Jump to content

Talk:There Will Be Blood

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 198.5.223.122 (talk) at 07:39, 20 April 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconFilm B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Reinterpretation of the Bible

I just watched the movie tonight and came to read about it here and I'm surprised to not find a discussion on how the movie interprets the bible.

First there are the names. Eli, the preacher, is another name for God and in this movie I think represents the Old Testament. Daniel, a prophet in the bible, in the movie kills Eli (destroys the Old Testament which is replaced by the New Testament). Paul, the biblical creator of Christianity (and the New Testament) informed Daniel of the oil on the Sunday ranch. The bastard child and Daniel's adopted, deaf son, H.W., represents the HebreWs (HW) (they were/are deaf to Christ's message).

Eli and Paul are brothers just as the Old and New Testaments could be called brothers. I read below that they may be twins which would make even more sense.

Anyway, I don't see any of this discussed on this page so I thought I'd bring it up.

AFI citation

Earth flag

What is with the earth flag?! 66.76.240.146 (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot location

Any particular reason the plot comes before the contents in this article? It doesn't seem right to me. Mogwit (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Headlines

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is very helpful. I am going to work on this article over the Christmas holidays and flesh out some more. --J.D. (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you can make use of them! I'll see about looking for earlier headlines since this film began production some time ago, and I didn't have Google Alerts set up to capture headlines. May be some print sources available to reflect the chronology of the project's production. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PTA's fan site is also a good source for info and links to articles. I don't have the link readily available but I'm sure it is easily found. --J.D. (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and nominations

I suggest trying to convert this list to prose and perhaps find some real-world context behind certain wins (such as the tie with The Diving Bell and the Butterfly). Before doing so, I'd suggest removing "The Austin Film Critics Association", "The Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association", and "The EDA Awards" (unless someone wants to determine their actual notability and provide stubby articles on them). It just seems to me to be awardcruft, and I don't believe I've ever used that term before. :) Either convert to prose, or maybe create a table in which everything for a win can be on one line. It's just that the list is rather long and narrow. Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well this is the way it has been done for other films... some brake them in two rows (I'm not sure I know how to do that)? As for the notability... I don't know if it is diminished by the fact that there is no article about them (and again these awards are cited for other movies as well). I agree that there has been an inflation of these critic awards (every village has it, let alone a city) --Harac (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not done very much with details about awards and nominations, and the style guideline does not have any guidance on the matter. It looks like such a section should be shaped on a case-by-case basis, driven by consensus. I would suggest to first attempt a rough re-sorting of the list so the more prominent or national awards are at the top. Then we can perhaps look at the bottom and review the lowest award's relevance and move or delete it accordingly. I think that considering that this is the English Wikipedia, we should veer away from local and regional awards in a particular nation and try to include awards in an international scope (such as the BAFTAs and so forth). Afterward, perhaps we can work to convert the list to prose, answering questions like why the tie, was There Will Be Blood a dark horse, or which films it was expected to have a hard time against. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but local and regional awards (particularly in LA, NY and other large cities) often solidify a film as an "awards film". If a movie wins a NY critics award, the movie receives rep that could sway Academy voters. I'd say keep at least the biggest local awards because they're pretty relevant to the big picture (no pun intended). --Savethemooses (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I for one thing would wait for few weeks until at least these critic awards are over, until then do this almost trivia thing, and then reshape it (to look at more active articles, like No Country for Old Men, for consensus of sorts - they, for example, have done it in alphabetical order) --Harac (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The long list was still unsourced so I cited the notable nominations and awards and converted the list to a more readable prose format.
Jim Dunning | talk 20:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Condense and write up a description that adds context for the reader so the import of all those awards/noms is presented. Long lists like these aren't readable and you miss the forest for the trees. Wasn't it Balzac who apologized for writing a long letter, saying "I didn't have time to write a short one"? Let's take the time to write an informative short section.
Jim Dunning | talk 11:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that with the current awards format, any Academy Award nominations today should come after the critics' lists. Good thing they start with an "A" so they come before BAFTA (but after AFI (I think)). (Yes, sarcasm is intentional (but no offence intended to the Brits), but I think you get the list, uh, gist -- we really need to put some work into this and convert it to prose with some added-value summarization.)
Jim Dunning | talk 11:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More list stuff

