Talk:Garden State (film)

Current Issues

This talk page is a bit messy, hard to follow, and in some places, totally irrelevant. I've consolidated all of the information on the Themes debate and moved a few items to "Past Issues". I did actually delete a few issues that seem to have been resolved, or at least there's no longer any evidence of them in the article itself. I left "resolved" issues that seemed likely to come up again in the "Past Issues" section. If your comments were among the deleted and you feel they're unexpendable, you can let me know within the next week and I'll restore them. I'll still have the text saved for a while. In general though, I'm going to put some time into editing this article, because it looks like it really needs it. I'd appreciate anyone's input here during the process. --Hurtstotouchfire 05:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

School's started and I've been too busy to attempt the redrafting of the plot summary. However, this Friday I have plans to watch the second commentary with a friend, and then I plan to rope him into drafting a new plot summary with me. Yay for geek dates. When we've got something with a better backbone than the current plot summary (which is hopeless) I hope some of you will help edit me. --Hurtstotouchfire 21:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sam's alleged Autism

As far as I can remember, there is NO mention that Sam has Autism in the movie. While yes, Autism has a WIDE range of spectrum to it, I cannot see how anyone interprets Sam as Autistic. However, regardless of my own personal opinions, use of "Autism", in this case, honestly looks to be "original research" and should be removed unless someone has a citation where Braff says he wrote the character to portray someone with Autism. Pixiestix (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Thank you to whomever fixed this!!!! Pixiestix (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.

"helmet" she wears

hey kids, a bit of trivia: the 'helmet' portman's character wears is called a scrum cap. it's used in the sport of rugby to protect the player's head, and--in the scrum--one's ears. i thought it might be relevant since braff's character asks what kind it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.59.195.91 (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Reference style

I'm not deeply familiar with the various different modes of referencing, so I don't know why my reference is in bold with a ' before it. If anyone cares to enlighten me that'd be nice, otherwise I shall dig it out of the portal tomorrow. --Hurtstotouchfire 08:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Content Tidbits and questions

I added the reference for Braff's "80% Real Life" line. It was in the making of documentary. I've watched all the DVD extras now except the commentary, so I'm hoping that will reveal the origin of this title, because I actually still haven't figured that one out. I liked the working title "Large's Ark" better myself. Anyone know? Also, I loved the cut scene with Ian Holm, what a pity. I'm almost tempted to work that into the article somehow. We'll see. Perhaps there's some critical discussion somewhere about Holm being underused. --Hurtstotouchfire 08:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, it doesn't take a genius to figure it out. First of all, "Garden State" is the nickname for the state of New Jersey, where the film takes place. Secondly, Andrew Largeman is attempting to escape from the empty, emotionless, numb state that he's been living in since he was a child, due to his overly-prescribed lithium. A garden-like state, or "garden state," if you will. A careful viewer will also note that Andrew's friends (high on coke, ecstasy and dope) live in a similar state of apathy. The film is about escaping from this state. If you're going to work this into the article, feel free, because I'm 100% confident in my interpretation. But please be mature and use some sources. --BeastKing89 08:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup Suggestions

Two things:

• There's no need to describe the cast. They have their respective pages.
• Decreasing the plot would be good; it has everything but the kitchen sink. We don't need to know what every frame is like. It would be simpler if it were decreased. Ohyeahmormons 20:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking at promoted articles such as V_for_Vendetta_(film) and Blade Runner, it seems that shedding some light on the background of the actors is some what a good thing to do. I think the plot should definantly be decreased to about half of what it is now, and we should ditch all teh images except the rain one, because it shows all three main characters. Thoughts? Sunrise50 08:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thinking that the Plot summary should be cut in half (which I'm working on), and the character summaries cut entirely. More alsoer:

• Summary: I'm thinking "a twenty-six year old actor" should be more like "an aspiring actor currently working as a waiter" or something to that effect. Also think that second paragraph could use a little cleaning up; "all the time avoiding his father" is definitely getting revised, and the whole paragraph needs a little polish. The rest of the summary is peachy. Still, any links to good pre-existing summaries would be nice.
• Production: I'll try to rustle up a little more info for this section. Think it's useful, but not living up to its possibilities.

--Hurtstotouchfire 06:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Plot summary cleanup

Note that the plot summary should NOT consist of a play-by-play recap of how the movie goes. Only the important details need to be in the plot summary, and having seen the film, there are several trivial parts of the plot summary. Irk_(talk) 20:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The plot summary should also mention the role of lithium and other drugs in the film; Largeman decides not to take his lithium early in the movie and becomes incresingly more animated through the film as he thaws out and rediscovers life.

