Talk:The Green Mile (film)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about The Green Mile (film). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Cast

Bill McKinney played Jack Van Hay (see [1]), not other actor!

I'm surprised there are no entries to the Jesus Christ parallels that are obviously written into this story on purpose by Stephen King. Similar parallels can be found in the films 'The Matrix', 'Donnie Darko' and the HBO show 'Carnivale'. The Wikipedia sites for the features do have mentions of the Christ analogies. I read the similarities somewhere once, and they had totally gone over my head when viewing the film (which I had done about 3 times) till I saw them printed in black & white then they were so unbelievably obvious ;

Jesus in Green Mile is the source for below points. (this same website offers a commentary dialog by Frank Darabont (Director and Screenwriter of 'The Green Mile') on the Christ parallels within the book/film)

ABOUT THOSE FLIES: The Bible dictionary says that: BEELZEBUB (Gr. form Beel'zebul), is the name given to Satan, and found only in the New Testament (Matthew 10:25; Matthew 12:24, 27; Mark 3:22). It is probably the same as Baalzebub, the god of Ekron, meaning "the lord of flies."

FLIES are associated with Satan (evil) and in the Moses story, flies are used to execute God's judgment in one of the plagues (Exodus 8:21-31). In Psalm 78:45 we read, "He sent vast swarms of flies to consume them."

In Green Mile, flies are used to symbolize both evil and the judgment of God. This idea of using flies to symbolize evil is very effective. A first in motion picture history. These flies are simply a visual way to represent evil and God's judgment. They have the appearance of little demons. THE RELATIONSHIP OF EVIL WITH SICKNESS. In order to heal disease, JK draws out the evil flies. This connection is startling in the film and one can find similar connections in the Bible.

TAKING ON THE PAIN OF OTHERS. An important feature of a Christ figure is the ability to bear "the sins of many" and to take "up our iniquities." JK certainly does this. It is also done in The Fifth Element.

Jesus in Green Mile is the source for below points.

He comes to the very least (Death row - Louisiana Penitentiary - Depression Era)

He is gentle and meek

He is broken hearted over evil

He reveals himself to a few

He has a miraculous gift of healing

He takes evil back upon himself

He knows the stars by name and is intimate with the creation (earth and fireflies)

Evil spirits recognize and fear him

He can see into men's hearts

He is accused of a crime that he is innocent of

He is condemned to death

He accepts the condemnation

One who believes in his innocence tries to talk him out of being executed

He has a prisoner to each side of him; one that repents (Delacroix) and one that does not (Wharton)

He knows the Father by name

Before his execution, he is ministered to by angels (Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers in the flicker show)

He is mocked by those waiting to see his execution

His execution is both public and gruesome

A few who know the truth about him attend his execution and are broken hearted

The law is fulfilled in his execution

He has "infected" others with life

---Well that my 2cents, anyone think it's worth the entry space ? jsn

In the flicker show scene the projector behind him seems to make an aureola around his head. 88.73.40.194 01:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you guys stop refering him as JC. I have no idea where you learned to spell coffee but he clearly says it isn't spelled the same and if you pay attention it is spelled with a k not a c.

--- Definitely worth the space to mention. Although I dont consider the film to have been made for the sole purpose of paralleling christ, the references are definitely worth mentioning.

Primarily I make my comment to explain a simple edit i wish to make: in the introduction of the article, it is mentioned that the movie was nominated for some awards. It is described as "failing" to win a "single" one of the mentioned awards. This has negative inferences. I wish to change it to simply stating the fact that it didnt win any of them. -Scott

The Mouse

Was the mouse dead? I thought he just healed the injuries.