How about if we convert the Top Ten List list to prose? It will make the article more readable if we summarize the list, identifying the significance and mentioning a few of the more notable lists. As it stands now I think eyes just glaze over and the import of the achievement is lost in the detail.
Jim Dunning | talk 04:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I split the list into 2 columns. I suppose we could list every critic who named it the #1 film on one line, #2 film, etc. I guess we could turn it into prose:
Ella Taylor of LA Weekly, Glenn Kenny of Premiere...named it the best film of 2007. David Ansen of Newsweek, Nathan Rabin of The A.V. Club...named it the 2nd best film of 2007, etc.
It could be put into a table. I think all the critics should be mentioned. I think the import of the achievement is conveyed by showing that 25 critics put the film on their year-end top ten lists. --Pixelface (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPOILERS STOP POSTING!!!!!

Why did someone put the ELI SUNDAY/PAUL section?

People haven't seen the film...put spoilers warnings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.40.214 (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia includes the complete contents of the fiction work (including films) and does not warn readers about spoilers. The style guidelines states, "In Wikipedia, however, it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail. Therefore, Wikipedia carries no spoiler warnings except for the Content disclaimer."
Consequently, the spoiler warning was removed.
Jim Dunning | talk 00:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current wording of that style guideline is disputed and I highly doubt 71.109.40.214 has ever read the content disclaimer. --Pixelface (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make sense. All I ask for is to put SPOILER WARNINGS on WIKIPEDIA. Just one disclaimer and you guys discontinued that? What for? Nothing is worse than finding out intricate parts of the story through WIKIPEDIA. Every site about movies had spoiler warnings; it's common courtesy. You can keep it detailed but why dont you just put a SPOILER WARNING? Is it really that hard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.40.214 (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I understand that you might have been frustrated at finding out some aspect of the story that you wanted to first experience at the movie theater, but Wikipedia is not like a newspaper or magazine where you go to find out whether the film is something you might like to see or to see how audiences and critics are responding to it. It is an encyclopedia that includes descriptions and discussions of all aspects of the work. To place a warning in every plot description (or themes or proudction section) is redundant or superfluous. As Pixelfaces points out, this guideline and practice is under dispute and discussion, and you are invited to add your perspective and respond to those of others. Your arguments may alter this practice down the road. Good luck and enjoy WP.
Jim Dunning | talk 19:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You! Finally a polite answer compared to one I got from WIKIPEDIA a while back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.40.214 (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SYNOPSIS PROBLEM

It says in the synopsis that Plainview invented a fake dance to test whether Henry was actually his brother from Wisconsin. I don't think that's how it went down. The dance was real and Plainview was genuinely celebrating with Henry and mentioned the dance, but when Henry didn't react-even when prompted a second time-Plainview realized that Henry didn't recognize the name of their hometown dance. I think this is important because Plainview wasn't looking to test Henry, he was enjoying having a brother and, despite his cunning nature, never really pressed Henry on his background.

I agree, it says here in the article "but soon becomes suspicious that Henry is not who he says he is, which he tests by referencing landmarks and events from their hometown" I don't believe that their is a suspicion until Henry fails to react to the "Peachtree Dance" line. Plainview is not testing Henry he is simply reminiscing and becomes suspicious when Henry fails to react to a memory of their hometown which they would both presumably share. I think it would be better to change the article to explain this because there is no evidence that Plainview is secretly doubting Henry's identity up until this point and it compromises the accurate description of Plainviews character if it is suggested that he is concocting plans to catch his fake half-brother out. Kurushi (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis length

