Talk:The Shawshank Redemption/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Plot timeline

The plot doesn't describe as they happened in the movie. Namely, the Plot section describes how Andy expanded the library, got an office etc. before he got severely beaten and sent to the infermary (thus leading to Bogs' beating). The beating happened before he got a libarary and an 'office'.

I think this should be corrected. 89.212.25.208 (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Plot summaries do not need to adhere strictly to the order of the events in the movie if the events are otherwise unconnected, if it helps to condense the plot summary. --MASEM 14:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The Count of Monte Cristo

Apart from the case of George Orwell's 'Burmese Days and Graham Greene's The Heart of the Matter, I don't think I've ever come across two such similar stories as The Count of Monte Cristo and the Shawshank Redemption. David Tombe (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That may be why it is referenced in the scene where the convicts sort through the donated books... but please don't post forum-like comments on Wikipedia talk pages; these are primarily for discussing the article rather than the content. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 02:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The purpose was to find out if it would be suitable to mention the fact in the main article. In other words, 'have other people noticed this too, and should the fact be brought to attention in the main article? I wasn't aware of the fact that it was actually referenced in that scene, but now that I am aware, this tends to back the idea up. David Tombe (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Yes I had noticed it. So did Jonathan Rosembaum, whoever wrote this and either Stephen King himself or a guy with a website that looks like his ;). Feel free to work this into the article. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 08:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I must have missed that bit where The Count of Monte Cristo book appeared in the movie. There was obviously a reason for having that bit, and so on reflection, I now don't think that the similarity between the two stories needs to be overtly mentioned in the main article. David Tombe (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"...at the notorious Shawshank Prison in Maine. "

Why "notorious"? Gridge (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC).

Someon's POV. I'll remove it. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 22:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Trim

I felt that the trim was a bit too thorough. So I reverted it and decided to do it myself. Grieferhate (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was fine. I reverted your redo as it was too long again. Is there a particular major plot point that you feel is missing? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted you again, Grieferhate. The newer version was too long and detailed. I believe all the major points are present without belabouring the reader. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine. But I think that this stupid trim has caused a major dispute over the page. I think that it is very good the way it currently is and that the detail I added was necessary - for a start, Brooks Hatlen was released early on, Andy's chess set plays a major role, as it is one of Andy's most major achievments, and I think that the reference to Elmo Blatch needed much more detail - it is a significant part of the plot. Grieferhate (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to stick to the exact timeline of the movie if it helps the editorial flow as long as its not purposely falsifying the plot. But other things are being added that are in too much detail overall; the Elmo Blatch stuff is only necessary to show that Tommy's a witness to Andy's innocence and subsequently killed for that - all the discriptive stuff about "hotshot lawyer" etc is flavor in the movie but not important. The fact the rock hammer ended up in Exodus is an ironic aspect but unimportant to the whole movie. There is one scene that I know is somewhat extraneous - the Marriage of Figaro part - but that is a critically acclaimed scene (as cited below) and needs to be kept. There probably are more scenes that are critically acclaimed that could go in the plot but may not be either - eg the one overhead shot when Andy gets completely free and standing rejoicing in the rain is used all the time for this movie, but that itself is not critical to the plot. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Right. I think that this page looks fine now. However, there is one small mistake that keeps being put back in the plot. That is that it insists that Red is released many years after Andy's escape. However, it is specifically indicated in the movie that it is only a year later that he is paroled. Grieferhate (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is it specifically indicated? I've watched it a dozen times or more, and always got the impression it was several years later. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember it being specifically one year later, although its been awhile since I've seen the flick. This could be one of those cases where any exact timeframe is constructed through original research, so it's probably best to leave it the way it is. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The story takes place over a period of two decades. Halfway through the movie, it is said that Red has served 30 years of his sentence. Then, when Red is released, it is said that he had served 40 years. Red also mentions that "Andy [broke through his wall] in less than twenty." So it has to have been exactly a year later, not several. Grieferhate (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That is WP:OR, and not anything stated explicitly in the film. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually if you watch the credits the store manager and parole officer from the year Red is released are referred to as "1967 store manager" etc. So it was exactly a year later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.1.127.212 (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Allmovie

• The Shawshank Redemption at AllMovie ... plot synopsis, review, cast, production credits, awards

Reference available for citing in the article body. Erik (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced

This was removed from the production as it is entirely unsourced except one line, which is "sourced" to IMDB - an unreliable source.

