Talk:The Bridge (2006 documentary film)

move?

should this be moved to The Bridge (2006 film)? --W3stfa11 17:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

 Done --Closedmouth (talk) 06:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this article was named before, but the title is still confusing, as there were 2 films released in 2006 named The Bridge. Titling this one (2006 film) and the other (2006 drama) doesn't make sense. At the very least a DAB tag should be added to the top of this article. 70.71.22.45 (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. this should be called "The Bridge (2006 documentary)", in additions to the DAB tags now in place.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.140.150 (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources

New BBC piece on the film: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6365207.stm

Fair use rationale for Image:Thebridge-poster.jpg

Image:Thebridge-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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Tricked"?

The article says, "Eric Steel revealed that he had tricked the Golden Gate Bridge committee into allowing him to film the bridge ... In his permit application to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area Steel said he intended 'to capture the powerful, spectacular intersection of monument and nature that takes place every day at the Golden Gate Bridge."

As far as I'm concerned, if bureaucracy forces you to state a reason for taping public activity, it deserves not to be told the full truth. And if that's trickery, so be it.

Well, so be it, then! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.82.6.45 (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't trickery, it's lying, and I think the article should say so.

He lied on the application to the Golden Gate National Recreational Area, part of the National Park Service, so that he could mount automated cameras on parkland overlooking Fort Point, a structure at the base of the bridge on the San Francisco side, an area of heightened security since 9/11. He didn't have to lie, since even a spokesman for the Golden Gate National Recreational Area stated that "free-speech guidelines don't leave a lot of room for federal officials to question content".

He didn't lie. His description encompasses what happens there. Period. In any case this is all blah blah blah opinion and has no place in the article. A "controversies" subheading MIGHT be an appropriate place for your agenda. The Bridge is an amazing place to die. Let people do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.84.171 (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

He's said in interviews that he lied to the families and friends of the suicide victims in order to protect them, by not telling them that he had footage of their loved ones' deaths, knowing all along that footage of some of the suicides would be included in the film. I'm sure the families felt very protected when they either watched the film and were surprised to see footage of their loved ones, or didn't see the footage but knew that Mr. Steel probably has the footage somewhere, and that it might be shown anywhere, anytime. 67.103.42.20 (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I got the impression he told the families what the footage contained and then showed it to them. Considering these are real people we are dealing with, the details are incredibly important. Lots42 (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge from Gene Sprague

Gene Sprague was only one of several people in the film who jump from the bridge. A previous poster allocated an entire section to Gene along with a tasteless picture of Gene's death. I removed the photo long ago because it was a hurtful stunt. and I removed the section about Gene because he is only a small part of the entire movie. His character is not worthy of a a full wikipedcia entry so the poster sneaks text into the movie description. The Gene text is not essential to the description of the movie in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeze41 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It has been suggested that the Gene Sprague article be merged into this article. Discussion has begun at Talk:Gene Sprague, and can be continued here on this Talk page. Thank you very much!
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  07:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Why would this ONE person deserve an article anyway? This is clearly a stunt by people who knew him. The image of him falling to his death was so out of line, so beyond inappropriate as to defy belief. I vote to expunge the Gene Sprague article as not worthy of article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.84.171 (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I would also support a merge, i don't think being notable for one event merits a full BLP article. Other filmed suicide articles appear to be far more notable i.e. Budd Dwyer.Fazipath (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Support merge, not notable enough for own article --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Support merge as well per being notable for one event. Erik (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Support merge. As an individual, non-notable punctuated by WP:ONEEVENT. WWGB (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done WWGB (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Gene Sprague section returned

An IP vandal removed the section on Gene Sprague. Since its sourced, and is in fact a major part of the film, I think it needs to stay. However, the IP vandal could have argued for whether this material was given undue weight, and even though their other edits were all vandalism, I think their case for this sections possible removal could have been discussed rationally, and their view could have been given a fair hearing. I would disagree with them, but if anyone else reading this article feels strongly about the Sprague section being somehow inappropriate, in part or even in whole, talk about it here first. Obviously this film will bring up strong sentiments. Hell, im not sure exactly how i feel about the film, and waver from awe to disgust.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm interesting you refer to the IP editor as a vandal right away. Could it not be a IP with different users (all the edits are far apart), should we not assume good faith? The user did provide an edit summary and their edit was not disputed until one month later by you. As for the inclusion, the merge discussion before said to merge in here, i think including the info here, although not in as huge detail, is fine. Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not an IP vandal. Gene Sprague was only one of several people who were featured in the movie. I will continue to remove the Gene Sprague content as it is not a particularly important part of the movie. Many people kill themselves every day and do not earn a spot in wikipedia. In addition to writing about Gene, you tastelessly added a picture of him in mid flight to his death. The Gene S. content should be buried along with Gene. Let Gene RIP. I didn't know edits were discussed in this manner. The whole entry needs to be rewritten as it is more op ed than encyclopedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.84.171 (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

IP editor is consistently arguing from their emotions that Mr. Sprague should not be mentioned. the film names him, and his story is the framing event of the entire film. I fully understand why someone might find the documentation of the mans suicide as distasteful. I said above how i personally feel. however, we arent the ones who made the documentary. removing the material based on a desire to respect the mans privacy is not a valid argument. If someone thinks the whole article is too detailed, then his mention may be shrunk accordingly. IP editor is also only editing this article, is only removing this content, and is only arguing from emotions. Yes, the IP could be different users, but since they are all doing the same thing, it amounts to the same. (ps the Iliad and Odyssey were not written by Homer. they were written by someone else named Homer...). leaving an edit summary doesnt disqualify them as a vandal, just like not leaving a summary doesnt make one a vandal. I will not add back the content, but i strongly encourage others who reach this talk page to state your views on the matter. I also know that for people directly connected to this film in any way, its an extremely painful subject. I had hoped to summarize the subject in a way that respected the relative importance of the film, neither downplaying its import or giving undue importance to any part of it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Rollback IP editor delete again.RicHard-59 (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

OK its deleted again, lets keep it in this short form to avoid ed-war? --RicHard-59 (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC) (Not G:s friend)

(Copied from a hidden comment) His first name was not Eugene - see [1] RicHard-59 (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC) and findagrave --RicHard-59 (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting new source

I think this link could be somewhat interesting: https://www.quora.com/What-was-your-15-minutes-of-fame-67/answer/Isabel-Eckes If true, perhaps the line "In one case a woman traversed the upper railing to the lower railing only to be pulled by her collar back to safety by an unrelated photographer" should be ommitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7REPTILLIAN7 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)