The mouse was dead but John Coffee healed him. He lived for a long time afterwards. --66.218.24.236 02:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't have a little mousy EKG/EEG, but even if he wasn't yet flatlined, he was certainly pretty flat once Percy squashed him; I think we can assume Mr. Jingles was dead. Atlant 13:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the mouse wasn't quite dead. Remember, JC couldn't help the two dead girls he was falsely accused of murdering. He said it was "too late". Wahkeenah 15:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It was dead all right. He couldn't bring the children back because it was "too late", not just because they were dead.--Drat (Talk) 00:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

He was quite dead. Wetmore "heard 'im crunch an' everything". Besides, if he were only injured, he would have been breathing. Evil Egg 00:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Coffey said to Hanks "Maybe it's not too late." The implication is that the mouse is not yet dead, but will die soon. Therefore, bring the mouse straightway to my extended hand." Most recent two edits accordingly.209.6.144.128 07:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because someone is injured to badly to survive doesn't mean they die right then and there. The mouse was broken and dieing, probably wouldn't have survived for more than 2 minutes, but he wasn't dead. Remember Koffey was there when the two girls were killed if it were a matter of how soon after they died and not whether or not they died he would have been able to save them.

The book says directly he was "still breathing". so yes he was barely alive john coffey couldnt "help" dead things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.173.214.184 (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

About the line "The mouse was still alive at the time of Edgecombe's telling of the story, but visibly senile with extremely limited mobility." How does one tell if a mouse is visibly senile?--BenWoodruff (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Easy. The mouse OBVIOUSLY looked much less lively than he was in the past. It took him forever just to step outta his container and he couldn't really fetch the stool anymore. Obviously, the mouse is extremely senile and is nearing the end of its life (akin to a 100-year-old human.) 70.65.142.36 (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Jingle-Jangle

I just watched my copy of the film. It's Mr. Jingles. Sometimes the way the cajun says it makes it sound like "Jangles". Wahkeenah 03:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My mistake then. I saw someone else change it to Jangles before and "recalled" everyone calling him Jangles.--Drat (Talk) 07:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned in an audit trail comment, I think people conflate Mr. Jingles with Mr. Bojangles. Atlant 13:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Could be. Wahkeenah 15:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Third Paragraph of "Plot Summary" Section

We read the following statement: Wharton is dead at Wetmore's hand, and Wetmore ends up as an inmate at the very asylum he was to have managed. I am pretty sure that the film states, not that he was to manage the asylum but merely to work there in an administrative post. I will change the text in the article to reflect this. Hi There 14:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Character Summaries - Contradiction Found

Both Whetmore (Wetmore? We need a correction on the name) and "Wild Bill" are pegged as the main or primary antagonist, a contradiction. I can see very few antagonists within the scope of the film (since most of the film revolves around five characters), I think it might be appropiate to change them to simply "antagonist".

On a side note, for those who haven't seen the film (unlikely for those viewing the edit page for this article, oh well), this is a very powerful movie. It may have been because of Coffey's prison garb resembling my late father's work clothes, but the film drove me to tears. There's only been one other film that has had such an emotional impact on me, Grave of the Fireflies. I highly recommend both of these for those wishing to see incredible modern art works of tragedy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.107.19.17 (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Whetmore is the primary antagonist. Wild Bill was the murderer, but within Death Row, Wild Bill was only an "antagonist" to Whetmore. Wahkeenah 01:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a reason for the two spellings of Whetmore and it isn't a typo. I won't tell you but read the book more carefully and pay attention to the context that Wetmore is used in. And about this being a powerful movie. You should read the book there is a great deal more to the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.203.32 (talk) 05:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Koffey NOT Coffey?

Although the IMDB states the name John Coffey with a C, as does this article (including the J.C. Jesus Christ reference), 16 minutes and 28 seconds into the film he clearly states that the only thing he can spell is his name, and begins to spell it with a K.

The film is on now on an english television show. He also states 30-40 minutes before the end that his name is spelt the same as the drink. Coffey does not play a very intelligent character, and it is entirely feasible he doesn't know how to spell his name at all. The Lord Of The Crayons (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

He never spelled his name with a K... I'm watching the movie right now with the duration at 16:xx minutes and all I hear is this:

Paul: Your name is John Coffey.

John: Yes sir Boss! Like the drink, only not spelt the same.

Paul: Oh you can spell can you?

John: Just my name, boss. J-O-- (Paul interupts)

Paul: My name is Paul Edgecomb.

