Talk:The Revenant (2015 film)

Writing Style

I have never read such a badly-written Wikipedia entry as this. The Plot is a nightmare, filled with spelling mistakes and using the most awkward construction imaginable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.211.243 (talk) 08:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Release

This from July 17 says, "Opening in limited theaters on Christmas Day, the action adventure expands wide on January 8, 2016." Is there something newer that contradicts this statement, Easy4me? Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

disambiguation

Can someone add a disambiguation? I am at this moment watching on the SYFY channel another movie by the same title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.144.213.97 (talk) 07:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Poster

I reverted the removal of the poster's white border because it is part of the design. This is evidenced by the difference in margins, not to mention the rating box at the bottom. I do not see why that should be cropped out. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Film Fan, I'm fine with reducing the image size further, but your link says 250x400 where your latest upload is 260x403. Shouldn't the width be smaller? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It has to be close to 100,000 pixels. A few over is negligible. The 300*XXX posters are always way over. Film Fan 14:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying! Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

MoS limit exceeded at 1350 words, need to return to 700 word limit

In 1823, a crew of hunters and trappers traveling through unorganized U.S. territory (later the Dakotas) suffers heavy losses in an ambush by Arikara Indians. A handful of survivors escape by boat, but Hugh Glass, a veteran trapper, advises them to abandon the vessel and continue on foot. Their commander, Captain Andrew Henry, agrees with Glass, but others, including the belligerent John Fitzgerald, are furious to learn that they will have to discard most of the valuable pelts. The Arikara catch up with the boat, but find and kill only two stowaways.

While scouting ahead the next morning, Glass gets attacked by a grizzly bear when he disturbs her cubs, suffering severe wounds to his throat, back, legs, and arms before he is able to kill her. Henry patches him up as best he can, but soon realizes that the party cannot afford to waste time carrying him along. On Fitzgerald's advice, Henry tries to shoot Glass but ultimately relents. Instead, he pays Fitzgerald and the inexperienced Jim Bridger to watch over Glass until he dies and ensure that he is properly buried. Glass's Indian son, Hawk, volunteers to accompany them. While Bridger is busy collecting water, Fitzgerald tries to smother Glass and stabs Hawk to death when he tries to intervene. Claiming that an Indian attack is imminent, Fitzgerald throws Glass in a shallow grave and steals his musket and knife. After hesitating over whether or not to help Glass, Bridger runs off as well.

Upon reuniting with Henry, Fitzgerald informs him that both Glass and Hawk died of exposure, while a guilt-ridden Bridger refuses to accept his share of the payment. Meanwhile, Glass, on the verge of death from hunger and cold, struggles to recover his strength. A passing Pawnee Indian, Hikuc, provides him with shelter and food, and offers to let Glass travel with him. One morning, Glass wakes up to find that his companion has been hanged by French trappers. He infiltrates their camp and rescues a captive Indian girl, unaware that she is the daughter of the Arikara's chief. The Arikara pursue Glass and force him and his horse off a cliff, leaving them for dead. With no other option, Glass uses the horse's corpse as a makeshift shelter.

While preparing to depart for the season, Henry picks up a French hunter carrying Glass's canteen. Based on his information, a search party locates Glass and brings him back to camp. Henry has Bridger arrested for treason, but learns that Fitzgerald has already fled with the expedition's money. Seeking revenge, Glass and the Captain set out to track him. When they separate, Fitzgerald ambushes Henry and scalps him to make it look like an Indian attack, hoping to throw Glass off his trail.

Using the dead Henry as a decoy, Glass tricks Fitzgerald into revealing his position and wounds him with a pistol shot. The two men engage in a brutal hand-to-hand fight, with Glass finally getting the upper hand. He turns Fitzgerald over to the Arikara, who proceed to kill and scalp him. Grateful for Glass's actions in freeing his child, their chief spares his life. After completing his revenge, an injured Glass retreats into the forest and experiences another flashback of his deceased wife after Fitzgerald is killed by the Arikara.

Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

What does this mean? Do you intend to do the down-edit? This is a constructive observation, but not necessarily a constructive Talk section. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

About the "Captain", I noticed that some of the other editors were going in the direction of calling him "Henry", even though the film refers to him as the "Captain" from start to finish. In assuming good faith I left it as "Henry" for now pending a more thorough reading. The other item is that the captions in the film point to the "Pawnee Indians" throughout although other editors want to change it to "Arikara". I am again going to assume good faith from those editors even though the captions in the film itself point to "Pawnee Indians" throughout the film pending other editors comments. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

How to survive with wet clothes in winter?

Glass is swimming with full clothes in the wild river. Then he crawls to the shore and sleeps the night still wearing his wet clothes - in a cold frozen snowy landscape! But he survives, even didn't get cold. How is that possible?