The Shawshank Redemption was filmed in and around the city of Mansfield, Ohio, located in north-central Ohio. The prison featured in the film is the old Ohio State Reformatory immediately north of downtown Mansfield. The Reformatory buildings have been used in several other films, including Harry and Walter Go to New York, Air Force One and Tango and Cash. Most of the prison yard has now been demolished to make room for expansion of the adjacent Richland Correctional Institute, but the Reformatory's Gothic Administration Building remains standing and, due to its prominent use in films, has become a tourist attraction. The real warden of the Richland Correctional Institute had a cameo appearance as the prisoner seated directly behind Tommy on his bus ride to prison and several other staff members from the nearby Mansfield Correctional Institution have small roles.

Several exterior scenes were shot at the Malabar Farm State Park, in nearby Lucas, Ohio. The sequence in which Andy is parked outside his home contemplating murdering his wife was filmed at the Pugh Cabin within the park. The sequences representing the village of Buxton and the field where Red finds Andy's hidden letter were filmed on private land located opposite the park entrance on Bromfield Road. The oak tree is clearly visible from the roadside. The adjacent rock wall, which was constructed specifically for the film, is located on the far side of the hill away from the roadside. The wall is still standing, although it has been somewhat eroded. Other scenes were shot in Ashland, Butler, and Upper Sandusky (all in Ohio) and in Portland, Maine. The two scenes in Mexico were filmed on the Island of St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The first scene where Andy is driving a convertible on a road along the Pacific Coast with the top down is route 73 on the north side of St. Croix between Salt River (where Christopher Columbus landed in 1493) and Cane Bay. The second scene was the last scene of the movie. Red was walking on a beach toward his friend Andy while he worked on repairs to a boat on the beach. That was filmed at Sandy Point National Wildlife Refuge on the southwest point of St.Croix.

The photo of a young Red on his parole forms is that of Morgan Freeman's son, Alfonso. Alfonso is seen in the yard when Andy's load of prisoners is first dropped off, shouting enthusiastically "Fresh Fish! Fresh Fish" whilst reeling in an imaginary fishing line. Alfonso later played a parody of his father's character, Red, in a short spoof titled The Sharktank Redemption, available on the second disc of the 10th anniversary DVD.

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The following was removed as being sourced to unreliable sources:

The film's dominant themes of hope, original sin, redemption, salvation, and faith in the afterlife have led some critics to interpret the film as a Christian parable. Some Christian reviewers have referred to it as a film "true to Christian principles."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/pre2000/rvu-shawshank.html|title=Review: The Shawshank Redemption|author=Debra L. Lewis|date=1994|accessdate=2007-12-26}}</ref>{{rs|date=April 2010}} In the director's commentary track on the tenth anniversary DVD, Darabont denies any intent to create such a parable, and calls such interpretations of the film "fantastic." Others have pointed out that the film's tidy dispatching of its principal antagonists—Hadley's tearful arrest, Norton's suicide, and Bogs' paralysis—would seem to have more to do with Old Testament retribution than New Testament redemption.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/dvdreviews/shawshankredemption.htm |title=Review: The Shawshank Redemption |author=Walter Chaw |publisher=filmfreakcentral.net}}</ref>{{rs|date=April 2010}} In addition, Andy's destruction of a Bible to enable his escape hints at a more pragmatic outlook.{{Citation needed|date=January 2010}}

Clean up tag and other issues

The lead is really one paragraph randomly broken into two, and is not an appropriate lead per WP:LEAD. The article needs a lot of clean up to better follow both WP:MOSFILM and the general WP:MOS, including:

• fixing the hideous "list" style reception section which really has almost no actual info
• the random see also which should probably just be removed - removed Jan 13, 2010
• the "real-life imitation" section is relevant because? - removed Jan 13, 2010
• the mix of reference formats
• the external links seem to have some non-necessary links
• the excessive footer templates (how many does Stephen King have??)
• incorrect section orders

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As no objections have been voiced, I have removed the see also and rteh real life stuff, and all of the unsourced content from the production section (copied below for reference in case anyone can find sources) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Something Borrowed cultural reference