He didn't state whether his last name began with a C or K, only that it sounds like "Coffee" but not spelt the same. And he was referring to the Y "Coffey as opposed to the beverage that is spelt with an E at the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.142.36 (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GreenMileSoundtrack.jpg

Image:GreenMileSoundtrack.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Green mile.jpg

Image:Green mile.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Headstones

At the end of the film at the present day, it shows paul at his lady friends future funeral. In the shot of the graveyard, all the headstones say story and nothing else. Is there any significance to that?

Who DID rape and kill the little girls?

Was it ever made final?

-G

"Wild Bill". "He killed dem wid dey love for each other."

Atlant 15:58, 2 August 2007 (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 19:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Article needs improvement, mainly about Wild Bill

Cmon... the section about him is written from a very personalized point of view.

"Extremely evil." "Psychotic killer." "Racist." "Homosexual tendencies."

BULL-SHIT! No doubt he is evil for raping and murdering 2 girls, but "extremely evil" is truly a fuckin exaggeration. He is not THAT sadistic. He has a sick sense of humor that he brought too far but he looks to be a hilarious fun-lovin guy who sometimes loses control over what is or isnt a game anymore. He seems more of an adult with a child-like personality that doesnt pick up/understand certain consequences right away. Either way, calling him "evil" denotes a personalized, non-concrete point of view and that part should be fixed.

Psychotic killer? Please. It's clear he aint psychotic, he is aware of what he does. But he is highly IMMATURE who on the other hand doesnt realize the gravity of what he does, but he is not blatantly PSYCHOTIC, this too, is an exaggeration and a highly personalized, non-formal point of view.

Racist... again, not quite, he did make nigger jokes to diss Coffey but its cuz he just wanted to provoke some incident so he could have a laugh. At best, he doesnt really care about blacks to hate them. Racism wasnt really implied, maybe lightly but... this again is a deliberate attempt to input more negatives about Wild Bill's character. This should be fixed too.

Homosexual? Laughable! He fucked two *female* girls, sounds straight to me. He simply wanted to bully percy and expose his "girlishness" and fondled his dick just to scare the hell outta him and make him piss his pants so he could have a laugh. This doesn't imply that he's a homo.

Someone please edit that section and make it more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.196.182 (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Question how do you write neutrally about a sicko that rape/murders a couple of girls?

Del also raped 2 girls and burned their bodies along with 6 other people. I don't see any biased, personalized description of him about what an evil, psychotic sicko HE is. And on Wikipedia EVERYTHING is written neutrally. Facts, facts and FACTS only.

Wild Bill is a stereotypical image of a grown up bully, but he is not psychotic or "extremely evil." He was "declared competent," which means he can rationally think and is aware of what he does most of the time. He probably just got some insane sex drive cuz he hasnt gotten laid for months. Although what he did to the 2 girls was gruesome and wrong, he still isnt as evil as, say, Percy. THAT motherfucker is EVIL for a FACT. He clearly is sadistic and willingly loves to make/see others suffer. Wild Bill is NOT like that on the same level. He loves to harass and embarass people but that's cuz he has a sick sense of humor, he wouldnt e.g. cold-heartedly step on Del's mouse just so he could watch someone scream in grief. He would maybe threaten or pretend to hurt Mr. Jingles to make Del cringe and later diss him for being a pussy who's so obsessed with mice but fact remains: Wild Bill has a capacity when he's concious. He is NOT "extremely evil."!!70.65.142.36 (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't it be that they are two different forms of evil? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.203.32 (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. But "evil" is not an academic term and is a rather abstract, biased concept. Wikipedia is about presenting facts. Calling Wild Bill evil would be a personal view.

Personally i think he's hilarious and should be allowed free and his own movie so we could see him do more funny shit like he did to Percy and the officers. And THAT would be my personal view. None of that belongs in a Wikipedia article, though. 70.65.142.36 (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Tell what the movie shows. "The vision shows Wild Bill killed the girls." or "The evidence indicates Wild Bill was on the propety whenever." Lots42 (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Characters

Not only does the Characters section repeat info in the plot, it repeats info in previous character subsections. I suggest it be changed to something like this.

