Talk:Slap Shot

Maxine Nightingale

Thank you, thank you, thank you for the Maxine Nightingale, I now know I was not mis-remembering! John wesley 20:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Questionable link

Hi, I just got Rsm99833's email about the addition of the link of slapshotfan.com. It's not my site but I can see where you'd think it was a commercial site. It had more movie related content but has moved into fundraising for charities including Paul Newman's Hole in the Wall Gang. It's too bad because it had a lot of information about the movie. I'm sorry for entering it again. I didn't log in and see your message.

I also mentioned that it was an original script by Nancy Dowd and not a book originally. It was a mass marketed paperback by Richard Woodley that came after her script.

Sorry for my errors in posting. I was just trying to help.

See ya, Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Czell (talk • contribs) 20:40, 19 November 2006

Hey chris,

thats ok with me!!!!!!!!!1

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.100.118 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 5 February 2007

Fair use rationale for Image:Slap shot movie poster.jpg

Image:Slap shot movie poster.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) 05:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

rationale added to image article. Johnmc (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Questionable Reference

Under the "Old Time Hockey" section, the term references two players as examples of what old time hockey is. I would argue that Eddie Shore, while a very good defenseman, did not display attributes of being a player that always showed respect to his peers. Referencing his page, he had the most penalty minutes in his time and ended the career and nearly ended the life of Ace Bailey due to a check from behind. Moreover, a quote from Bobby Hull from Tim Horton's page states "There were defensemen you had to fear because they were vicious and would slam you into the boards from behind, for one, Eddie Shore."

Also, as a little tidbit of trivia, Dave Hanson's son, Christian Hanson, is a professional hockey player.

--Jeffware87 (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I've boldly deleted some trivial points from the "Legacy" section (one, a minor observation regarding a background character; the other, an pointless anecdote from the DVD commentary unrelated to the film at all) which, even if they were at all relevent (which I don't think they are), certainly don't belong in that section. But if anyone wants to put 'em back in, I won't pursue it. Vonbontee (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Surprising Hockey Skill

As someone who played alot of different sports through college level, finding hockey probably the hardest to learn to do well enough, I am curious, and think it would be worthy of note in the article, to know when and where Paul Newman learnt to play hockey as well as he did in the movie.

Funny thing is, as teenagers at the time, when we said "old time hockey", we meant when fighting etc was promoted as the main draw.--AthabascaCree (talk) 09:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Error in Plot description

The article says: "During a hopeless season, the Chiefs pick up the Hanson Brothers, bespectacled violent goons with childlike mentalities..."

However, until they actually play, the Hansons are assumed, because of the European style of play at the time, to be just the opposite of goons and to be unready for the roughness of the North American game. That when they're finally played, the dominate the rink with violence is one of the chief comedic scenes of the film. Dvd Avins (talk) 02:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Syracuse uniforms very similar to the Phila. Flyers

I wonder if that was done due to the fact the Flyer goon tactics of the mid 70's that led them to 2 straight stanley cup titles and the Flyers were responsible for giving the impression at the time this film came out the NHL was all about fighting and not skill like it is in 2015. ( Milepost53 (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)).

Troll editor Rockypedia single handed attempt to rule this article

There is a troll editor called Rockypedia who seems to be hell bent of not having a plot on this article. Considering the fact that tens of thousands of films on this site have plots (and much longer than this one) I don't see what the issue is?

The only issue is they are a troll editor. 86.165.243.144 (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:FILMPLOT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and WP:NPA. When you've read those and understood them, we may be able to have a rational discussion about this. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Rockypedia - your edits have violated the foundational premise of Wikipedia which is Wikipedia:Collaboration first. Whether you feel you have been personally abused or not, you have your self violated WP:NPA by implying the other authors do not understand how Wikipedia works. I am restoring the original plot. Although it is too long, as I am quite familiar with the 400-700 word requirement, one editor cannot make unilateral changes and then ignore negative comments. Please work with your other editors to properly trim the Plot section on this page. Ckruschke (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke

Thanks for your input, Ckruschke (talk). I notice that while I asked an anon IP editor, quite politely, to read and understand the basic guidelines in place for plot length, among other policies, you chose to interpret that as some sort of attack, which is unwarranted, as it's quite possible that an anon IP editor is unfamiliar with those pages. Meanwhile, you obviously didn't have a problem with the anon IP heading this section "Troll editor Rockypedia" or saying "There is a troll editor called Rockypedia who seems to be hell bent" or "The only issue is they are a troll editor", as you didn't address it here, nor on his talk page. I'd love to hear an explanation of that. Rockypedia (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I largely ignore IP editors - especially those who whine. In fact if I'd been the first one to see this Talk thread I would have deleted it as much ado about nothing. Non-IP editors should know better - right? Ckruschke (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke

Sounds like you should read this. Rockypedia (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia.

@Pucks University: This is an encyclopedia. If you don't want spoilers, don't go to this page. --NearMiddayNight ^{Feel free to come talk with me.} 02:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

wow could you be a little more dismissive and arrogant maybe??? --Pucks University 2:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pucks University: I mean, I don't mean to be rude... but what is an Encyclopedia if it's going censor information for the readers betterment? If a reader goes to a Encyclopedia, they expect answers. If they wanted a spoiler free plot teaser, they'd view a trailer, or something like IMDb. Please read What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored P.S. please end your messages with 4 tildas, that will add the time and date along with your signature. --NearMiddayNight ^{Feel free to come talk with me.} 17:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Themes

Would it be worthwhile to have a themes section? I wrote the following, but it uses a single source so additional viewpoints would be beneficial. (Comments here rather than below, please.) – Reidgreg (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Themes proposal

In The Cinema of Hockey, media studies researcher Iri Cermak wrote that the masculine violence in Slap Shot echoes the societal conflicts of the time, with economic decline and displacement of men from the workforce, and that the Hansons represent "powerful, ungovernable forces". She notes the scene following the pre-game brawl, in which a referee rants at the players lined up for the National Anthem and is interrupted by one of the players saying "I'm listening to the fucking song!". The referee is left "contrite and bewildered over his faux pas" while physically towered over by the undaunted player, showing "institutional authority [outclassed] against a force of nature".

Cermak writes that the Hansons embody "unbridled virility of young working-class males" and show no character development in the film, satirizing sportsmanship, over-masculinization, and the cliched heroism of sports films. She notes the depiction of declining small towns, decrepit hotels and dive bars contrasting with the bright arenas and the excitement provided by the Hansons' rule-breaking showmanship, acting as surrogates for the downtrodden residents. The film also echoed the realities of 1970s labour politics at a time when professional ice hockey was coming under impersonal corporate organization. Cermak writes that, in comparison to the deceits of owners and management, the Hansons appear as "populist figures" defying big-money in Reggie's plan to protect the worker-athletes. She notes that the film has remained popular as struggles against power and wealth inequalities are cyclical.

References

Comments

Just my opinion, but "I" wouldn't add something like the above. Not saying your writeup is bad - its just that the source has a very specific and fringe/socialist POV. I apologize - not trying to offend you - but I'm pretty sure if someone had interviewed Paul Newman at the time and told him this, he would have laughed at the imposition that the was some deep hidden meaning to the movie. Ckruschke (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke

I agree, we shouldn't have a section for one person's opinion. (Not really sure how 'fringe' her views are without looking at more on the subject.) I do feel that themes are as much about how a work is received as how it is intended. I think Cermak makes a good point about the violence in the film serving a purpose and not simply being gratuitous or slapstick. I'm hoping it's something that could be built upon, but not sure when I'll have time to come back to this. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)