Talk:The Natural (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

Plot section is kind of long. Removed sentences like "As Hobbs steps up to the batter's box with divine determination, the lightning flashes again, and Hobbs swings Wonderboy, infused with the soul of his father, and connects: the culmination of his quest."

I got rid of a lot of the excessive interpretation and details, but it could probably still be further shortened. 151.200.126.105 07:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Even now, it's a big improvement. It had read like someone writing an essay about the film for high school English class. Baseball Bugs 07:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Baker - writing credits

As the novel was written in 1952, and Kevin Baker was born in 1958, I doubt he co-wrote the novel. That page shows a recent paperback cover with an introduction by Baker - which I suspect is where that misinformation came from.

Also, I don't think Malamud wrote the screenplay - I will adjust to match IMDB. -- Beardo 05:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


Time Setting of Film

The article says the movie is set in 1939, but the plaque shown after Bump Bailey's funeral clearly shows 1929 as his year of death. Should we adjust this in the article? MichaelBlankley 18:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The film is set in 1939. As I recall, the uniforms were depicted with the "Baseball Centennial" patch that was issued that year. As with the supposed birthdate of Bump Bailey, I'll have to check that with the DVD sometime. Also, perhaps it's a carryover from the book? When was the book set? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Siskel

Apparently there is no official Siskel site anywhere, but countless sites have his top 10 lists, presumably copied from a site that existed at one time, or maybe from some out-of-print book. Maybe someone could track it down. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's another example, which lists both Siskel & Ebert's lists. www.uoregon.edu/~dbishop/fun/movies/topten.html Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Both of the sites referenced are self-published, and, unfortunately, unsourced. Baseball Bugs asks, "Why would some guy "fake" a series of Siskel's Top 10 lists?" I'm not questioning the blogger's honesty; it's just that we have no way of verifying his accuracy. There are a number of "Siskel Top 10" lists, but they all share the characteristics of residing on someone's personal website and not a single one cites any sources. The number of them doesn't matter because it's entirely possible (and likely) all have a single genesis point, probably one of the blogs (it's curious that they pretty much cover the same time period, but of course that may be just because those are the only lists Siskel ever created).
Baseball Bugs also stated that, "Blogs are not automatically excluded" as reliable sources. Actually, they are specifically listed as unacceptable sources at Verifiability: ". . . self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources" because anyone can create a website and claim themselves experts. Consequently, I am removing the statement from the article. Baseball Bugs said, "Feel free to find a source that contradicts it," indicating it is up to others to prove the blog posting wrong. Wikipedia does not work that way. In fact, WP specifically states, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." The guideline continues, "Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references." I intentionally did not initially remove the unsupported material so that I and others would have time to find a valid cite; I tagged it instead. In the mean time, I (and apparently Baseball Bugs) have searched extensively and can find no reliable source to support the statement that Gene Siskel listed The Natural in an annual top ten list. I'm not saying he didn't; I just can't prove that he did. (But it does seem a bit strange that no reliable source references it; Siskel was pretty notable; maybe the whole thing is some kind of urban legend . . . .) When I'm in the bookstore next I'll see if I can find a Siskel book that supports it, and then I'll be glad to restore the copy. If someone else can find something, that would be great.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

References in popular culture needs work

I placed maintenance tags on this section because it is presented trivially and individual items should be merged — where appropriate — into other sections of the article (such as Response, when one is created). More importantly, not a single item is sourced and thus cannot be verified. An editor's comment that "Many of them give specifics on the sources" is inaccurate. I could not find a single one that cites a specific source. If the editor is referring to the internal linking to other WP articles, then that doesn't meet the requirement of WP:CITE (Wikipedia doesn't allow citing itself) and many of those articles are not even sufficiently sourced or contain the analysis attributed to them. For example, one statement in the article says, "Satirical or comedic uses of the score or other plot elements have included: The third-season episode of The Simpsons, titled Homer at the Bat." Clicking on Homer at the Bat finds no reference to comedic or satirical uses of the score, much less the words "satire" or "comedy". So not even close.

