John Boorman (in a retrospective discussion of Lee Marvin which I once saw on TV), Walker is a ghost. This, perhaps, is why he never actually kills anyone, and also explains why, when he confronts his ex, he never actually converses with her, but rather she "converses" with herself. ARog —Preceding unsigned comment added by ARog (talk • contribs) 19:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, poor Walker actually is a ghost. One of the unique contributions of this film is that Boorman gives us a ghost's experience: less consistent or understandable than life is for the living. Less real. Very cool. Funny how the critics can miss this!Vendrov 10:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the idea that the Walker character - ghost or otherwise - is not what he seems to be be included in the article somewhere? I read this article and was disappointed that it wasn't. A large part of the allure of this film is that it is not what it appears to be at face value, if the Walker character is killed at the start (as is shown). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.246.4 (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC) PB

Fair use rationale for Image:PointBlankPoster.jpg

Image:PointBlankPoster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Secondary sources versus primary sources

Per WP:Primary, we discourage primary sources when there are reliable secondary sources which can be used instead. In this article, an editor keeps removing information sourced to an extremely reliable secondary source (the American Film Institute Catalog) in favor of less reliable primary sources (the film's credits and the film's poster).

Credits are left off of films and advertising for many reasons, anyone with the least bit of knowledge about the history of Hollywood films knows this to be true, so the film's credits and the film's poster are not the ultimate source for information. When an organization like AFI does research, and determines that someone one did a job they're not listed for, and they are confident enough about it to list it in their catalog, we go with them, because they are a better source and a secondary source, which is preferred, not a primary one. In the absence of very reliable secondary sources, there's nothing wrong with using the film and the poster as sources, but that's not the case here. BMK (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The AFI is usually good for this, but when it disagrees with the film and the poster, we go with the latter. What's your evidence the AFI determined they should override the credits? Their normal policy is to mark such occurrences as offscreen, for uncredited. That was not done here. Irwin Winkler has no producer credit on this film. Just a production credit. Robert Chartoff and Winkler later became producing partners. But they were not on this film. The AFI also is listing the novel as being published in NY in 1963. That may be true, but its article has long shown the original date as 1962. BMK is also insisting on putting the novel's year in the infobox - where it looks quite awkward - even though it is usually put in the lead. It is long standing practice to put the year of novels in film article leads, not infoboxes. And finally, note that BMK removed Angie Dickinson from the infobox months ago, even though she is clearly billed on the poster. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You act as if it's our job simply to transcribe the contents of the film's or the poster's credits into the infobox, but we're not transcribers, we are editors. It's our job to research the subject of the article, and to provide our readers with the best possible information we can. We don't stop at just reading the film or looking at the poster, we do Google seareches, look at the reliable movie sites, such as AFI and TCM, and flesh out the article -- including the infobox -- with the information we find. Working on articles is not a mechanical action which can be done by any old junior high school student, it's more akin to academic research, and, like academics, we must follow where the information leads us, as long as it comes from a reliable source. Now, if you want to make the claim that AFI's efforts to build an exhaustive and authoritative catalog of information about all American films, using contemporary sources (which they list -- have you actually looked at it?) resulted in a source that is unreliable, or biased, or otherwise unacceptable as a secondary source, so ahead and make that argument, but there is absolutely no doubt that Wikipedia policy prefers reliable secondary sources over primary sources, and you must accept that information in the article, whether or not the film and its advertising includes it or not. BMK (talk) 06:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

1) When the icon indicating Print Viewed By AFI appears next to the title in the AFI Catalog, one can depend on the AFI to recreate the credits of films to an exacting degree, including addition of the letters OS, specifying Offscreen Credit for cast and crew members. However, when the icon does not appear, as in the case of Point Blank, the AFI's researchers compile all the credits from various sources, including IMDb, reviews from Variety and other sources such as film posters. Thus, a substantial number of films which the AFI has not viewed, contain items within their AFI credits that are not fully reliable and may incorporate errors, especially regarding exact order and form of names in the cast list as well as specifics pertaining to non-acting credits.

2) As for infoboxes, I don't know to what degree there is consensus on this, but their contents should only consist of what is specified within the credits, with reasonable allowance made for leading players' names which appear at the end of credits, such as Orson Welles in Citizen Kane or Jennifer Jones in The Song of Bernadette. As far as non-acting credits are concerned, however, those should be limited to what is on-screen. If there is no on-screen credit for the producer, screenwriter, original literary work, composer, editor or cinematographer, each such field should indicate "no credit" or "John Doe (uncredited)" with an inline cite to a reliable source, such as a published article or film review which confirms the uncredited name. When literary sources are specified in on-screen credits as, for example, "Based on the novel by Victor Hugo", those should be the words used in the infobox, rather than "Based on the 1831 novel Notre Dame de Paris by Victor Hugo". Such expanded information should be saved for the article, rather than appearing in the article's infobox. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Please provide sources that show AFI usess IMDB as a source, as I do not believe that is the case. BMK (talk) 08:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I've added 6 more sources, including 3 published books and The Hollywood Reporter, which list Winkler as one of the producers. Perhaps we can drop this nonsense so we can all get back to editing articles? BMK (talk) 08:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Uncredited positions need RS showing a controversy