Tom Hanks (Character Name) Protaganist, officer on Death Row.

Duncan (Coffee) Accused murderer with healing powers and pet mouse.

And so on. Lots42 (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That is TOO abridged. But I agree that the profiles are redundant and looks like it has twice as more text than the plot section. I don't think character profiles should be the synopsis of the movie. But if it makes you feel better, I removed a couple redundant sentences for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.142.36 (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the section entirely. It is not appropriate for a film article and adds no value to it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Clean up

I've done some initial clean up on this article to remove the excessive repeating plot, largely by removing the character section. Still to do is add a production section - should be beyond easy with all the making ofs on the DVDs, and a reception section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Format for song list

The current format for the song list on the soundtrack are obnoxiously long and take up a very large space, collapsing them makes reading the article easier. And I'm not really sure what your Film MOS argument is. Kuro ♪ 17:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Per the film MoS, if tracklistings are included in a film article, they should be formatted in a specific format, which is not collapsed. Personally, I don't think the tracklisting is needed at all, but if its going to be here, it needs to use the proper format. The collapsing format is only used in discographies.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Plot details

Are rather hazy. It would be helpful if it also tells us why the protaganist tells his friend all about the events at the prison i.e; the reason he started crying, due to the memory of the music on the television being associated with the memory of John Coffey watching a film for the first time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.119.238 (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I am adding to the plot and will eventually finish this off with more detail and in the correct order —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomlea79 (talk • contribs) 09:03, June 23, 2009

Your addition was reverted. Wikipedia plot summaries are not for blow by blow events and the opening is already adequately summarized. The plot is already too long and does not need even more minute detail added. See WP:MOSFILM and WP:WAF for our guidelines regarding film plots. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

ok sorry, the notes suggest that the plot needs some work, what can be done in order to improve this ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomlea79 (talk • contribs) 10:40, June 23, 2009

Um...that note is almost a year old. The plot has long since been fixed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

POV?

The article had a POV tag, but no explanation on the talk page, or some talk which could be interpreted as an explanation. I have therefore removed the POV tag. Cheers. 77.250.234.174 (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It has been put back. If you don't understand why a tag is there, ask, don't just remove. The article is tagged for NPOV because the plot is obviously written by a fan or someone who enjoyed the film and is injecting their own personal opinions, rather than being a straight-forward plot summary. The line "Notwithstanding Coffey's incredible abilities and the wrongness of his conviction" in particular is an obviously non-neutral interpretation of the film. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the three tags. If you put tags on a page, you have to explain why on the talk page. (a) The NPOV issue is not serious. Someone enjoyed the film, so what?! You're welcome to tone things down if you like. (b) Original research; what exactly is original on this page? (c) Why do you say there are no references? There is one major reference: the film itself! And hence IMDB records etc. And that is probably enough. If you have problems with a page, the best thing to do is to try fixing it. WP:SOFIXIT. 87.112.30.195 (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say you have to explain tags on the talk page? Lots42 (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

From Template:Original research: "This template should not be applied without explanation on the talk page, and should be removed if the original research is not readily apparent when no explanation is given."; From Template:NPOV: "explain your reasons on the article's talk page". 87.112.30.195 (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Try again. I explained at your request. Stop removing the tags, and don't throw around "sofixit" as an excuse to remove them. Only the NPOV tag says its good to explain on the page, nor is it blatantly required. The rest of your reasoning is frankly BS, so again stop removing the tags. You don't like them, be useful and actual edit to fix the article instead of complaining. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! and my edit was "reverted as vandalism"! I didn't mean to cause offence, and I've tried to improve the sentence you mentioned earlier. Here are some more quotes: From Template:NPOV: "Do not use this template unless there is an ongoing dispute." I can't find what the "ongoing dispute" is here. From WP:TEMPLATE: "Before placing templates on a page ... determine whether or not the improvements could be made easily, thus eliminating the need for a tag." (By the way, I am not 77.250.234.174! so evidently someone else is also concerned about all the tagging.) Please, either explain the problems or do not include the tags. Cheers, 87.114.151.119 (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was. Because YOU keep removing the template after getting the explanation you demanded because you don't like them. There are MANY issues with this article, so stop removing the tags. Its obvious you will remove any tag, valid or not, just because you dislike the appearance of them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