The movie is 158 minutes long, there are many scenes and details to include in a proper synopsis. I disagree that the plot synopsis is too long. Critical Chris (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Drink Your Milkshake

Might be getting close to the time when we need a short mention in the article of the movie quote "I Drink Your Milkshake" being an oddball cultural catch-phrase. Otto1970 (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nest weekend line in first paragraph

There's a line that says next weekend in the initial paragraph for the page. Does anyone know which weekend this is referring to? I can't believe that someone would make an edit with wording like that. ModernTenshi04 (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After looking through the changes, the line appears to have replaced the date of January 18, 2007. As such I felt it appropriate to restore the exact date, instead of keeping the generic term of next weekend. ModernTenshi04 (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top ten lists

I've removed the long list of critics' top ten lists, which didn't add anything to the references provided, and seemed to serve more to advertise those lists than to say anything about the film. I've merged the remaining sourced sentence about the top ten lists into the "Critical reception" section where it belong. --Tony Sidaway 14:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harac, I'm not sure I'd call them the "norm" since they've only recently been added to articles of current releases by a specific few editors. I admit my bias, here, since I agree with Tony that, as currently presented, they add little to the articles. It would be better to summarize the significance of being named to top ten lists rather than listing them. Three-quarters of the referenced critics are unfamiliar to me, so I, as a reader, am in the dark as to whether the list is truly impressive or just merely long. A film can be more notable being on just the lists of three or four respected or popular critics as opposed to many lists of unknown (or widely unknown) reviewers/critics.
Jim Dunning | talk 21:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with taking out the top ten lists. The point of having it on this page is that along with No Country For Old Men and Zodiac this film was on more top ten lists than any other film this year. That should be ackowledged. annoynmous 00:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, go ahead and say that; there's no need to actually list every list (but make sure you find a credible source who has made that analysis and cite her/him).
Jim Dunning | talk 01:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see now that the sources were merely a link to metacritic and the statement is original research. --Tony Sidaway 01:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


How is this original research, it is simply a fact that this film is on a lot of top ten lists. Outside of your own personal tastes there is no reason not to have this list. The point being that this film along with Zodiac and No Country For Old Men were on more top ten lists than any other film for 2007. What is wrong with showing what lists it was on. annoynmous 02:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is not a matter of our "personal tastes", but Wikipedia policy. If a credible source has made the observation or analysis that the film is on more top 10 lists than any other film, then we can include that fact in the article. However, we, as WP editors, cannot be the ones to count and compare the number of lists: that is original research in the form of analysis or synthesis. However, Tony recognizes there may be some uncertainty here and is requesting an opinion from another party through a lightweight dispute resolution process. Let's see what happens.
Jim Dunning | talk 05:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've produced a RFC for this. I've made my points above. --Tony Sidaway 02:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RFC comment: I would say that the list could stay as long as the original sources of those top ten lists are cited not some mega list of top 10s. If Sometown Post published in Sometown in Small State in Some Country has a top ten list, and this film was on it, put it on the list, but cite the Sometown Post, not the mega list of top ten lists. - LA @ 08:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny Clark

Who is the Fanny Clark character listed in the "Cast"? I just saw this movie and don't recall that character. 24.158.8.227 (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not anyone I saw in the film either, nor is she listed anywhere else except all the mirrors of this article. I removed the entry.
Jim Dunning | talk 05:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to Oil!

