Talk:Cool Hand Luke/Archive 1

Archive 1

Plot

This seriously needs a plot section. --maru (talk) contribs 18:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC) It was a Georgia prison camp not Florida

As far as I know, in the movie they never actually say where the prison camp is. The screenplay simply indicates a "southern" state.[1] The camp was modeled after a Florida road camp where Donn Pierce (screenwriter credit) spent time as a prisoner. The film was shot primarily in Stockon, California, although some exterior shots were used of a Florida's Callahan Road Prison.[2]--Toms2866 20:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Older comments

A little bit of trivia if anyone wants to add it - Luke's prisoner number is 37, a reference to Luke 1:37 according to imdb. That verse reads: For with God nothing shall be impossible. --BigglesZX 23:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the time to do it now, but someone should point out the alarming similarities of this book/movie to the book/movie by Kesey "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." Kesey's book was published three years before this one. --zoticogrillo

This article and the above comment alludes to religious allegories in the movie, however if such a reference exists, intentionally or by critical reception, it deserves inclusion and citation. Otherwise these comments should be removed in keeping with the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. Hondo 17:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• It might not be worth expanding this discussion too far beyond what is already mentioned because then it would take up too much of the article. The discussion could be an article on its own. Some links that discuss this: (The Journal of Religion and Film.See paragraphs 9 and 10), and [3] -Paradiso

While the religious part is interesting, It seems odd to give it a full section second in the article. Seems, at most, perhaps worth a sentence. One could easily find allegories to any number of other works as well if so inclined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.98.249.59 (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Plot

This seriously needs a plot section. --maru (talk) contribs 18:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC) It was a Georgia prison camp not Florida

As far as I know, in the movie they never actually say where the prison camp is. The screenplay simply indicates a "southern" state.[4] The camp was modeled after a Florida road camp where Donn Pierce (screenwriter credit) spent time as a prisoner. The film was shot primarily in Stockon, California, although some exterior shots were used of a Florida's Callahan Road Prison.[5]--Toms2866 20:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Paul Newman actually eats all 50 eggs in an hour to film the scene. TOLD YOU SO BILL!!!

I don't know if I'd compare the lead role to Winston from 1984. Winston unwittingly ended up at odds against the system - after months of surreptitious avoidance out of cowardice (or common sense/self preservation) to further a pursuit of unreasonably denied human needs. Whereas Cool Hand Luke may have also ended up in a brutal regime, his backlash was conversly overt and self destructive, often without an obvious or apparent self-interest. Randle McMurphy is an excellent comparison, perhaps Dean Moriarty from Kerouac's 'On the Road' aka Neal Cassady from the Merry Pranksters would have been a better choice?

Regards,

Duncan.

81.77.106.22 21:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's poor, though not entirely invalid. It's not one which would immediately spring to mind. A better comparison might be Papillon, although that is of course based on a true story. Fictional equivalents would maybe be preferable?

I disagree that Luke's rebellion was not in self-interest. He seemed to tow the line with the regime (but for some back-chat) until his mother's death - then his rebellion took the form of escape plans, which were very much self-serving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.164.105 (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Amend due to poor info

I have removed the statement:

When asked what kind of thing that is for a man to do, his explanation is, "Small town, not much to do in the evenin'. Mostly just settlin' up old scores."

It's not right. He was being ridiculed by Dragline when he first arrived, for supposedly cutting the heads off gum ball machines. His comment about settling old scores was therefore a joke (suggesting childhood disputes with local store owners) - not a meaningful response to why he did the actual crime he was convicted for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.164.105 (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Dragline

Dragline attacked the guard with sunglasses at the end (who should be mentioned more) and his sunglasses are seen broken in the rain and mud.--andreasegde (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Worst Synpopsis, EVER

Come on, someone can do MUCH better than the sad, pathetic synopsis given here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quigonpaj (talk • contribs) 03:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• So do it youself master. POV isn't available on the page, somebody like the all time crying sister of LUKE has written that stuff and therefor it's so pathetic and without any instinct.--Danaide (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Missed the point of the final escape

I think the author missed the point of Luke's final escape: he was NOT a "broken man," as stated. It was an elaborate and long-acted ruse, to convince the guards that Luke no longer posed a flight risk. When they told him fetch items from their trucks, he was secretly stealing all of their car keys... so he could escape, and they could not pursue him. It was his greatest (albeit his last) scam over his oppressors. Jrneumann (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Actually that viewpoint is contradicted by the film itself. In his last escape when Dragline complimented Luke on his cunning, Luke told him that it wasn't a ruse, and said "They broke me." As for the scheming, Luke told his friend "I never planned anything in my life."JeffStickney (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
• These two viewpoints are not mutually exclusive. Based on the movie, it would appear that Luke was broken but that he later regained some of his spirit and formulated an escape plan. Therefore both of you are correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.201.252 (talk) 06:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Though the film is, among other things, an attack on authority, I don't see Luke as quite the heroic character others do. He has never found a constructive purpose in life ("I never planned anything in my life"), and fights authority because he has nothing else to do. One can argue he is fundamentally suicidal, and finally gets his wish. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"Drama Film"?