Consequently, these maintenance tags, which are there to alert readers to potential verifiability and accuracy issues, and alert editors who are interested in fixing the problems, should not be removed until the problems are remedied.
Jim Dunning | talk 20:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

After carefully reviewing the items listed in this section, it's apparent they should be removed per style guidelines for WP:Verifiability and WP:TRIVIA. None of the items are sourced, and even when wikilinked to other WP articles, there's no relevant material there to explain the assertion or analysis made (so we can't use those other articles to facilitate locating credible sources). Also, most of the items are so trivial they are unencyclopedic: a satellite radio TV commercial, a minor reference to the movie in an obscure 90s sitcom, comedy bits from a decade ago ESPN sports show or defunct late-night comedy show, playing the theme music during baseball games, etc. Since most of the examples are sports-related, you have to question how these things fit into general "popular culture"; they are part of "sports culture" (baseball player documentary, ESPN baseball coverage, playing music at ball parks). And some things I'm not even sure I know what is meant by the reference (e.g. "retellings"?). (And since when is Charlie Brown "infamous"?)
My first inclination was to keep the topic in the article by summarizing the gist of the list and adding material from credible sources who have noted a "significant" contribution to popular culture by The Natural, but since no reliable sources can be found, even this can't be done (therefore it doesn't appear to be a significant contribution at this time). Consequently, most, if not all, of this list appears to be WP editors' original research.
On the chance that some of the material can be used down the road, I've relocated it to this Discussion page, thus giving interested editors the opportunity to appropriately source the material and restore it appropriately to the article.
Jim Dunning | talk 05:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The film's imagery and music, especially for Hobb's dramatic final at-bat, have frequently been cited for use for either dramatic or satirical effect.
Sincere or emphatic uses of the score have included:
  • A documentary about upcoming MVP and future Hall of Famer Ryne Sandberg in 1984, the year of the film's release.
  • Retellings of Ichiro Suzuki's breaking of the single-season hits record held by George Sisler
  • Retellings of Game 1 of the 1988 World Series, when a seriously injured Kirk Gibson hit a dramatic game-winning 9th inning home run reminiscent of Roy Hobbs' blast to win the pennant.
  • At ballparks when a home-team player hits a significant home run, as the Boston Red Sox did on September 21, 2006 when David Ortiz blasted his 51st Home Run of the season, breaking Jimmie Foxx's 68 year old Red Sox club record of 50 Home Runs.
  • The theme was played as Frank Robinson walked off the field at RFK Stadium after his penultimate game as a manager.
  • The theme was also used when Cal Ripken's 2,500th consecutive game became official, and during his farewell tour at every one of his at-bats since he announced his retirement in 2001.
  • The theme was played in Comerica Park after Detroit Tigers pitcher Justin Verlander's no-hitter in 2007, as well as in Yankee Stadium the same year after Alex Rodriguez hit his 500th career home run.
Satirical or comedic uses of the score or other plot elements have included:
  • The third-season episode of The Simpsons, titled Homer at the Bat.
  • Another third-season episode, titled Saturdays of Thunder.
  • The eleventh-season episode Hello Gutter, Hello Fadder.
  • The episode 'The Natural' of It's Garry Shandling's Show mirrors the movie, except that ping-pong is the sport instead of baseball. A special paddle is the mythical 'Wonderboy'.
  • The pilot episode of Quantum Leap (sometimes called 'Genesis') ends with Sam Beckett scoring the season-ending run for a minor league team, shortly after Al tells him 'Well, you're not Roy Hobbs, either.' The script notes that 'from this point on, we duplicate the shooting style of The Natural.' Parallels between the two scenes include Sam asking the bat boy to choose a good bat for him and unexpected lightning, slow motion and similar music. However, Sam misses the ball, and scores on a wild pitch and two errors.
  • In the movie BASEketball, numerous references are made to The Natural, including the ball that the main character calls 'La-Z-Boy', because he made it himself from a recliner. Also similar is a scene near the end where the 'La-Z-Boy' pops as the main character is coming up to the plate in a similar situation as Hobbs at the end of The Natural. A young boy who is somewhat a of a little brother figure to him throughout the film gives him a replacement ball that he made himself, which the main character promptly wins the game with.
  • In a Peanuts comic strip published on March 30, 1993, in his final at bat of the little league season, infamous character Charlie Brown hit a home run for the first time in any Peanuts comic. Afterwards, it was revealed that he hit it off of the great-granddaughter of the fictional Roy Hobbs character. Hobbs' granddaughter returned to the strip intermittently through the mid-nineties. In one series, she tried to sell an authentic bat signed by Roy Hobbs to Charlie Brown. Charlie Brown refused and Lucy bought the bat thinking it was a rare collectible item. Eventually, she admitted to the fact that Roy Hobbs was fictional.
  • A TV ad for XM Satellite Radio radio, played during the 2006 Major League Baseball championship series, referred directly to the climactic scene in the film. It showed an animated baseball flying toward an animated light tower, shattering the lights, accompanied by the corresponding portion of the film score.
  • In Two Guys a Girl and a Pizza Place season 1 episode 6 'The Softball Team', Mr. Bauer takes a cue from The Natural, against Tessio's Pizza.
  • In the late 1990's, Baseball Tonight spoofed the broken bat sequence with Dave Campbell as Roy Hobbs in a commercial for the post-season coverage.