He couldn't BEAR to take them off. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It did no happen in the real history. Staying in a so cold water is barelly impossible with modern clothes. Spend a night with wet and cold clothes, plus the below zero temperature would killed him by hypothermia.. Spoonnie (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)spoonnieSpoonnie (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Arikara/Ree attachers, not Pawnee?

I don't want to make the correction without being sure, but I think the plot summary starts out wrong by referring to "Hostility from the Native American Pawnee Indians."

I believe the "Ree" attackers are Arikara, not Pawnee. (Other characters are Pawnee.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.208.223 (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You're correct. Changed it now.Crboyer (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Opening line and genre

Hi. Over the past week or so, I've seen a mix of changes from "a 2015 American epic western thriller film" to "a 2015 American semi-biographical adventure drama film " and now "a 2015 American frontier revenge film". Can we get a consensus on what we should describe this as in the lead? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Bollocks to genres, they only ever negatively affect our work. They're 100% subjective, prone to constant fiddling, and impossible to reach a definitive consensus on. There is absolutely nothing wrong with just using "The Revenant is a 2015 film directed by Alejandro G. Iñárritu". GRAPPLE ^X 11:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think "Western" has been the most common genre stated in reliable sources. Maybe we should just stick to that and detail the premise better in the first paragraph to cover survival and revenge? That way, we can point to this premise if editors try to add "survival" or "revenge" to the opening sentence. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I have noticed this issue as well. I've mostly seen "frontier revenge" here and that seems like total BS, since only one source calls it that and isn't an established genre, or even one I've heard of at all. We should use a widely accepted genre. I haven't read much about this film, but I can safely say that "frontier revenge" is most likely not the genre. If there is too much disparity of genres among sources, I'd support just saying "2015 film" like Grapple X. Cheers, κατάσταση 14:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

To avoid further roller-coaster I propose "historical adventure film" or "historical survival film". Although the former version was reverted, these seem to be an accurate description. Brandmeister^talk 11:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The Drudge Report

Should there be mention of the rather bizarre claim that the Drudge Report made about the main character and the bear 121.217.214.209 (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Personally I don't think that should be there, perhaps they picked some random impression or speculation. Brandmeister^talk 11:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Mistake or bias in "critical response" section

Current first-liner of "critical response" is "The Revenant has received very positive reviews from critics". That is not the usual one-liner for movies that have "an average rating of 8/10" on Rotten Tomatoes, "a weighted average score of 76 out of 100" on Metacritic, and a "B+ on CinemaScore". It should read "The Revenant has received generally favorable reviews", according to Wiki praxis. Either ways, the "very" in "very positive" is not only unnecessary, it's also misleading. It is a 8/10 movie, not more, not less. 187.181.176.138 (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It's been changed, but the line "It is a 8/10 movie, not more, not less." is pretty silly. Films are as unique as the people who make them; attempts to quantize their quality should be recognized for what they are: a shorthand. It's ludicrous to think averaging these adequately describes a film. Try applying the same logic to people. ("Hi there, how are you going? What number are you? An 9/10! Whoh, you must have heaps of friends! I'm only a 7/10, but my partner's a 8/10,... oh really, your boss in an 8/10 too? I'm pretty lucky, have you heard of that 10/10 you sometimes see on the news... yes, that's my boss,...) Neuroxic (talk) 07:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Surprised that 'home' has granted this such high praise. Watching a (pirated) copy it was pretty boring. I haven't talked to relatives about it, but why did this touch a nerve in England? "Best Film" - ugh. Any Reliable Source on why it has been acclaimed there? 98.67.176.216 (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

French vs. Canadian French accent

I see several problems with this so-called historical inaccuracy:

"French-speaking trappers in the West at the time were not from France, but from Canada[47] and therefore did not speak with an accent from France, as the character Toussaint does in the film." - 6 April 2016

Problem 1. There is no citation regarding whether the character Toussaint has an accent from France. How do we know this? Problem 2. At one point in history, French-speaking people in Canada spoke with a similar accent to French-speaking people in France. Their accents didn't change when they got off the boats from France! How do we know Toussaint's accent isn't that of a French-speaking Canadian from that time period? I imagine you would need a pretty heavy teachnical linguistic citation for evidence in that case. Problem 3. By my recollection, there are no obvious clues given in the movie as to Toussaint's origin or linguistic background. Therefore, even if we had a linguist who was an expert in historical French accents and said "Toussaint's accent is more reminiscent of French than Canadian speech communities in the 1830s", that doesn't make an inaccuracy. Toussaint could have been born and raised in France, emigrated to Canada and worked as a fur trader; you wouldn't expect him to have adopted a Canadian accent in adulthood. As an analogy, would it be "historically inaccurate" for one of Glass' party to speak with an 1830s-Scottish or Irish instead of American accent? No. You would expect some kind of linguistic diversity among the frontierspeople and adventurers of that era.