The popular culture section is for demonstrating where The Shawshank Redemption has appeared in other media, such as television shows, movies, video games, songs, etc. I disagree with this revert by RepublicanJacobite (talk · contribs) because the removed content is relevant to this section (to illustrate where the film has been referenced in television shows). The removed content is also sourced to this article from TV Squad, which I consider to be a reliable source per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 2#TV Squad and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 2#TV Squad as a reliable source. Cunard (talk) 04:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It is utterly trivial and adds nothing to an understanding of the larger subject. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point so will not restore the information for now. When I expand the section, I may include the "Something Borrowed" cultural reference as an example. Cunard (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Republican Jacobite, you failed to explain WHY the information is "utterly trivial and adds nothing to an understanding of the larger subject". You just state something without explaining why you think it is the case. That's not enough to justify the deletion. --79.207.176.203 (talk) 11:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No, if you want to include it, you need to make the case for why it is not trivial, which it most certainly is. Popular culture sections are almost always dumping grounds for all sorts of trivial, passing references that do not illuminate the subject. So, on some tv show, they mentioned this movie. So what? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Crime film

I think Crime film, or Crime drama should be the genre of the main line, prison films are generally considered crime films. Note that the prison films are crime films even if the characters don't commit crimes inside the prison or if they are sent to prison without commiting a crime. Discuss here if Crime should be replaced instead of drama. 200.161.62.113 (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It should not be replaced. This film is not principally about a crime, or the commission of a crime, it is about Andy's life in prison, and the relationship between he and Red. The crime is almost superfluous. Every prison film is not a crime film. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Popular culture section

The film was [[parody|parodied]] in the ''[[Family Guy]]'' episode "[[Three Kings (Family Guy)|Three Kings]]". Andy Dufresne is played by [[Peter Griffin]], Red is played by [[Cleveland Brown|Cleveland]], the warden is played by [[Pewterschmidt family#Carter Pewterschmidt|Carter]]. In the spoof, Peter plays ''[[Hollaback Girl]]'' on the prison [[loudspeaker]], and Cleveland does not remember the Mexican village where he is supposed to meet with Peter.<ref name="Haque">{{cite news |title=Family Guy: "Three Kings" Review |author=Haque, Ahsan |newspaper=[[IGN]] |date=2009-05-11 |url=http://tv.ign.com/articles/981/981438p1.html |accessdate=2010-04-20 |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5p7gHlrxz |archivedate=2010-04-20 }}</ref><br />

Moved here for now, as it may be useful in another part of the article. It was removed by Ztrawhcs (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 06:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't see that it would be useful anywhere in this article. It is purely trivia and not noteworthy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Plot length

Should the plot be trimmed? It seems a bit too long. Avenged Eightfold (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It is currently 770 words. It could be tightened up some to bring it within the MoS guidelines, but really the article needs massive expansion at this point. There should easily be a good 3 paragraphs of well-sourced production, 4-5 of reception, and at least 1-2 of themes from the sources available. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I can definitely agree with that. I'm sure that there's a lot of material available out on the web and in books. A8x (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"Falsely convicted" in lead

I feel saying Andy was falsely convicted in the lead isn't needed. While its claimed that Blatch admitted to committing a similar crime, Andy is never cleared of the conviction by any legal means, so saying he was falsely convicted is speculative. The description in the plot section "that it might prove his innocence" is correct. Capt. Colonel (edits) 17:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It is certainly not needed in the lede, which should not be burdened with unnecessary details. My personal feeling, after having watched the film dozens of times, is that he was falsely convicted, and this reality is part of the appeal of the film, but it is never proved in the film, only alleged. So, the current wording in the plot should remain, and the "falsely convicted" claim should not be restored. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you are right, although the film gives you every indication he is innocent, there is no solid proof that he is. Would a review from a respected critic that mentions he is innocent be a sufficient reference? I would argue this is significant enough to be mentioned in the lead, but until I find a reliable source the point is moot anyway. –CWenger (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

James Berardinelli seems to be a respected movie critic and he refers to Dufresne as "the wrongly convicted man" in this review. –CWenger (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's completely fair to let the most common (and source-able) perception of Andy's innocent be stated (it's almost needs it in the lede as what it reads now feels wrong). A fair question: what does the original story say about this? --MASEM (t) 19:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think it's fair to say that most people's perception of the film would be very different without the sense that the main character was innocent. –CWenger (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I would have no problem saying he was probably/possibly falsely convicted. Capt. Colonel (edits) 19:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done – Feel free to modify as you see fit. –CWenger (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to object to this speculative language. It is never definitively stated in the film that it is a false conviction---unlike, for example, The Fugitive, in which it is proved that Dr. Kimble is not the killer. Andy denies committing the crime, and he hears a story which is very similar to the killing of his wife and her lover, but that is all. It is never proved one way or the other. The speculative language should not be in the lede, and the issue should be dealt with in the plot, where the details can be specified. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