One thing I hoped to find here, and didn't, was a description of where the plot follows that of Oil! and where it diverges. I know that the book has a subplot about organized labor, which was dropped. I'm sure there are other important differences. - Jmabel | Talk 07:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the movie follows the plot of the book at all! P.T. Anderson might have copied a couple of scenes from the book, but it would make more sense to describe the few bits of the book that are in the movie instead of trying to compare two drastically different stories. - Lontano (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind we can only reference comparisons or analyses done by reliable, credible sources. We cannot perform the comparisons ourselves: that would be original research.
Jim Dunning | talk 16:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not original research to summarize/describe the plot of the book and the plot of the film. Any critical analysis indicating the influences or impact of either work should not only be cited, but should also be attributed. Robert K S (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The novel's plot cannot be summarized in this article at all (unless we are referencing the summarizing done by a reliable source): WP editors can only summarize a story in that story's article's Plot section. And for a WP editor to identify any similarities or differences between, say, a novel and a film adaptation of it, that is synthesis and is not permitted. That's why we must find secondary sources who have performed the analysis for us, even what seem to be simple comparisons. Then we cite them.
Jim Dunning | talk 17:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is I don't concur with your interpretation of the OR policy, and I would point out that the synthesis section you linked to is specifically with reference to "synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". Suffice it to say, I don't think any editors would be advancing a position in describing how the plot of the book differs from the plot of the film. It is not a unique idea or an opinion to say that "This happened in the book. This happened in the film." And since the film is based on the book, it is acceptable, IMO, to provide such a summarization of book plot points in an article about the film. Robert K S (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if what I wrote appeared confusing. I cited Synthesis vis-a-vis making comparisons between the novel and the film:

Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.

The "material" or "individual elements" would be the plot of the novel and the plot of the film. The "conclusion" or "position" would be the editor's assertion that novel-plot differs from film-plot (or is similar). This policy says that a WP editor cannot make the assertion unless novel-plot source or film-plot source first draws same conclusion. I'm attempting to address the suggestions made above by Jmabel and Lontano that we include the differences/similarities between the two works in this article. We can, but WP:SYN says a reliable source must do it for us first.

Based on your statement, "Any critical analysis indicating the influences or impact of either work should not only be cited", I think we are in agreement on the analysis element. However, why would we summarize Oil here unless we were including a reliable source's analysis in the relevant passage? The source's material should contain the relevant plot summary.

Oil's plot cannot be summarized in TWBB. Fiction guidelines permit a fiction article's Plot section to be an exception to WP:OR as long as it is an objective description of the plot and is validated through consensus. The description is limited to the article's Plot section. And since we can't cite WP itself, we can't pull Oil's Plot section content into TWBB. (And it can't be summarized here on its own, since it would be outside this article's Plot section and wouldn't be availalble to the Consensus process.)
Jim Dunning | talk 18:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such a section would not need to assert that such-or-such plot elements were similar or different; the reader could draw that conclusion for himself/herself. It is not original research to say "The main character of There Will Be Blood is oil man Daniel Plainview, while Oil! centers around 'Bunny' Arnold Ross Jr., son of an oil tycoon." No citation to some critical anaylsis of either work is required to state simply and plainly the facts about two works. A section containing such statements would be relevant to this article. If this discussion has been conducted before for some other pair of works, please provide a link, so that we're not rehashing arguments that have already been conducted elsewhere. Robert K S (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I was unable to locate the fiction guidelines you refer to above; I could only find Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) which doesn't speak to our issue at all. A Google search brought up the following articles that may or may not be relevant to someone wishing to construct the comparison section in question:
An American Primitive, Forged in a Crucible of Blood and Oil - NYT review that also draws comparisons to McTeague and Greed
There Will Be Blood: a promising subject, but terribly weak results - WSWS review with some comparisons
Upton Sinclair’s Oil!: A High Octane California novel! - review of Oil!
Robert K S (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT and WSWS articles have information that would be great to add to the article. I'm uncertain of the value of the others since they are blogs. I'm going to mine the two good article for material unless you beat me to it. By the way, this discussion prompted me to make this suggestion for an addition to the Film Style Guidelines. Feel free to join in the discussion. Thanks for finding those articles.
Jim Dunning | talk 05:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eli and Paul debate section