For these reasons, I suggest the paragraph about this so-called historical inaccuracy be deleted entirely. (unsigned IP address editor).

Archiving sentence for now until relevance to article is explained. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Historical accuracy

I do not see why the following cited quotation was included in the Historical Accuracy section:

Both DiCaprio and Iñárritu have made comments in the press regarding their environmentalism concerns as they confronted these in the production of the film. In an interview in Wired magazine in January 2016, DiCaprio criticized a lack of leadership concerning environmentalism stating that: "We’ve seen such a tremendous lack of leadership, and we’ve allowed these trillion-dollar industries to manipulate the argument about the science for too long. This year is a massive tipping point in the climate struggle. As I said, it’s the hottest year in recorded history. July was the hottest month in recorded history. We’re seeing methane bubbling up from underneath the seafloor. There are massive heat waves, drought, fires going on; ocean acidification is happening on a massive scale."[51]

This is a personal viewpoint of the actor and has nothing to do with the film, especially the historical accuracy of the film. This belongs on the actors personal page.

209.179.64.167 (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The points made by DiCaprio were not made in a personal viewpoints interview but they were made in interview concerning his participation in the making of this film in particular. The statement was made contextually in reference to The Revenant and not as a random personal viewpoint. The article is linked in the quotation part of this edit and you can read the full article to see that the context is about the film and his experience in making the film. It is included in the article because it expressed his opinion made in the process of the making of The Revenant. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of the merit or lack of merit to any arguments put forth as to what constitutes an opinion or personal viewpoint, the only rationale in retaining the quoted section under that particular heading requires that a context exists wherein the production team faced challenges in identifying historically accurate or "pristine" set locations. The way it is currently written is not relevant, however. It will be removed after a reasonable period of time if the issue is not resolved.AxiomSchema (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is this in the "historical accuracy" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.237.91.167 (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

This article disputes the historicity of his having a Pawnee wife, but appears to accept the story of his surviving in the wilderness as true; yet the Wikipedia article on Glass accepts his having a Pawnee wife (even including it in the biographical box-out), but casts doubt on the survival tale, sugesting it has been exaggerated and embellished in the telling down the years… Which is to be believed…? Jock123 (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Humane Society statement missing?

Because of the harsh conditions under which this film was shot, I was particularly interested in looking for the statement from the Humane Society that they monitored filming and that the animals in the film were not mistreated. I did not see that statement in the credits, but I can't say for sure ... I may have missed it. Does anyone know whether the animals were monitored? If they were not, I think this fact has to be mentioned. --Spiff666 (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Revenant (2015 film)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MatthewHoobin (talk · contribs) 02:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This is my first time reviewing an article. I've read through and will continue to re-read the criteria for good articles, and from a first glance, this nominee seems to be pretty well constructed. I will be analysing the page and reporting any issues I find within the next 1-3 days. –Matthew - (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I will be waiting. Just need to tell you that I'm not an English-native, so if there is any grammatical issue, point that too. I'll correct and address all issues. Thanks and it's nice to see you here. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 06:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Article promotion on hold: According to Snuggums, who has also volunteered to review the article, the film is still playing in theatres and could receive further accolades, and is therefore, at the present time, unfit to be nominated for GA. However, I've still gathered a few notes:

• Pro In terms of genre, I think calling The Revenant an "epic survival Western film" fits it rather nicely. I noticed some invisible text when editing the article's lead; the text asks that the film not be considered "historical" as doing so would be "misleading". I think "semi-biographical" should be included, but film genres are subjective.
• Pro The infobox contains all necessary information, including the languages spoken in the film (which is a nice, however obligatory, touch).
• Pro The article's language is overall well-written.
• Con A citation is needed in the "Accolades" section. Y
• Con Many of the article's citations are used to source information that is not particularly contentious, yet are located in the middle of sentences rather than at the end of sentences. See WP:CITEFOOT for details. Y
• Con There is no mention of Industrial Light & Magic, a notable visual effects company that worked on the film. Y
• Con In the "Themes" section, I found Wai Chee Dimock's analysis of the film to be a bit unclear. A simplified summary of her words could be useful to readers.