In this light, I've changed how its stated, that he spends time in prison despite claiming being innocent (which is truthful to the film). We need to imply in the lede that Andy being the murderer is a very quetionable point and thus his attitude through the movie, to separate that from the motivation of someone who *was* guilty. --MASEM (t) 20:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't be speculating about his motivations, one way or the other, whether he's guilty or not. We can only say what the film says, and not offer our opinions or interpretations. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Masem's edit satisfies all involved parties. Are you OK with this? –CWenger (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing has changed since the comment I made above. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I can understand why we cannot say that Andy is 100% innocent of the crime - the movie does not answer that question. But we see Andy fight for his innocence (even if in reality he's guilty), and that's the change that I made, so there's no noval interpretation there. Many professional reviews point this out (spotchecking reviews through RT) so there's no question we can add it. --MASEM (t) 02:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hidden comment re: IMDB list

I have added a hidden comment warning against inclusion of the IMDB film list to the reception section. Please do not remove it. Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 21:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Missing Plot & Theme

The Plot section and also the Theme section BOTH leave out the main overarching theme / plot of the movie of always maintaining one's HOPE, represented allegorically by finally acheiving that life along the seashore in Zihuatanejo. This is the core construct of the movie, and is intended to teach not only prisoner viewers of the film but the bulk of society, in almost prison like lives, of drabness, HOPE , not as a vague, dream like vision but one that is readily obtainable by the hard work of hammering through walls which constrict us. And to this theme is added also the "faith" element of any hope / dream of sticking to it over longer times. So that leaving this out of the article misses the key point of the whole. Lil E Bert Joanz XXX 69.121.221.97 (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

We would need reliable sources to talk about how this is a theme; it would be too unwieldy to put as part of the plot (as plot sections are supposed to be concise), but film articles should have theme sections and this would be appropriate to include. But again, without a source, it is original research. --MASEM (t) 13:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Improvement template

The multiple-issues improvement template, calling for additional references and article cleanup, has been sitting at the top of the article for nearly two years. There are 4 headings in the table of contents relating to the inclusion of the IMDB Top 250 list in the article, and there, no doubt, more discussions of that issue in the talk page archives. My guess is that those who have pushed for the inclusion of that list have done little else to improve this article, yet have no problem with either including that list against current, and long-standing, consensus, or bringing up the issue again and again, despite past discussions. This article needs improvement, and needs discussion of what can be done to improve it, but it does not need further discussion of this tedious IMDB matter. --RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

For most people, research is challenging. (Not saying this meanly; it does require knowing where to look for new and good information.) I suppose IMDb is more visible than other sources, and its absence from the article is more noted than the absence of analysis about this film from academic journals. I'll see if I can add a "References to use" section at the top of the talk page. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I too do not see the need for tagging this article. 1. 14 citations is a fair amount 2. what more serious cleanup is needed after the one mentioned in one of the sections above? I'll remove the tags, and will be happy if anybody who thinks they are needed will first explain here in detail why he thinks so. Debresser (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's what I did. And then I was reverted. Reanimated X (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Since there have been two editors who have removed them, and with good argument, he can not just revert. A detailed explanation and prior consensus will be needed to restore the tags now. Debresser (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This film is #1 on IMDB's top 250 list, and it has an almost perfect user score on Netflix.