I removed the Eli and Paul debate section because there doesn't appear to be a debate. The contribution mentioned that "many critics and film goers" wondered whether the twins are really twins. While I'm sure there are film goers who are discussing it, there isn't much mention of it by any reviewers or critics. The cited Ebert review makes only passing mention of the twins, and the other source cited has Anderson saying it was simply a casting convenience, not a story element. Hardly supports a "debate".
Jim Dunning | talk 05:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually thought Paul didn't exist and was either an invention of Eli's or one of his two personalities. The fact that Daniel in the final scene with Eli says something about having given 10,000$ to Paul (which doesn't make much sense if they were really brothers) seems to prove that. It would make the movie much more compley, too, if Daniel and Eli were both borderline-type characters. What speaks for Paul being Elis twin brother? And (where) can I still read that deleted "Eli and Paul debate section"?--FiltorDE (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can look through the article's History section and see the deleted material here.
Jim Dunning | talk 00:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am very surprised by the fact that Paul and Eli were supposed to be twins. As I watched the movie, I thought Paul was Eli only when he was in his religious mood. I appreciated that. It gave the character a much better personality. Thierry Caro (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When Paul Dano was interviewed on Npr, he said another actor had been cast as the boy preacher, but did not work out. So Dano, originally playing the smaller role of the other brother, stepped in to play both roles. It was done entirely out of a crisis on the set. Viewers may interpret however they wish, but the intention of the director is fairly clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.89.236 (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milkshake?

Why is there so many mentions of the term milkshake, and why has it been left in for numerous edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.158.111.130 (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I count the word "milkshake" appearing only twice. Not sure what you mean (unless you're referring to the recent vandalism, which anyone could've removed).
Jim Dunning | talk 12:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a couple of cites examining the final scene and the popularity of that line: USA Today and David Bordwell. Alientraveller (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the Sat Feb 23, 2008 Good Morning America, I think. Maybe it's Friday's, but now it's a YouTube meme. MMetro (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There Will Be Blood and Anti-Christianity

Perhaps a small part of the article could discuss the blatant anti-Christian bias that is found in the film? The film has been boycotted by some churches and Christians in the USA because of its very strong anti-Christian message and themes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.15.157.178 (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- Interesting that you find the portryal of a faith healing religion anti-Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.34.10 (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to locate a credible source that provides material on this, then feel free to go ahead (and cite it). Keep in mind that there's a difference between a fiction work that is interpreted as promoting a particlular viewpoint and a story that contains a character who is depicted in a particular way. Consider Huck Finn, which has been derided as being racist while simultaneously lauded as being anit-racist.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if the IP address was here complaining about the anti-Jewish bias in the Mel Gibson flick a few years back? I'm guessing not. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection overkill

There is an overuse of subsections in the "Awards and nominations" section. Anyone know enough coding to put all the award information in a nice-looking table format and not make the TOC a monstrosity? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple thoughts. Instead of using section headings (=== and ====) for organization formatting (do we really need a link in the TOC for every heading and sub-heading — the section isn't so big it requires navigation assistance), why not just use Bolding, bullets and indents? My other suggestion is to convert the list format to prose, summarizing each recognition type (with some significant details).
Jim Dunning | talk 21:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek...

...is not trivial. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

The first sentence says:

"The story opens in 1898 with silver prospector Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) accidentally discovering crude oil deposits in one of his silver claims."

On the contrary, the rock he brings back is visibly a metallic ore, and so he appears to discover silver on his mining claim. This allows him to open a small working mine, which presumably funds his entrance into the oil business. The oil drilling operation is at another location.

My impression is that the assayer's report shows us first that he is looking for silver (of which there appears to be none based on the analysis results at the top of the report), but as we scan down the report page we see there is oil. This would support the description that Plainview is initially mining for silver, but serndipity steps in and he switches to petroleum at the same location. I don't recall anything to lead us to believe he relocates.
Jim Dunning | talk 21:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would have been historically inaccurate for a couple of reasons: 1) old-time assayers were not set up to test for traces of oil, and 2) there was no need to assay for oil, because old-time oil men would have tested it just as Plainview did at Little Boston: rub it on his fingers, smell it, and put a match to it. But I evidently didn't get as good a look at the assay certificate as you did, so I'll defer to what you saw. Plazak (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of those things to look for the next time we see it.
Jim Dunning | talk 01:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence later says:

"...refining his extraction techniques with self-designed drilling and rigging equipment."