And just a reminder to keep things civil, especially when people have legitimate concerns (you can't "tag and run" and leave people guessing). That said there are problems with this article and it needs much more than just a retelling of the plot (like a better reception, material on the background and production, etc.) so I'm tagging with {{refimprove}}. (Emperor (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC))

No body "tagged and run" as I obviously have this page on my watchlist. He asked for an explanation, was given it, and still continues removing the tags. Now he is just being obtuse and removing tags for visual preferences rather than actual legitimate concerns. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've made an account, so we can keep track of who said what. NB, as I mentioned above, I am NOT the IP who first removed the tags. Also, I have no problem with tags, if they are justified. If they are not justified or explained, they serve no purpose. Please stop insulting me, calling me a vandal, saying that my concerns are illegitimate, saying that I am talking BS. That is not fair. I am trying to improve wikipedia. GreenMileHigh (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have little patience for people who continue removing valid tags despite having the reasons for those tags HAVE already been justified and explained. What do you want, a detailed five page report? The first IP asked, I explained, period. Now the issues need to be fixed. Requoting the same text from the template is absolutely pointless, and does nothing to advance the discussion. The explanation HAS been given. If you still don't understand the issues, go read WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:MOSFILM. How are you "improving" Wikipedia by pretending this article does not have a ton of issues and, rather than taking your own advice of "sofixit", just removing the tags that alert people to those issues? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What is needed?

Hello, I am trying to work out what the problem is that AnmaFinotera has with this article. Emperor has suggested

it needs information about reception,
material on the background and production

I understand these suggestions and agree that they would enrich the article. If AnmaFinotera thinks the article is incomplete, because these sections are missing, perhaps we should make it a stub, rather than putting on tags.

I have questions about the tags that are currently in place. Please can you help explain?

Is the plot summary still considered biased? I cannot see a significant bias there. Can you explain?
Where is the original research? I don't understand which part of the article is original. Can you explain?
Why are more references needed? Two important references are IMDB, and the film itself. Which parts of the existing article are unreferenced? Which claims are unverified? GreenMileHigh (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Your questions have already been explained, multiple times. The article has ONE reference. IMDB is NOT a reliable source and can not be used as a reference here at all. None of the awards are referenced, nor is the soundtrack information (a section which is also using an unnecessary non-free image and infobox). The film is only a valid reference for the plot and the cast, nothing else. This article needs a lot of work. It has no production information, despite there being plenty available, nor does it have any actual usable reception information ("freshness rating is useless"). The plot is heavily biased and contains a glut of personal interpretation (i.e. WP:OR) rather than being a straight forward accounting of the film's events. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. The "plot" did not seem to overly gluttonous to me, but I've had a go at neutralizing it. Should we make the article a stub? until the production and reception information are included? I am not sure what kinds of reference are needed for the awards and soundtrack; I'll leave that to you. Are the DVD/CD boxes a good enough reliable reference? they presumably have this information. GreenMileHigh (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The plot still needs work, but at least it is more neutral. The first part is still off, but its better anyway. I think this article does ride the line between stub/start, but for now might as well leave it as a start. For the awards, the best references are the award sites themselves. Otherwise, news reports or magazine articles about the film winning the awards work as well. For the soundtrack, the CD can be a source for the listing, but the release date/company should come from another reliable source, either reviews, press release, or as a last resort, a trusted retail site (Amazon, for example). Ditto the DVD releases. The extras on the DVD can be used as references for the production information, as can other reliable sources. As a note, I did not just "tag and run" this article...it is on my "to do" list (along with its poor book article), but I was working on getting some other film articles to GA first.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. I might have a go at those sources in a while. GreenMileHigh (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned in the previous section you might want to read WP:WAF if you think the content and sources are enough. The bottom line is that if people want the plot they can watch the film. If you are looking to improve this article and make it into a well-rounded article suitable for an encyclopaedia then it needs a lot more on the background and reception. At the moment it contains a mass of plot and an unsourced list of awards - which is barely adequate. (Emperor (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC))