Worth noting. I loved the movie, but I don't see how it has such high ratings above other great movies. Anyway, worth noting. 71.170.58.183 (talk) 07:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

See section right above. IMDB and Netflix are user-generated ratings, and thus aren't reliable. If a secondary source made this comment, that would be thing, but we can't make it ourselves. --MASEM (t) 11:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should read some applicable WP policy on this because I can't help wondering: Wikipedia is user-generated -- is it therefore unreliable? Sure, not every online poll is reliable and it may be hard to draw a line (other than bar all) but there are differences. The Seventh Taylor (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Money

There are two different sections where budget and earnings are quoted that differ quite a bit. Both cite valid sources, so how can we find the truth? Maybe there is more to the story with home video, etc.
a)Gross revenue $28,341,469[1] Budget $25 million[1]
b)Earning only $18 million on a $35 million budget,[2]...
BollyJeff || talk 19:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. User:Slusho815 wrote with the latest edit: "Studios only make 55% of box office receipts, and the budget does not include marketing costs; the film did not get close to covering its budget in theaters." IMDB states here [1] what you quote under a), suggesting it did (better than) break even. The Seventh Taylor (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

IMDb Top 250

OK, I made a couple edits earlier to make a WP:POINT (including on this talk page) that were not exactly cool. I've had a bad week. Apologies.

But surely, the WP:POLICY sticklers shouldn't be the only voice heard. Yeah, we get that the IMDB Top 250 is a user-generated poll that's subject to vote stacking and the rest. Many things are. Hell, if not mentioning user-generated polls that are subject to vote stacking is a Wiki policy we should never mention American Idol results or People's Choice Awards.

The fact is, Shawshank has been the #1 movie on IMDB for the past 15-odd years, occasionally trading spots with The Godfather, an Oscar Best Picture-winning universally acclaimed masterpiece. This is itself note-worthy, even if it's because of vote-stacking. It should be mentioned, ALONG WITH a qualifier about the legitimacy of such a ranking. Something like this:

"The Shawshank Redemption has spent the majority of the past 15 years as the #1 movie on the IMDb Top 250 poll. While such polls are user-generated and may be subject to vote-stacking, the fact that the movie generates such interest and possible vote-stacking indicates its continued popularity over the many years since its release."

This is a fair and reasonable statement, that doesn't exaggerate the truth in any way, and qualifies the status of the Top 250 poll. While movies like Memento and Inception have enjoyed a short span of time when they're trendy in the Top 10, Shawshank has enjoyed the endurability of other Top 10 movies like The Godfather, 12 Angry Men, and The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

The fact that a movie continues to enjoy such online user-based poll support after 17 years, when others fade after a few months, deserves mention. Wiki-policy patrollers should realize that making such a qualified statement would end the battles over whether its IMDb ranking deserves mention. Why do so many chronic Wiki editors take this stuff so fricking seriously? It opposes the whole spirit upon which Wikipedia was founded, and is enforcing broad rules against per-case common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.50.141 (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

There is the problem of demographic skew too. Males between 18 and 29 years old are especially overrepresented. It's a big reason why Fight Club is up there too. What would be worthwhile is a proper analysis of that poll and similar ones. For example, this reference mentions such polls and says that "Younger moviegoers and movie buffs adore it" and talks about its popularity with college students in the first decade of the millennium. Basically, the demographic needs to be clarified, and it's not the best approach to do it ourselves because it would be conjecture. We should be able to find more references about this film's reputation. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

There's certainly plenty of third-party reliable sources that talk how the film consistently remains in the top of IMDB; as I've suggested before, as long as we assert that IMDB's top list are based on user polls (doesn't matter who, simply that it is open like that with the impliciation that there may be bias and abuse of the system that we cannot discuss), then it is completely ok to mention that it is a top film on that list. As long as we have the non-IMDB sources stating this, its a fact without reporting bias. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

My objection would be, even if these "third-party reliable sources" exist, all they would be indicating that it is at the top of the list, but not why this is significant. I simply see nothing particularly notable about the IMDB Top 250 list, regardless of which films are on it. The list itself is not notable. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't have time to find them right now but I believe they use the IMDB listing as an indication of how it remains a largely well-appreciated film by those that use IMDB, as a contrast to the lukewarm reception the film received on its initial release. I agree, having it just be noted that it tops the IMDB without additional comment is not helpful, but connecting that to the post-release awareness of the film will be appropriate. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Who cares that user-generated polls are subject to vote stacking? The important thing is that many people like the film and many of them took the time to vote. Who are those "film critics" anyway? Why should anyone care about some self-important "critics'" evaluation? How do you become a film critic? Do they run goddamn regressions when giving scores to films? Surely they don't. It's a matter of personal choice. Reviewing films is very subjective. There's nothing wrong with citing a user-generated poll. I personally find this type of information very useful. There is no compelling reason to keep us from writing about IMDb polls in the article. Nataev (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Instead of ignoring the previous discussions and calling me a self-declared pro, feel free to point out any good articles that have IMDb rating in the second sentence of the article. Similarly, the article is not the place for you to have an argument in hidden comments about how you disagree with the IMDb reasoning when it has been discussed here numerous times, you clearly know that since you are responding to an existing discussion. Additionally the source you are using, ignoring the fact we don't use IMDb as a source, mentions nothing of the length of time it has been on the list. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't ignore the previous discussions. I see that in this particular case no consensus has been reached on whether to include the IMDb poll or not. (Take a look at this. I see no consensus here.) The hidden comments were there, so I just did the same thing. Unless everyone agrees that we should not include the poll, you cannot have a rule hidden in the text. Feel free to delete the part about the length of time the movie has been on the list. Nataev (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

