Talk:Jeremiah Johnson (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Plot section

The plot section contains original research that is inaccurate. At the time of the Mexican-American war, there was an established "mountain man community", which Johnson could have plausibly joined. See the Taos Revolt, Tom Tobin, and John David Albert. While it is true that the mountain man lifestyle was in transition/decline, there was trapping and mountain men around well after the war. I think we see the decline in the Will Geer character. "No more griz..". I'm going to remove the OR, and add a little more about the film. Crockspot 23:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Feb 5th 2007 has an excellent plot summary of the movie, I can't see any reason why it was removed by 67.117.146.139 along with most of the rest of the page. It's possible that was an accident though. Either way I'm restoring the plot summary, anyone more familiar with the movie is welcome to go over it for innaccuracies. --Superslash 14:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the line about Del Gue - "It is said that after he killed the indians Del would have sex with their dead bodies" - is either vandalism or a gross misunderstanding of DG's line "Where're you goin'? Don't you WANT any of these?", clarified when Johnson asks "What?" and DG responds "Scalps!" Johnson's disgusted "No!" is followed by DG's manic, "Well, Mother Gue never raised such a foolish child." I am removing the line.

Second, Del Gue makes it apparent that the Blackfoot warriors who stole his horse and "passables" and buried him neck deep in the sand were the same ones who had killed "Caleb's" (JJ's renaming of the now-catatonic boy's) family - "You seen what they done to that boy's family." I'm changing "Crow" to "Blackfoot." The sense of this in the larger context of the film is that Johnson, according to Gue and the Flathead band that welcomes JJ, DG, and Caleb and whose chief Two Tongues LeBeau offers his daughter Swan in marriage to Johnson, is that because he is the one who avenges "the crazy woman in the Wolf Tail Valley" he is now "big medicine," worthy of respect and a degree of fear. That the Wolf Tail Valley is apparently on the Crow land of Paints His Shirt Red's band does not preclude the marauding and painted Blackfoot warriors from having committed the atrocity. The control of the land by the Crow and its significance as the beginning of Johnson's reputation among them make it a logical spot for the "war memorial" that JJ stumbles upon near the end of the film. Sensei48 06:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)sensei48

Fair use rationale for Image:Jeremiah Johnson.jpeg

Image:Jeremiah Johnson.jpeg 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) 18:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit Rationale, 2/10/08

Reasons for the changes:

1) There is no evidence at all that the Blackfoot "spared" the woman and child. To the contrary - it is likelier that "Caleb" and his mother hid successfully, as the warriors hatcheted at least two other children, including a little girl. "Sparing" as used is unjustified and, here, ungrammatical.

2)The rest of the article correctly uses the surname "Johnson" to identify the character; including the first name once is inconsistent and unnecessary. "Backpack" is a contemporary term that does not accurately describe Swan's "pack," often referred to in the mountain man era as a parfleche.

3) "Tribe" is a singular collective noun - hence "its."

4) "Knowing the struggle and loss" requires a modifier for clarification. "Grimacingly" is not a word in English.Sensei48 (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit Rationale 2/20/09

The edit earlier today provided no rationale for the multiple changes made. Some of these are solid corrections that move the article to a more standard style, but others include or perpetuate errors of fact and introduce non-encyclopedic language and style. Some of the reverts are for jargon that borders on slang ("bond" used as a verb in the manner here and "survival skills," a questionable shorthand - no reason is offered for why these awkward phrasings are superior to the expressions that they replaced), but four are for mistakes of fact. First, Johnson and Gue do not "flee" the Blackfoot encampment: there would be no reason to do so since all three warriors are dead, and the audience does not see them depart at all. Second, the soldiers neither demand nor force Johnson to guide them to the stranded wagons; it is completely a matter of moral suasion with both the lieutenant and the preacher coercing Johnson with an appeal to the roots of an identity that he has sought to leave behind. Third and an error I meant to change a year ago but forgot to - Johnson does not see Swan's pack in the Crow burial ground; the camera shows a fleeting image of it torn and discarded in Johnson's last few desperate steps toward the cabin. Fourth, Lapp's exact words at the end are "Were it worth the trouble?" without the word "all." The direct rather than indirect quotation is preferable to maintain consistency with the previous directly-quoted lines.

Contractions are not acceptable encyclopedic style, and I have removed them. Parentheses as used render points that are fundamental to the narrative as, well, parenthetical. The dashes as originally used give the proper and originally intended weight to those points.Sensei48 (talk) 05:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

   As to contractions (in the last 'graph of the preceding talk contrib), the MoS may have once said that, but for the record, it now says

Uncontracted forms such as do not or it is are the default in encyclopedic style; don't and it's are too informal. But contractions should not be expanded mechanically. Sometimes rewriting the sentence as a whole is preferable; and occasionally contractions provide the best solution anyway.

which is quite different, even if it makes no difference in the instance in question. A lot of us can't afford to read (let alone recall) the full substance of the MoS, and must learn on the talk pages most of what we need to get by, so inaccurate recountings of guidelines need to be contradicted.
--Jerzy•t 04:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeremiah Johnson (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 https://web.archive.org/web/20131019170027/http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/cds/detail.cfm/CDID/436/ to http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/cds/detail.cfm/CDID/436/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

AIM Involvement

There is a rumor that after the occupation of Alcatraz Island, the leadership of AIM, the American Indian Movement, sought to influence Hollywood and get them to spread the word about Indian issues through movies. The story is that two films resulted from this pressure, both of which were released in 1972; Little Big Man, starring Dustin Hoffman, and Jeremiah Johnson, starring Robert Redford. I would like to see some reference to this issue, if someone can find a source.

As a young adult, living thru these times.. 1970's.. i do recall AIM occupation and making some demands.. you might check the San Francisco Chronicle for headlines, news coverage. [Another film quite disturbing at the time was 'Soldier Blue' ('70), based on a true story, it was more a reflection of the atrocites of war; i.e., the My Lai Massacre.] (oh yea, btw, LBMan was released in 1970.) The above wasnt signed? Reason, was it was submitted, typed in by Wiki editor/writer? yea, never mind sources, make it up & rewrite history.. 'both of which were released in 1972', dont like my attitude? you know what you can do w/ that. 2602:304:CDAF:A3D0:A8E6:9B35:D3DE:58C1 (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)