I don't think "drama film" is quit English. Maybe split the lead into two sentences or at least "film drama". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.154.238 (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool Hand?

Where does the name of the film come from?--75.210.114.1 (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• It's form the scene where he wins a big poker bet with a worthless hand. He said "Sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand." Dragline then nicknamed him "Cool Hand Luke."JeffStickney (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice that two of the songs sung on the porch are covered by Creedence Clearwater Revival?

One of them is Cotton Fields. See if you can find the other, as I don't recall it at this moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksp420 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The other one is "Midnight Special" PatrickWB (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Devil's walking stick?

Where in the bible does it say the devil's walking stick is a snake? That verse needs to be cited.JeffStickney (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please merge this...

Result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blind Dick is delete/merge/redirect. My suggestion as given there is to merge this in the popular culture section and give that section a rewrite.

Blind Dick is a character in the 1967 prison movie Cool Hand Luke played by Richard Davalos. He is named for his dark sunglasses that completely obscure his eyes. In the movie he is referred to as the "walking boss" because it is his job to oversee the operations performed by the prison chain gang and to ensure they are properly guarded while they work outside of the prison walls.

Although he never speaks throughout the duration of the film, his foreboding presence is easily recognized and inspires fear in the prisoners.

Thanks —— nixeagle 19:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Blind Dick was a prisoner. Boss Godfrey, AKA "the man with no eyes", "the walking boss" was a different character played by Morgan Woodward. Proof of this is that the credits list different actors for the two roles.JeffStickney (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

==Self-promotional and POV-pushing content

==

What should be done about this? His best edit is more self-promotional and POV-pushing than my worst edit, but nobody's saying boo to him, and he certainly doesn't care if I say boo. THF (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:No personal attacks, please do not personally address headings to people on talk pages. Article talk pages should be used for discussing the articles, not their contributors. Headings on article talk pages should be used to facilitate discussion by indicating and limiting topics related to the article. For instance, you could make a header whose title describes in a few words one problem you have with the article. This will make it easy for people to address that issue, work towards consensus, and eventually resolve the issue or dispute and improve the article. If you need to reach another user please go to their user talk page. Thanks.
  I've altered the heading, without prejudice to consideration of need for action on said content.
  --Jerzy•t 16:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  

Immediate care

The expression "immediate care" is profoundly ambiguous whenever used outside the context of professional health care. I am replacing the language that used it with

His friends do what they can for his injuries...

which i feel sure is accurate, even tho i don't know the details of the scene. (In fact, i probably have never seen the film from beginning to end, and if i've seen that section of the film, i've forgotten the magazine!)
--Jerzy•t 16:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Failure to communicate

The lines "What we have..." -- and perhaps even "What we've got..." -- "... here is a failure to communicate" is are famously (i guess, respectively mis-associated and) associated with the captain, even by those who have forgotten or never knew that Luke repeated it, and . eEven tho his struggle is with authority and Authority, the captain is the embodiment of both of those, and in a struggle with Luke that is personal on both sides;, the failure to depict that mention it amounts to misrepresenting the film. While more than a stub, this is truly a start-class article; i'm disappointed that there isn't a lower status that i could demote it to!
--Jerzy•t 17:06 & & 17:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Lindzen's BLP

If you could take just a quick minute to review the discussion at [6] and let me know if I am heading off the deep end again I would appreciate it. Like most things this is not a wide open BLP violation, but there is clearly some advantageous use of secondary sources being used as a guilt by association smear (i.e. the secondary source only discusses oil and automotive funding sources to organizations) whereas the actual full list of such sources is much more diverse. I merely want to balance out the smear by putting the full list of known corporate contributors which is, of course, much more diverse. I am relying on a primary source from the Cato Institute in the form of their annual report. I am synthesizing nothing, only copying the names of the corporations that contributed, [7], although I'd probably clean the formatting up a bit. You can see KDP's arguments in the discussion. --GoRight (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge What we've got here is (a) failure to communicate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not merged. Proposed since May 2010 and no consensus for a merge. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Is this one line really notable enough to have its own article? 76.211.8.193 (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

- Yes, it is. It was voted by the American Film Institute as the #11 movie quote of all time. If Wikipedia is going to have pages dedicated to each individual episode of the Simpsons and various other microdetails, then the 11th most important movie quote certainly qualifies. Additionally, the quote is fairly widespread in pop culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.31.2 (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Do not merge - It's a classic line and deserves its own article. Cresix (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• Do not merge - This was most helpful to find it on its own without the extraneous other content. JaySmithWiki (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Do not merge - This is a classic line in many contexts outside of the movie Woz2 (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Date during which film is set?

I believe that the film was actually set some time before 1967, or at least the novel was. Not sure if there are concrete aspects of the film which show the year (for example, make of automobiles).

Perhaps the biggest question about date would be whether the chain gang system was still in place in 1967.--Jrm2007 (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_gang, the chain gang system was phased out in 1955. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.254.175.111 (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)