I have HAD IT with you dinking around with this article, on a film you obviously know little or nothing about. You need to STAY AWAY until you do some research on it instead of trashing what others WHO KNOW ABOUT THE FILM have written about it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm uncertain by what is meant by "The DVD's of the episodes are the sources. They are verifiable. To call them unsourced is not true,' when you restore all of the "examples" of references to The Natural in popular culture. DVD episodes of what? I'm guessing you might mean the handful that are in video format, like the three Simpsons episodes (even though "Hello Gutter, Hello Fadder" is not released yet), or the Two Guys, A Girl, or Baseball Tonight? Well, even if we lump in the handful of other examples that are not naturally video in format (like Peanuts or home run celebrations at ballparks around the country), WP editors cannot make these comparisons between the content of The Natural film and any of the other works mentioned. WP:PSTS says, "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Believe it or not, saying that the film and a Peanuts cartoon share storylines or events (or parodies, or music, etc.) is considered analysis. We, as WP editors cannot make that analysis; instead, we can find a third-party, credible source that says those two things are similar (or dissimilar) and reference her/him with the appropriate verifiable citations. And going further and making the assertion that such similarities or references are used for "comedic" or "satirical" effect creates an even greater burden of sourcing. This includes the examples from BASEketball, where someone observed that a ball is called "La-Z-Boy", because the main character made it from a recliner. Unless someone like an Ebert, or Siskel or Desson publishes the analysis that BASEketball is making a nod to The Natural, you (or I) cannot place that information in this article.
Please review the guidelines on original research, verifiability, sourcing and citing before making any move to integrate the removed material into the article. It's been relocated here with the intention to make it available as raw research material while keeping it out of the article so it doesn't mislead a reader. Discussions about re-adding anything should be made here to gain consensus first. Also, read WP:AGF before making wild, unsupported claims about other editors' contributions. You might also take a look at other film articles (The Prestige, Children of Men, No Country for Old Men) for an idea of what I'd like to see this article become.
Jim Dunning | talk 12:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