P.s. I removed the IMDb link and cited a newspaper article. Nataev (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I see that on the manual of style for film-related articles it says that the guidelines are subject to change "depending on Wikipedia policies or participant consensus." When those guiltiness were established, was there consensus about never-ever including IMDb polls? How was that consensus achieved? Nataev (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all, you should have started a new discussion, rather than responding to this old one, just to make things easier for other editors. That aside, it is pretty clear that you are ignoring all of the other discussions, because, if you were paying attention, you would see that it is the opinion of the great majority of editors that this information should not be included. This has been discussed to death, simply because, every once in a while, an editor comes along and thinks that he has a new take on the matter, and that he should get his way. But, nothing you have said is any more convincing than the previous editors who have tried this. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 04:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, so be it. I'm still convinced that we could use some common sense and make an exception for this particular article. I'm sure that this issue will be raised again and again in the future. Nataev (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Legacy section

Why is there a blank column for references? Also, is it necessary to mention the film's nomination on earlier lists, even though it didn't make the list? AldezD (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, outside of issue re: nominations, the table is a duplication of the top paragraph. Is the table necessary? AldezD (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

IMDB (yet again)

I know it has been discussed very often already, and I've read the arguments, but I believe that the #1 spot on the list should be mentioned in this article. It is completely correct that the IMDB Top 250 is not particularly credible and thus it is only more than understandable that it's not mentioned in all these 250 articles. It would be horrible to see sentences like "This Movie was voted #67 on the IMDB Top 250 as of December 2012" or stuff like this. But for this very article, I think it's justifiable to make an exception of this rule. I mean, we're not talking neither about a movie that's somewhere in the Top 250 nor about a movie that got a recent hype, like Inception got for a while. The Shawshank Redemption has the highest rating on the IMDB since some 15 years or so, a site that has quite a reputation and certainly isn't yet another fan movie site. Over 800,000 registered users are responsible for this ranking. No matter what you think about that, it should be told to our readers that this movie is the #1 there, potentially as the only movie that has information about its ranking in the IMDB Top 250. C'mon, let's use some common sense and make a good exception for this article. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Do we really have to discuss this nonsense again? All of the arguments made previously still apply, nothing has changed, and there is no good reason to make an exception. That list is not notable, period. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the thinking is flawed here. No, we don't need to say anything about being top-rated IMDB in the lead, because of the inherent user-bias of IMDB. But, as part of the film's reception and being a modern classic despite its lukewarm reception on initial release, other reliable sources have noted that the film consistently ranks high in the IMDB as a point of evidence that it has a large popularity that is otherwise difficult to demonstrate. Again, we (as WP editors) aren't making this point, secondary sources are. One sentence, saying "This source and That Source note the film's popularity with fans based on its consistently-high ranking in the IMDB user rankings". (I don't have time at the immediate to get those sources but I know they exist and they are reliable journalistic works.) That statement is not original research and covers this fact. That's perfectly acceptable per all policies. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I would be okay with making an exception here provided that we can use a reliable source that provides sufficient context. For example, I found this passage: "Critics were generally positive about The Shawshank Redemption when it came out in 1994, but subsequently, in the Internet age, the movie has become a perennial contender in popular voting for the best film of all time. On the Internet Movie Database (www.imdb.com), it competes neck-to-neck with The Godfather as a contender for the number-one spot. Younger moviegoers and movie buffs adore it." That is from this source. We could also add a note that briefly breaks down the demographics (male vs. female, age range, etc). From what I can tell, the film and its rank on the website are mentioned pretty often in print sources to warrant something here. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly - not making the judgement on the source, but assuming it reliable , that's exactly the type of statement we can source to briefly mention the film's place on IMDB's rankings without introducing OR and without having to worry about IMDB itself being unreliable. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Source mentioned by Erik seems to have changed and no longer mentions the quoted text, the page of the book it's from can be found here. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Your link does not work. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 09:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's another news article. Nataev (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I have a DVD at home where the IMDB rating is displayed on the front, like critical acclaim usually is. –St.nerol (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC) I have now added the info, citing Paul Monaco with the link you gave for asessing the notability. That seems to be in line with the general opinion here. -St.nerol (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The recent edit war