Genre

It's not a prison story, or even a drama, it is a supernatural/fantasy story, that just happens to be set in a prison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.119.64 (talk) 09:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring and reach consensus about the genre of the film. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 00:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a prison film, all its drama is covered by the prison film genre. Most prison films are dramas, so "drama film" is not necessary when the movie is specially a prison film. 201.95.48.66 (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is not redundant per se. I would personally settle with "prison/drama film". A prison film may be an action film and not necessarily a drama. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 00:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it is redundant at all. A prison film genre could mean anything from an explotation film to a drama film to a comedy film so I believe that drama is the only proper way to place it into a genre. It is stated futher into the article that the film takes place within a prison. Tresiden (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

True, there are action prison movies, there are thriller prison movies, but the majority of prison films are dramas. 201.95.48.66 (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Imdb.com lists both drama and crime, also fantasy and mystery. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 00:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Imdb is not reliable, they list The Godfather Part III as an action movie, all the genres at imdb are user-submitted. Green Mile is not a crime film because crime films are about gangsters or comitting specific crimes. It's not necessary to say this movie is a drama, when there is a specefici genre for it, prison film. Prison film is not a genre, but it is a type of film to help identify better a movie. it's like superhero film, you don't need to write "batman is an action film", just batman is a superhero movie, because superhero movie may also encompass crime an action. Prison film in this case encompasses all the drama and fantasy/mystery, it makes the article more detailed. 201.95.48.66 (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not used by Wikipedia as a genre. You are the one edit warring and vandalizing articles with your personal point of view. Consensus already seems well against you by the sheer number of reverters. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a drama. "prison film" is not a genre. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It is really hard to place this film into an specific genre tough. I has elements from prison, drama and fantasy films. I hold on to my firs suggestion of "prison/drama". > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 00:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit war! I think it is a drama. A prison is not a wikipedia-approved genre. Btilm 00:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This IP has been doing this on multiple articles, and has been blocked, at least for the moment. It is a drama, more than anything, I think. Fantasy implies something different than what we have with Coffey's powers, and it really isn't a "prison film" beyond being set in a prison. Plus, as noted, Prison film isn't really a genre. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Prison is a sub-genre of drama films, which encompasses all the elements of crime and drama. 201.68.138.47 (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I caught this drama (no pun) while doing RC patrols, but I do support the "drama film" wording. Word of advise to the IP(s), if multiple editors are reverting you across multiple articles, stop pushing unsupported changes into the article. Whether you think you're right or wrong, that's not the way to change a long-standing article around here. Get a talk page consensus first and then make the changes.Pinkadelica ^♣ 01:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least it is protected now.... Btilm 04:43, 28 October

(outdent) I agree that Prison film is not a genre. I could be discussed in the article, if there are sources, but is not appropriate to an infobox. Also prison film is certainly not a sub-genre of drama - plenty of comedies and romances in prison!YobMod 08:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Duncan's performance

A 6'5 actor portraying a 7 ft tall man? indeed, something doesn't add up. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, they used trickery to make him look taller than he actually was. The way that he towered over both Hanks and Morse indicates that the character is supposed to be a giant, which is exactly how they refer to him in the film. This is not complicated stuff here. After all, the Hobbit characters in the Lord of the Rings films were not, in fact, Hobbits, but average height adult males made to look small. This sort of thing has been done for years. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I kinda a thought Coffey's arms & torso seemed a tad short for his height. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

And this is proof of what? It was clear that all the other characters were craning their necks to look him in the face. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A citation will solve all this. The Don Homer (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with The Don Homer's removal of the claim of 7'. As far as I can remember, the film never gives Coffey's height, so without an actual citation, the note that he was tall is sufficient. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, a specific height is not supported, but clearly the character is described, more than once, as a "giant," and the article should say so. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Changed to use "giant". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Coffey's height is 6 foot 8 inches according to the original novel by Stephen King.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.141.138 (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Actors in infobox