DVD's or other publicly available primary sources are valid sources. Your claim that they are not, is not correct. If someone says that something occurred in a TV or film, and if that film is either available as a primary source, or is referenced by what you consider to be a reliable secondary source, then it is valid information. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as supposed "analysis" goes, the next thing you'll tell me is that I can't call "The Simpsons" a comedy without footnoting some other source that says it's a comedy. Under your theory, every sentence in every article needs to be footnoted. Good luck with that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Taking your comments and questions on this and my Talk page together, I'm uncertain to which to respond first. Let's take it in digestible portions then since you were good enough to drive directly to the crux by mentioning "analysis". Also, you assert that I've said (1) DVDs and other publicly available primary sources are not valid sources, (2) that "every sentence in every article" needs to be footnoted, and (3) that I don't believe Plot summaries can be written from watching or reading fiction works. Let me clarify then: (1) Fiction works are valid sources, but only within the narrow limits set by WP Official Policy; (2) yes, every sentence may have to be footnoted; and (3) no, I agree Plot summaries of fiction works can be written from the primary sources. And since you've directed me not to make any more changes or comments without "researching" first, you should be happy that I'm providing that research below.
My contribution history bears out that I do believe Plot summaries can be based on the original material; I regularly create and contribute to both film and literature plot summaries. Although WP:NOR policy requires that "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source," it specifically – but narrowly – excludes fiction plot summaries from this requirement —
[The plot summary must] only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.
Thus, as long as the reference to the primary source is purely "descriptive" and avoids "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" about what is shown (or heard) in that primary source, we, as WP editors, are okay. So, let's look at just two of the examples that are listed in the "Cultural references" section: The Natural's theme music is used for "satirical or comedic" purposes in The Simpsons episodes, and the assertion that the "La-Z-Boy" ball in BASEketball is a reference to Hobbs's bat.
Merely mentioning that the theme music is heard in The Simpsons "Homer at the Bat" is acceptable (as long as it is easily identifiable, or, if not easily identifiable, referenced in a show credit), but as soon as an editor states it's there for "satirical or comedic" effect, then she is making an analysis. She is either "explaining" to the reader or "interpreting" why the writers chose to use the music in the episode, and that is excluded per the WP:PSTS policy. The only way the statement can be made in this article then, is to find a credible, secondary or tertiary source that has made the "analysis" that the music is there for satirical or comedic purposes and provide a citation for it. That's why many highly rated articles (Roberto Clemente, Ty Cobb, Children of Men) have numerous footnotes: they are complying with WP's Verifiability policy; depending on the claims made by editors, many sentences may require footnotes. In this case, we need to find a reviewer, critic, producer, or screenwriter who interprets or explains why the music was used and cite it. If that reference is on the extra stuff or commentary in a DVD release, then it must still be cited, because the article's plot summary is about the fiction work's story, not the "extras". By all means, include the analysis, but cite it.
As for "La-Z-Boy", the fact that the BASEketball storyline includes events about a ball called "La-Z-Boy" can be mentioned in a plot summary (BASEketball's plot summary, that is), but inclusion in this article is only valid through making the connection that it is a reference to The Natural and that is "analysis" or synthesis. The WP editor cannot do that, but he is free (and encouraged) to include it if someone else makes the connections and he cites it. If David Zucker, Matt Stone or Trey Parker have specifically stated somewhere that La-Z-Boy is a nod to Wonderboy, then that's great; since it's not part of The Natural's plot, then merge it appropriately into this article and source it. If no credible source has made the connection, though, then it can't go in the article. This can be frustrating for we editors, however, if we can't find a source for what we think is very obvious. But a couple things: (1) one man's obvious may be another man's obscure; (2) lack of publication of the observation or analysis may mean that the analysis is just not significant enough to pop culture to even be mentioned and therefore may not be appropriate for that section of the article.