This edit war was completely unnecessary and rather ridiculous. The changes proposed by StephenLongabaugh were fairly insignificant, certainly not significant enough to merit a fight. But, the current version of the plot was the result of a lot of work and discussion before consensus was reached, so all of us who watch this article are on high alert for changes. Longabaugh is a new user with very little experience and perhaps felt attacked after only being in the game for a few days, then he reacted in the wrong way, getting locked in (boy, do I know how that feels!), digging in his heels, and refusing to cooperate.

As for the specific edits, the one I agree with is the removal of the phrase about "circumstantial evidence," which seems like editor's opinion, not fact. The courtroom scenes in the film are too short to make any definitive statements about evidence, so let's just say he was convicted and move on. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the changes to the latter part of the plot were significant because it altered the meaning, focusing on the unnecessary job over the fear that his inability to adapt will never end, and his final acknowledgement of feeling hope. The circumstantial evidence, ehhhh, it's not really important and it's only really important later that it is clarified that he may be innocent. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I have the film here and may watch it again, but my memory tells me that the initial scenes make it clear to the viewer that he was innocent. With that in mind, I agree with Darkwarriorblake here. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 16:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no doubt in my mind that he is shown to be innocent by the end of the film. That is a separate matter. My point is that the courtroom scene is too perfunctory for us to make claims like "circumstantial evidence". The aim seemed to be to plant doubt in the viewer's mind that would be confirmed by Tommy's story later in the film. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. Agree, let's remove it. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 18:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Cast list in infobox

I would like to see a consensus reached here as to who should be listed in the infobox. To my mind, Robbins and Freeman are the stars, indicated by their appearance at the top of the poster, while the others are in supporting roles. Therefore, Robbins and Freeman belong in the infobox and the others do not. But, as I said, I would like to see a discussion and a consensus reached here. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there should only be the two in the info' box.
In a related context, I should add that the section Cast has a sentence,
"The cast also includes: Mark Rolston as Bogs Diamond, the leader of "The Sisters" prison gang and a prison rapist; Bill Bolender as Elmo Blatch, a criminal; Brian Libby as Floyd, David Proval as Snooze, and Joseph Ragno as Ernie, Andy's and Red's friends; Frank Medrano as Fat Ass, a new inmate killed by Hadley; and Jeffrey DeMunn as the prosecuting attorney in Andy's trial.", which I find incongruous and difficult to read swiftly. Any thoughts? — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

That text should be converted to a conventional cast list. Not sure why or when it was changed. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It should follow the standard set by FILM, namely ID all the primary actors that appear on the poster. Clearly Robbins/Freeman alone should be in the lead sentence however, and made clear this movie centers primarily on those two characters. But as the infobox should be "at a glance", not including actors like Gunton is lacking this key data for the film. --MASEM (t) 16:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a visible cutoff here with just Robbins and Freeman. I find the billing block guideline more applicable to films with a larger main cast (something like Love Actually). The "Cast" section in the article body appropriately lists the remaining actors in their supporting roles. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Arguably, however, this is not a two-man show with bit characters to fill the gaps; the Warden, etc. all play key roles in the film, and the respective actors have been given praise for these. (Unfortunately, off the top of my head, I can't think of a good representative film where there were only two-three main players and the rest bit parts as to compare again). --MASEM (t) 17:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Fight Club is another example for which discussion was also recently had. Meat Loaf has a supporting role, and Jared Leto has more of a bit role. There's also The Fountain with Jackman and Weisz, though Burstyn is included in "Starring" with these two. (She's more of a star outside the film than of the film, if that makes sense, and probably makes the "starring" criteria a little unclear.) Erik (talk | contribs) 17:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)