Since there is no dialog in this section, how does anyone know that his equipment is self-designed? Plazak (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just watched it and I think I agree that it's dangerously close to original research to state this categorically. It is implied however in one scene; Plainview takes out a sketch pad and starts drawing a Pumpjack. The way they portray this with some hesitations as if he's adding elements as he thinks of them is what gives the implication, but that's all it is.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Drink Your Milkshake

  • First, I would just like to say that I know this is a very minor point, but whatever. In the plot section, the quote reads "I... Drink... Your... Milkshake!" which looks terrible. It should read "I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!" because (a) that is how it is written in the script and (b) it conveys the tone much better than a series of ellipses. I tried to change it once, but it was reverted, so now I am putting it on the talk page. ~ Dancemotron (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I reverted because your purpose was unclear (please use edit summaries when making changes. I agree the ellipses look ungainly, but are solid caps the way to go? How about: "I. Drink. Your. Milkshake! I drink it up!"
Jim Dunning | talk 03:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further thought, do you have a source for the script reference? I could see going solid caps if Anderson put it that way in the script.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Script is here http://www.scribd.com/doc/2083473/There-Will-Be-Blood-Final-Script The Equilibrium (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link; it answers the question about the caps. However, since the solid caps in a script indicate emphasis, which can range from hysterical screaming to an intense whisper, I don't think they should be duplicated here. If we did, then why not the "DRAINAGE" phrase as well? I think we're really trying to convey Day-Lewis's performance in what may become a classic scene, but I'm not sure there is an effective way to do that in just words on a page. My recommendation is to leave the phrase as a quote (thus acknowledging the potentially enduring nature of the scene), but just present the words in plain type. Either that, or go completely in the other direction and capitalize DRAINAGE and put "aaaaaccccccrrrrrooooosssssss" in as well.
Jim Dunning | talk 13:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other direction. I think I know the source of the ellipses. Alientraveller pointed out this review —

Daniel, loudly, drooling: “Drainage! Drainage! Eli, you boy. Drained dry. I’m so sorry. If you have a milkshake and I have a milkshake — there it is. [He holds up his index finger]. That’s the straw, you see. [He turns and walks away from Eli] And my straw reaches acrooooooossssss [walking back toward Eli] the room … I … drink … your … milkshake. [He makes a sucking noise] I drink it up!”

I find the parenthetical action description effective — especially inclusion of the sucking noise — and could see using this passage (cited) in the plot description. I agree the ellipses are awkward looking, but they do convey the emphasis Daniel places on each word in the phrase.
Jim Dunning | talk 13:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, regardless of how the quote is formatted, I maintain that the last sentence before it should read "starts to drink your milkshake:" as opposed to "starts to drink your milkshake..." ~ Dancemotron (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have an even more radical suggestion: take the milkshake lines out completely. They're really not necessary here, this is not an essay for an literature or film class. It just seems pretentious to have it here, esp in a block quote. If anyone wants to read it, go to IMDB, it's there. Tommyt (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tommyt, surely this is for Wikipedia's sister project Wikiquote, with a link here directing readers who want quotes from the movie over there, such as something like this (over there, on the right ---->):
Wikiquote has quotations related to There Will Be Blood.

peace Warchef (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: delete the quote. The plot sysnopsis is lengthy enough without quoting chunks of dialogue. Plazak (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In related news, I removed a blacklisted link an earlier post, just FYI. ~ Dancemotron (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but please use Edit Summaries.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had added a link to the lively and topical discussion site http://idrinkyourmilkshake.com to the external links section. Why did it get removed?

--muckster (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:There_Will_Be_Blood&oldid=206845945"