Talk:Forrest Gump (character)

Questions

Why is he listed under "Fictional United States Democrats"? Is he established as a Democrat in the novel?

Shouldn't the movie synopsis be under the movie Forrest Gump? --Stoic Squirrel 07:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't some mention be made of his running around America? That took up a good portion of the film and one could say is part of his character.

Why is he listed as a Gulf War vet? 12.76.5.200 (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Could someone add a section on just how stupid !! this movie is ? There must be some critics with an IQ over thirty out there ... 210.22.142.82 (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ForrestGump2.jpg

Image:ForrestGump2.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) 19:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Broken Apart

I believe this article should be broken into two articles

1. Forest Gump the novelization character

2. Forest Gump the movie character

the characters are significantly different could someone do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benadamspears (talk • contribs) 04:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, its one character. The article should focus on the novel character, with a section discussion changes in his movie appearance. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera, I'm not sure about your rationale. Arguably, the film is more famous than the novel - indeed, the amount of data on the Wiki concerning the novel is negligible, while the film has a full and well developed article. The original author of the book also considered the two extremely different, to the extent of disliking the change - if we are attempting to give primacy to the origin of the character, should we not then respect the authors wisheds and split the two? Scanna (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I wouldn't support it as two articles, though. One article with two sections, sure. Indeed, to me that's the only sensible way of doing it, it's merely a question of how we divide him up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scanna (talk • contribs) 23:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The novel character came first. Per everything I've read dealing with such issues (which comes up quite a bit in the anime/manga articles I work on), as the novel character is first and the origin (i.e. the true character), it is the one the article should focus on. The intro and first part of the article should focus on the book character. Then, a second section, discussion the film presentation/adaptation of that character. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The article should not exist in the first place, read WP: FICT, it's basically a list of differences between the novel character and the film character that can easily be covered in the main film article. I suggest a merge.--The Dominator (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The decision was made to keep it separate in earlier discussion because the character of Forrest Gump has plenty of real-world notability. Unfortunately, the article is in hideous shape after all of the splits and clean out of the plot and no one seeming to be willing to take the time to expand it like it needs. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I would help, but I've never read the book or its sequel, so there is very little I can do at the moment.--The Dominator (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

To weigh in, I don't think that the character from either the novel or the film deserves precedent. While the character does originate from the novel, due weight should be given to both incarnations, such as how they were intended to be portrayed and how they were received. I think that's the most objective approach, since we can't really argue about the level of content for each incarnation. For all we know, the prominence of the film may have obscure coverage about the novel and its protagonist. Or not. Best way to find out is to make an effort to seek out references in novel-related and film-related resources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Another approach to consider is if it is appropriate to have a character article at all. Considering that the books and the film are essentially about the character, these individual articles should be able to adequately address the portrayal of the primary character. Let's hypothesize that the articles for the books and the film are Featured Articles; they would likely contain detail about the character and how he has been received in each incarnation. Creating a character article after all this would likely repeat the information shared in a disjointed form. It may depend on if there are references that cover the character in all incarnations, rather than us finding separate references and placing them side by side. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that in this case the character article should stay (Major cleanup and probably a rewrite required). It is a well known character that appeared in two books and a film, but certainly not a separate article for the film and novel character, it's the same character!--The Dominator (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's actually not the same character. The movie character is a major re-interpretation, not a re-make and therefore none of them should be favoured. --TheShady (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2008 (GMT+1)

Why does this article need references and sources?

I don't get why someone put the template that this article needs more sources on the page. Forrest Gump is a fictional film character. I don't think you can get any more information about him other than from the film. Jprulestheworld (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A fair point - I've changed the tag, as most of the page is written "in universe" ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Ping pong player

Forrest Gump was also a ping-pong player, eventually going to China. This is mentioned as one of his occupations, but it's never described in the section about his life, other than a referral of memorabilia. I think his ping-pong adventures should either gets its own paragraph, or the first two sentences of the Shrimp Boating Captain should be rewritten. As it stands currently, it's too confusing for anyone not having seen the film (or read the novel).

I've seen the movie only once, years ago, and never read the novel, so I don't find myself qualified to write it (otherwise, I would have done so). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.146.74 (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Why does this article exist?

Why does this article exist? The biography of the character follows the plot of the movie. What information is in this article that is not, or should not be, in the article about the movie? SlowJog (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I concur, this article shouldn't exist, it only covers the movie version and probably should cover only the book version, because there is nothing in this article that the movie shouldn't cover. Maxcardun (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Forrest’s father being “on vacation”

Forrest Gump’s father is listed as “on vacation”, which in the context of the film is a lie. Forrest’s mother was trying to cover up the fact that he is either dead, separated, or missing. It is unclear which was true in the movie, but I thought he was dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted the Generic Guy (talk • contribs) 22:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

"Gump, Forrest" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Gump, Forrest has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7 § Gump, Forrest until a consensus is reached. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)