You talk about editorial judgment. I don't know why you're trying to prove the credits are wrong, but you have not demonstrated any reason for this. There is no evidence that there was any controversy here - that Irwin Winkler ever felt that he was wrongly denied a credit. I've seen no interviews to that effect, no articles. You are making a controversy where none exists. It's apparent with your six sources that they saw that Chartoff and Winkler later became producing partners, and so they decided to retroactively call Winkler a producer on this film for simplicity's sake even though he had no such credit on the film. Roman Spinner explained this type of AFI credit is not meant to be used as official like its Print Viewed By AFI pages are. And I don't see where any of them claim they did any research into this and decided Winkler was wrongly uncredited. Statements like Rocky was the foruth picture produced for US by Robert Chartoff and Irwin Winkler. Before US, the team produced Point Blank (1967), as you quoted it, are informal in nature, not declarations of official "Produced by" credit. They could just as well be referring to executive producers, and WP:CONSENSUS at WP:FILM is to not include executive producers in infoboxes. Many sources have said George Lucas produced the Star Wars films, but he is not listed as a producer in those films' infoboxes because he had executive producer credit. Wikipedia should not repeat informal statements as official credits. My editorial judgment tells me those sources do not collectively outweigh the film's credits, nor were they even trying to. - Gothicfilm (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

There are now 7 reliable sources that say that Irwin Winkler was a producer of the film. We go by reliable sources. Period, end of discussion. Get over it, learn the lesson that's here for you, and move on. BMK (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You have no response to my explanation of why those do not override the film's credits. So your insisting that you're right is quite unconvincing. A film's credits do not need secondary sources, even less than the Plot section does. They're clearly seen in the film itself. You need a reliable source describing a notable controversy or dispute about the credits in order to amend the film's official credits. Not the case here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

1) First, as to Print Viewed By AFI icon. While I have no specific personal knowledge regarding sources used by AFI researchers in constructing credits for films which they haven't seen, AFI frequently provides references to reviews in trade papers such as Billboard, Hollywood Reporter and Variety, thus leading one to presume that these publications are mined for credits data and other details. I did, however, notice that the cast credits for a couple of films not viewed by AFI are identical to those listed in IMDb in the telling detail of the name of a mis-sorted [in comparison to on-screen credits] minor cast member whose name is positioned in the same manner as in the IMDb listing, suggesting that AFI copied the IMDb listing.

2) Then, returning to Point Blank and Irwin Winkler — there was no need to append seven inline cites to the infobox which unbalances its entire structure. If such cites must be added, it should be done within the body of the article, not in the infobox, which should not need any cites. The whole point of the infobox is that it represents the film's credits and, therefore, the credits themselves are the [uncited] cite. Any additional explanatory details should be offered — and cited — within the body of the article. For lost or otherwise unavailable films, an explanation may be offered as to what sources were used in compiling the credits.

3) The multiple cites for Irwin Winkler (while, it might be noted, all other names in the infobox remain uncited) are, indeed, completely unnecessary, since no one questions the importance of his role in the production of Point Blank. He is not uncredited — here [annyas.com/screenshots/updates/point-blank-1967-lee-marvin/] are the film's credits which confirm that immediately following "METRO–GOLDWYN–MAYER presents", we see "A JUDD BERNARD - IRWIN WINKLER PRODUCTION". At the end of the credits, just before the director's name, we see, "produced by JUDD BERNARD and ROBERT CHARTOFF", thus indicating that while Judd Bernard and Irwin Winkler put together the financing of Point Blank, it was Robert Chartoff who, together with Judd Bernard, was in charge of day-to-day production details, not Irwin Winkler, whose name could easily have made it a threesome if such an arrangement was warranted. If the name of Irwin Winkler is to remain in the infobox, a more instinctive choice would be to add "A Judd Bernard - Irwin Winkler Production" after the producers' names and deleting the cites. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

That belongs in the Production company field, which is where I put it in two days ago. Irwin Winkler's name was not in the infobox at all until then. Shortly afterward, BMK came in and made his disputed changes, including adding Winkler to the "Produced by" field even though he has no credit there. - Gothicfilm (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

1) The AFI entry for Point Blank states: "Production Company: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. Production Text: A Judd Bernard-Irwin Winkler Production".

2) The IMDb entry states: "Production Companies Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) (presents) (as presented by also) Winkler Films (as A Judd Bernard-Irwin Winkler Production)"

3) I agree that based upon the above but, primarily, upon the on-screen credits, the line A Judd Bernard-Irwin Winkler Production" [both names linked, thus giving Winkler a link in the infobox] does belong in the "Production company" field and that [again, based on on-screen credits] Irwin Winkler's name should not appear in the "Produced by" field, which is governed by what appears in the credits. If there is a case to be made that Winkler was an uncredited producer on the film, such arguments [with all the accompanying links] should be presented in the article under section header "Production".