A similar situation: WP editors cannot identify differences between a film's story and the novel from which it is adapted without relying on a credible source to publish the comparison first. In fact, if a cut of the film on the DVD release differs from the initial release, we editors cannot make the comparison without citing a source that has already made the analysis (the director's commentary would work in this instance – if the director actually makes the statement – but since the comparison isn't part of the fictional work's plot, it would have to be cited; curiously, a WP article about the DVD commentary could include it as straight description, but that would be in that article, not this article).
Baseball Bugs, I'm sorry my attempts to improve this article appear adversarial to you; they aren't intended to be. I am trying to raise its quality to GA by ensuring it is interesting, useful to readers, and conforms to WP's highest standards. Before this discussion this article was completely unsourced (and still has only one cite); compare The Natural's references section with those of other film articles that are GA or even B quality. Also, take a look at the quality of the other sections (especially sections this article hasn't even addressed yet, such as Development, Production, Adaptation, Themes, etc.); that's what I think we should be aiming for. And for the record, I've taken an interest in this article because I very much enjoy the movie and the sport. Please stop making claims that I "HATE" the movie or article; they are disingenuous. Instead we need to source the items that are appropriate to a "cultural references" section and make the section more interesting and useful by condensing it. Leaving it as a list and not converting it to prose leaves out valuable description and analysis.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
What you are calling "analysis" is nothing more than trying to break up the list a bit, and get away from the wikipedia rule against "indiscriminate" lists. The Simpsons is a comedy show, a satire. I don't need CNN or The New York Times to verify that fact. Thus I put their usages of The Natural references under "satirical or lighter" usages. If that's too much "analysis", well, fine, dump the subheadings and just make one long list. And keep it a list, to keep it readable. If you run it all together as one long "prose" paragraph, it makes it much less readable. Another issue is of references. You can say a lone personal website or blog is not a reliable source, which is a fair argument. But if you find 100 or 1,000 blogs that make an assertion, and you continue to insist that is unreliable, then you are guilty of what I call wikipedia snobbery. Information "from the people" is supposed to be ignored as "unreliable". That's often true, but not in this context. And that philosophy is ironic anyway, since any idiot can edit wikipedia (me included, obviously). Thus, the statement "some people say Newman's music is Coplandesque" is a true statement, and is verifiable by citing blogs that say that. The statement does not demonstrate that the music is Coplandesque, it's that some people say it is. Citing the many supposedly "inadmissable" websites demonstrates that that is both true and verifiable. Luckily, I found one site from a "reliable" source that pointed that out. What I need to do is dig through my various files and find the origin of that comment and some others. The other thing, in general, is that I sense that you really just don't want the list and are fishing for reasons to get rid of it. You complain about verifiability, I demonstrate that it's verifiable. You complain that it's indiscriminate, I try to organize it, and you complain about that being "analysis". Then you want it in "prose", unreadable, and more likely to be zapped later. No matter what I come up with to answer your complaints, you've always got another complaint. The plain fact is, you just don't like it. Which is not sufficient reason to delete it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Read WP:PSTS: The fact that the music is used in a comedy work doesn't automatically make its use comedic or satirical (and not all satire is intended to be funny). We need a reliable source to first make the interpretation that it is used to promote comedy or satire.
  • Read WP:RS: the definition of reliable sources is not mine, but the that of the environment you have agreed to work within. Blogs are not reliable sources and volume doesn't make unacceptable sources acceptable.
  • I have no problem with the section's intent. I enjoy recognizing such influences on pop culture and if it's significant it should be in the article. I would love to develop this section of the article further with acceptable and significant information.
  • Stop the personal attacks.
    Jim Dunning | talk 18:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Then I'll remove the sub-headings and make it a single, long list, and avoid this ridiculous charge of "analysis". You did not read what I said about the use of blogs. Significance is always a matter of debate. A "real" encyclopedia wouldn't have an article about The Natural in the first place. I have made no personal attacks. All I can go by is what I read in what you've written. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Instead of zapping the sub-headings, I regrouped them slightly into usages connected with actual sporting events, and uses in other works of fiction. Hopefully that's not too much "analysis". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