• I could not rewrite it, so I need help in it. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 05:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. Always a joy to summarize aesthetic writing that the source's author couldn't bother to say clearly in the first place... Yeesh, professors. czar 07:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Other than that, I haven't much to say. It's a well-written article with some fixable issues, and once the film is out of theatres and has been on home media for a decent period of time, I'm sure it'll fit nicely into the frontier of good articles. –Matthew - (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Time to continue

MatthewHoobin, I can understand your hesitation earlier as a first-time reviewer—and thanks for taking this on!—but I think it's time to resume the review. The film began wide release back in January, and the DVD came out in April. There should be plenty of reviews out there to use, and its unlikely the critical balance will shift at this late date. Additional accolades, if they come, can be inserted at the time, but they should not affect the content or balance of the article. The comments from Snuggums date from March, prior to the DVD release and screenings in some foreign markets; I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but if there are reasons to continue the hold beyond actual issues with the article (such as the "Con" ones, which Captain Assassin! should have taken care of by now and certainly needs to within the next week), these should be spelled out. You'll also want to take another look at the article once Captain Assassin! has made the needed edits to make sure the various other edits in the past month have not caused additional issues; the article needs to meet the GA criteria at the time of promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@MatthewHoobin: I'm sorry for this late, now please take a look at the article again. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 05:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The review is back like DiCaprio from a grave

Hey there! I've re-read the article once more, and I'm glad to see the improvements (there's mention of ILM; references are placed all nice and neat; and there's not a [citation needed] tag in sight). I've also made some minor adjustments of my own a few minutes ago. In regards to the issue of the lucidity of Dimock's analysis, well... I suppose that'll have to be resolved with the help of another editor, since neither Assassin! nor I can understand it very well. Then again, perhaps its clarity might be irrelevant to the page's GA status. Would anyone like to throw in their two cents about the matter? –Matthew - (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

MatthewHoobin, I've just added a "second opinion" status to the nomination on the article's talk page in the hope of attracting a more experienced GA reviewer here to deal with the issue you were having trouble with. It may take a little while, but at least the call is out there now. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Second opinion

I'm happy to comment on this. I see no issue whatsoever regarding the film's home media / relatively short time out of theatres. The Dimock theme paragraph, however, is an incomprehensible mess. This should be addressed before passing GA. I suggest shortening that paragraph considerably, perhaps even just keeping the first sentence and adding (as briefly as possible, a couple words even) what themes it shares with Cooper's work, and instead expanding the section with a different theme source. Here's a source that comments on captivity themes in the film: [1]. Freikorp (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Captain Assassin!: Are you able to address the themes section, or find someone else who can? Freikorp (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Freikorp: I'm regretfully unable to address these issues, so I'm requesting someone who can. It'll take no more time. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 07:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Freikorp: It's already done by Czar, whom I requested. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 08:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Much better. I'd be happy for this to pass. Can I pass it or does that have to be done by the original reviewer. @BlueMoonset: - can you answer that question? Freikorp (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Freikorp, final passage is up to the original reviewer, MatthewHoobin. Matthew? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

After looking at it once more, I agree to pass it. To GA status it goes! –Matthew - (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Revenant (2015 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6CrNMCA0g?url=http://www.criticschoice.com/movie-awards/ to http://www.criticschoice.com/movie-awards/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in The Revenant (2015 film)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of The Revenant (2015 film)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "opening":

• From Rogue One: "'Rogue One' Doesn't Want To Fall To 'Hidden Figures' As Winter Storm Helena Closes Theaters". Deadline Hollywood.
• From The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King: Gray, Brandon (18 December 2003). "'Return of the King' Rakes in $57.6M Worldwide on Opening Day". Box Office Mojo. Archived from the original on 15 February 2012. Retrieved 20 June 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From La La Land (film): "'Rogue One' Flying To $152M+ Weekend; 'Collateral Beauty' A Career B.O. Low For Will Smith: PM Update". Deadline.com.
• From The Dark Knight (film): Horowitz, Josh (December 3, 2007). "'Dark Knight' Opening Scenes Reveal 'Radical' New Joker". MTV. Retrieved December 4, 2007.
• From Steve Jobs (film): D'Alessandro, Anthony (October 20, 2015). "Only Goosebumps Will Prevail In Five-Pic Logjam – Box Office Preview". Deadline.com. Archived from the original on 2016-09-03. Retrieved November 1, 2015. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

historical accuracy - icy river / night in horse carcass

I am very skeptical that Glass survived immersion in an icy river, as portrayed in the movie. First, the article already states that "Glass's survival journey did not take place in the cold season". So the plunge into the icy river seems not historically accurate. Second, my understanding is that a human, especially one sick like Glass, cannot long survive immersion in freezing water. So again, does not seem to add up. On the other hand, I realize there are a few humans with amazing survival capabilities. Anyone know if Glass really was in that icy river? I see a previous post expressing similar doubts. Along similar lines, did Glass really spend the night naked inside a horse carcass, as protection from the severe cold? If so, what is the *reputable* source of the information? It seems unlikely, since again the journey was not during the cold season. Finally, the event that led to his horse dying, Glass and the horse going over the cliff edge, is there a shred of evidence that happened? Or is their fall just additional artistic license? I hope someone with more knowledge about the events can give guidance. AAABBB222 (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Alejandro González Iñárritu 2014.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)