4) Also, as pointed out by Wrath X below, since the on-screen credit states, "based on the novel "The Hunter" by RICHARD STARK", that is the sole information which should be in the infobox. All other details, such as the novel's publication year, whether it was copyrighted in 1962 and published in 1963 and the fact that Richard Stark is the pen name of Donald E. Westlake, belong in the article. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of the novel's year in the infobox. The infobox is supposed to be simple and provide a quick summary of the film. So the details of the source material, including the year, would be better placed in the article lead not the infobox. Furthermore, Template:Infobox film states that for the based on field "Insert the title of the source material and the name(s) of the source material writer(s)". And according to Template:Based on, the based on field should work like this: ((based on|title of the original work|creator of the original work)) for example ((based on|Contact|Carl Sagan)). So the infobox should simply have the name of the novel and writer, i.e. ((based on|The Hunter|Richard Stark)). -- Wrath X (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

No response in over a week from the only person who wants to keep these disputed changes. Good points were made by Roman Spinner regarding the producer and production credits, which are shown at annyas.com/screenshots/updates/point-blank-1967-lee-marvin/. I'll also point out the AFI page for Point Blank lists the misspelled Irvin Winkler as a producer, not Irwin Winkler, and there is no "Uncredited" or "Offscreen" for the incorrect Winkler credit, which is what the AFI uses for uncredited positions. So it's clear their page for Point Blank is not up to the reliable standard one needs, particularly if an editor is using it to dispute a credit. No one has supported the position of BMK. His cited sources do not backup the idea that there was any dispute about the credits. Most of them don't even pose it as a credit, but just casually say these two "produced" the film, e.g. "Early in his career [Robert Chartoff] and Winkler produced Point Blank", without mentioning Judd Bernard, the producer who actually does have a credit. That is not a source giving an official determination of a credit. Most of those sources are simplifying the producer credits, because they didn't want to go to the trouble to break down who got "Produced by" and who got "Production". But simplifying a credit does not make it encyclopedic. Here we have an infobox that allows a more accurate representation of Winkler's Production credit, without having to blend it into the Produced by field. So we have "A Judd Bernard-Irwin Winkler Production" in the Production Company field, and Bernard and Chartoff in the "Produced by" field. This is consistent with the credits. I have seen no source claim they were controversial or disputed in any way. As Roman Spinner wrote, Irwin Winkler's name should not appear in the "Produced by" field, which is governed by what appears in the credits. If there is a case to be made that Winkler was an uncredited producer on the film, such arguments [with all the accompanying links] should be presented in the article under section header "Production".

Roman Spinner, Wrath X and I all agree the year of the adapted novel belongs in the lead but not the infobox. The Based on template itself makes no provision for a year of source in the infobox. I'm returning the page back to its previous state on the two disputed points, which should have been done at the outset. Per WP:BRD it should remain in that state unless and until BMK gets WP:CONSENSUS for his disputed version. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment I find the AFI to be a compelling source in these situations, especially if the British Film Institute is in agreement. However, upon consulting the BFI this is what I find: it only credits Judd Bernard and Robert Chartoff as the producers. It also lists two other names in a production capacity: Patricia Casey and Edward Woehler. Looking up each individual name in the BFI database casts some more light on the matter:

• Judd Bernard - "a Judd Bernard-Irwin Winkler production" and "Produced by"
• Irwin Winkler - "a Judd Bernard-Irwin Winkler production"
• Robert Chartoff - "Produced by"
• Patricia Casey - "Production Associate"
• Edward Woehler - "Unit Production Manager"

According to the BFI there are only two people with the producer credit. Winkler only seems to be involved at the production level through his partnership with Judd Bernard, who is a credited producer. Obviously there is discord between secondary sources, but Winkler's role as a producer seems to be far from unanimously agreed on unlike the two other producers. Since the BFI is in agreement with the primary source (the film) I think this is what we should go with. There is a difference between someone holding a producer credit (which is essentially what the infobox is for) and someone being part of a production partnership (which seems to be the case here). There is no way to know for sure exactly what role Winkler had (none of the sources put forward in the article or the BFI elaborate), but given the disagreement between the sources I think the best course of action is to leave him out unless we can find a source that can explicitly clarify this either way. Betty Logan (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Both the discussion here and at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 205#Uncredited positions need RS showing a controversy demonstrate that the uncredited producer Irwin Winkler should have been removed from the producer field of the infobox long ago (while leaving a Judd Bernard-Irwin Winkler production in the production company field). The discussion on this page also agreed the year of the novel does not belong in the infobox, but is appropriate in the lead. Once again I'm returning the page back to its previous state on the two disputed points, which should have been done in late March. Per WP:BRD it should remain in that state unless and until BMK gets WP:CONSENSUS for his disputed version. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)