References, arbitrary break 1

I have been asked to come here and lend an unbiased eye on the matter regarding the references in the article. I'm going to first comment on the relatively uncivil tone Baseballgugs has taken with Jim Dunning, except to commend Jim on his restraint; many other editors would have reacted in kind. I think its important to remember that we all bring something to the table, and people need to give others the credit they wish to receive in return. I have learned myself the hard way that failing to practice this deceptively simple manta tends to lead to endless debate that actually disrupts the article. No one wins these sorts of debates, as I've yet to see anyone push another editor up against the wall with their mighty telekinetic abilities. So maybe you can cool your ire, Bugs. It certainly isn't going to make jim or any other editor worth their salt back down from policy, and following the behavior to its inevitable conclusion will have less than pleasant consequences.
Secondly, Jim is absolutely correct here. There are four major problems with the information listed in the article under references in popular culture. I list them in order of both their importance and order of sifting:

1. WP:CITE - The information is unsourced, and quite likely the product of synthesis. While Bugs is correct that not every little things needs to be cited, the actual rule is "all material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." This isn't negotiable. It's etched in stone, and the stone itself is set within the chest of a living albino buffalo that the Golden Child rides around upon for fun. Serious, it's not open to discussion. One would need to change a lot of policies to get around that one.
2. WP:PSTS, WP:OR, WP:SYN - As the instances you list are what you read on the back of a DVD cover or whatnot, cannot be included, as you are not considered - by Wikipedia - to be a valid source of citable information. Jim was polite enough to nudge bugs over to WP:PSTS, whereas another, less patient editor might have simply shoved him (which deserves a thank you, to my reckoning). To summarize, what an individual thinks isn't important. what one references what others think (and can prove they think that) and note it is in fact what is important.
3. WP:TRIVIA - Back when i started in Wikipedia, I thought that trivia sections were a dandy source of raw material for the rest of the article, to be mined for content. A rather brilliant editor (I cannot remember if it was Bignole or Erik), helped me to see it as distracting, cumbersome and likely not noteworthy. I've since taken to removing most trivia sections to the discussion page, so that they can be sourced by other editors, and not simply consigned to the junk heap of edit history. I see that Jim was insightful and polite enough to do that. Wikipedia doesn't have lists of info. A better way is to take the sourced info and turn it into a paragraph or two that link common factors in the occurrences of The Natural in pop culture. I see that Bugs has made an attempt to arrange that material, which is commendable, but its putting the horse somewhat before the carriage. One has to have solid material from which to sculpt a section from.
4. WP:NOTE - Is the information "worthy of notice"? In most FA film articles, it can be easily seen that most of the references that note reflections in pop culture come from sources that are speaking not only about the source movie, but how the pop cultural notation is connected to it. In every instance, the reference is supposed to have a very strong connection to the source material. In the 300 film article, only those instances that pointedly copied the plot of the film to a fine degree, or a cinematic style were considered notable enough for inclusion. I rather think that applying that sort of reasoning here is not only appropriate but necessary.

I hope that helps. Please do not re-add the information removed from the article without fulfilling the criteria listed above. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What you have REALLY been asked to do is help that user ASSUME OWNERSHIP OF THE PAGE. Fine, it's yours. Seeya. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources

With the page locked down for a week, and due to expire about 10 hours from now, that hiatus gave me a chance to find the sources to settle two or three points of contention, such as Gene Siskel giving it a 4-star rating. I don't have access to Siskel's top 10 lists (other than the hundreds of websites on which it appears), but at least I can verify that he gave it a good review. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, make that 8 hours now, plus one day. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected

A week. I guess you need to discuss your concerns and reach a consensus and rather then revert warring your way out of the disagreement. Spartaz Humbug! 17:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As the other party has left the article, is page protection even necessary at this point? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm assured by Bugs that the eidt war has ceased. Consequently I have unblocked but will relock is edit warring continues Spartaz Humbug! 12:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead

I've created Production and Award sections (per Film Style Guidelines) as we expand the article, but mostly to hold copied passages from the article's Lead while they are sourced. These passages are needed in the article body to support the Lead content per WP:LEAD. My apologies for their verbatim nature while they are worked on.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TheNatural.jpg

Image:TheNatural.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) 04:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources redux

A while back additional information was added to a statement about Levinson providing the uncredited voice for the announcer (added info in parentheses): "Levinson stated on the DVD extras for the 2007 edition that there had been too little time to find a bona fide announcer during post-production, so Levinson himself recorded that part of the audio track[2] (and probably also that of the scout, who appears in just two lines, over the phone)." The text clearly attributes the info about the announcer to the DVD extras, but the part about the scout's voice is unclear.

I'd like to expand the ref to include that if such a change is accurate. Does anyone know if Levinson acknowledges being the scout as well (and where)?
Jim Dunning | talk 13:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he explicitly says that, it's just that he did the voice-overs for the unseen radio broadcaster because he didn't have time to hire anyone, so it's an assumption that he did those two lines on the phone to the Judge also, albeit effecting a "dese and dose" kind of accent. Maybe not, but I can't imagine he would hire a guy to do two lines, when he couldn't even find a guy to do the radio voice. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Little known fact...

Everyone wonders what happened to Roy Hobbs for all those years between being shot by Harriet Bird and turning up at Knights Field, seemingly nobody from nowhere. Well, I gonna tell ya. After that near-fatal shooting, he changed his name to Johnny Hooker, and took up a life of crime, as a grifter. After scratching around for awhile, he teamed up with veteran con-man Henry Gondorff and pulled off a major "Sting" against a big New York wheel named Doyle Lonegan. After losing half a million dollars in an ill-advised bet, Lonegan was forced to sell his stock in the New York Knights, and bought the farm. In an amazing coincidence, the now-independently-wealthy Gondorff retired from grifting and became a scout for the Knights. He "discovered" the now-independently-wealthy Roy Hobbs playing ball again as a hobby. Gondorff sent Hobbs to the Knights' new owner, the Judge. Hobbs took on the assignment as a lark. And the rest is "Natural" history. The two old pals made a bundle betting on the Knights, and bankrupting the Judge and his gambler friends. Strange, but true. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The Mystery

The plot description doesn't mention the reason for Hobbs's bizarre 16 year break from baseball after the shooting. If no reason is given, but it's left a mystery, then that should be explicitly stated. When a central mystery in a film isn't explained, that is in itself noteworthy.

(For what it's worth: I haven't seen the entire film, but I've been told that Hobbs was for some reason imprisoned after the shooting and the shooter's suicide. If that's correct, it introduces the minor mystery as to how he could have been found guilty of a crime.) 80.217.121.0 (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no mystery. He says in the film he knocked around from here to there. Now, he's back. End of story. If the film does not say, neither do we, and we certainly do not speculate. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 00:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
The implication is that he had a lengthy convalescence from the shooting, and eventually played low-level minor league or semi-pro ball at least for awhile. It's also possible he was tending his late father's farm. But the movie doesn't really say. The best bet would be to find the book and see what Malamud has to say about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying we should speculate. The plot synopsis just says that Hobbs "subsequently lost his way in life". If the movie really is that vague about it, that should be made clear, so that ignorant readers (like me) don't get the impression that the synopsis leaves out an important part. Also, I think there very much is a mystery, whether explained or not: if someone that passionate and talented "knocks around" for a decade and a half, that's something very remarkable. 80.217.121.0 (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
One thing to keep in mind is that it was much easier for most any individual to just "fade into the woodwork" in those days, than it probably is nowadays. He didn't totally break away from baseball, but was in small towns playing before very few spectators - one of which, eventually, happened to be a scout working for The Judge, otherwise he never would have seen the light of day in the majors. Another mystery is how he managed to keep Wonder Boy intact for all those years. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Natural (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Natural (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:

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) 16:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Natural_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1111999348"