There are entirely too many actors listed in the infobox. The three or four biggest names should be there, and no more. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Needs improvement

I encourage someone to rewrite this. It's a great movie and deserves a better synopsis. --Psf11 (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The Green Mile (film) → The Green Mile — Having received multiple awards, the film is probably more notable than the novel. Moreover this article gets over 90% of the hits on the redirection page. So per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC I think the film should be moved to The Green Mile. Laurent (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose It works the way it is, and the novel is also highly notable. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. The novel is at least as notable as the film, so things should be left as they are. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose The novel was first. Jmj713 (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Titanic is the boat, not the movie. ^walk victor falk^talk 21:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul's Age

In the novel by Stephen King Paul says that he was 40 at the time of Johns execution many times. He also tells Elaine that he was born in 1892. Is this a failure on the movie writer's part or did someone incorrectly put his age at 44 in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.141.138 (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

agree

i just watched this and i've seen it before

i think it's a 'mystery of what is the point of this'

Paul says that he had an adult son in some year, then they say that it doesn't add up

is he wrong about his age at the time or when the events took place (e.g. Coffey's execution) or what

i think it does little but baffle the viewer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.84.1.5 (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in voiceover toward the end of the movie, Edgecomb (Hanks) says that he was 44 years old during the events he describes on the Green Mile. Chrismykrantz (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Plot

Well here we are on the talk page, and my edits to the Plot section appear to be being reverted without any sincere attempt to discuss the matter (which is odd, considering one would assume the more experienced editor would open a dialogue first, but there you are; I guess every editor has something to learn from reading policy).

I contend that the Plot section is currently omitting the importance of the character of Mr Jingles, and my edits are intending to rectify that matter. I'd be happy to hear any arguments as to the contrary. --78.150.158.57 (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The mouse, Mr. Jingles, is not a character. Nothing more need be said about him than what has been said already. And you should read the policy on edit-warring before you make such accusations. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What accusations?

Nothing more need be said? The plot summary as it stands notes that a) he is called Mr Jingles, b) he was owned by Del and c) he was resurrected by John. Now, while completely accurate, I contend this is a woefully concise description of him. Disregarding the argument of whether or not he is a character in his own right in this work of fiction, Mr Jingles is certainly afforded the same privileges as one by the other characters within the film - he is spoken to, interacts with nearly all the significant characters, and scenes that feature him or can be attributed to his existence in the narrative constitute about a third of the film. You could even argue Harry and Dean get about as much development or screen time as Mr Jingles. Why, then, should his part in the narrative be omitted? Why should his origins, his circus tricks, and the circumstances of his death go unmentioned? This are all significant events in the plot. --78.150.158.57 (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No, at best, the narrative of Mr. Jingles is a subplot connected to the subplot of Delacroix's death; his life is significant only as precursor to his death at the hands of the sadistic guard, leading to his resurrection at the hands of John. But, he is no more a character than Wilson, the volleyball, is in Cast Away.

As to the accusations to which I referred, you made a backhanded accusation that I was edit warring. You should use caution in future before implying such things, as they can be considered personal attacks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You are identifying 'subplots' within the film, but there aren't any; everything that happens in the film is connected and relevant to one single plot. Delacroix's death is not a subplot, because it doesn't stand on its own separate from the context of Percy, the other guards, and John - you couldn't strip every other part of the film away and expect his story to make any sense. And even it were a 'subplot', that's no reason to say Mr Jingles is a subplot, because he doesn't interact with only Del, and he is present in the film both before and after the duration of his adoption by Del. Mr Jingles is a secondary character (or volleyball, if you like), but to suggest he is secondary to the plot is ridiculous. By these standards, there are more 'subplots' in the film mentioned in the plot summary you could remove.

Incidentally, are you saying that, if I was accusing you of edit warring, you would consider it a personal attack? --78.150.158.57 (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)