Themes

We don't currently have a Themes section. I'd like to see it worked into Plot Summary myself, themes being, well, a part of the plot. I would be open to creating a new section if that seems feasible. I'm going to try to work from the themes link provided below by Valet5 and whatever other reliable bits I can dredge up on the interweb. --Hurtstotouchfire 06:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Debate History

This article seems like one person's interpretation of the film. Who decided the themes? By whom is this movie considered a major success? And who decided what points of the plot are important or not? Ohyeahmormons 03:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"who decided what points of the plot are important or not?" By the looks of it, nobody. I just watched this movie and I'd be hard pressed to find a single thing that happened in the movie that wasn't in the plot summary. Not to discredit the amount of work that went into this section, but the plot summary would be more useful with less detail and more, you know, summary. 67.170.183.209 06:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet despite it's length the summary fails to mention

Silly comment imo. Garden_State_(film)#Reception states how many awards it won, its popularity, the music, reviews and so on. Its harly an npov statement. The film was a success in terms of box-office/budget ratio as well. Braff has now also been given more films to direct and so on and so on. If you dont like the plot, the use the edit feature. The template in the themes section is fine until someone references it. Valet5 16:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the themes section, because what one thinks of the film is not what Braff meant by the film. Ohyeahmormons 20:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

A simple search found thison themes. So its not completely original. It just needs expansion and a little tidy up. The section is very important, but it needs a little work. Valet5 16:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this for now. Its POV, and is not referenced. There is definantly room for a Themes section in the article, but it needs to be worked on here on the talk page, referenced properly and written in a neutral way. So i'm pasting this here, so not to lose it all, if someone wants to use it. Sunrise50 08:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The themes present in Garden State revolve around the development of Andrew Largeman. One of the recurring themes is that one only has one chance at life, and one must take that chance now in the present. The characters comment on this, the earliest example being when Sam tells Andrew to perform an original movement, even though at the time, Andrew did not fully believe in what she was saying.

Come the end of the film, Andrew's outlook on life has changed. After finally holding discussions with his father, Andrew expresses his desire to start living his life now, and asks his father to do the same, despite any problems that may be in their lives. For one of the first times in the film, Andrew makes a spontaneous decision to not get on a plane back to Los Angeles, and instead stay where he is, and live his life now, rather than trying to sort out whatever he needed to do in Los Angeles.

The Themes section has been removed because it was in violation of Wikipedia's no original research policy. Nothing in the section seemed to have come from any kind of source except the minds of editors, which is original research. To address the themes of this film, find reliable sources to cite so observations can be verified by other users. The fact that there is a dispute about the film's themes on the talk page with no source being discussed clearly indicates that this section was original research. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 21:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know well the historical development of the section. However, it looks like the removed piece (or at least, its beginning) does come straight (maybe too straight) from [1], already mentioned above. Part of the rest is IMHO likely wrong, so I'm not going to have it back without sources. --Blaisorblade (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Two Complaints

1. The plot summary is tolerable, but needs cleanup ASAP. It is way too POV and including details like the cryptically described "lie" his dad tells him (which was just like that he had cleaned the house or something) and the way-too-indepth description of the conversation with the Ark guy make it sound like a grade schooler wrote this, which I suppose is possible. There's too many minute details, though I imagine this is because at one point it was even more egregiously detailed

2. I believe it says that Zach Braff "hand picked" the music twice. Is this necessary? I mean, I know the soundtrack is as acclaimed as the film, but it's not exactly noteworthy that he, the director, chose the film's music. This child-like giddiness could be removed also. SF, 1/7/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.223.112 (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

-In response to the complaint about Zach picking the soundtrack, the songs on it fit the movie perfect. Since Zach wrote and direct the movie the sound track helps illustrate his vision. -Jlkorpal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlkorpal (talk • contribs) 01:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Past Issues

Silent Velcro

Silent velcro currently redirects to this article. --Hurtstotouchfire 05:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that silent velcro now redirects to velcro. Go team. --Hurtstotouchfire 05:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Votes for deletion

[This text was copied from the Silent Velcro talk page, which no longer exists]

This page was recently nominated for deletion, and the consensus decision was to keep it. The deletion debate is archived here. ugen64 03:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Um, you meant merge and redirect, at least, that's what it says. ed g2s • talk 01:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I find it confusing that "Silent velcro" redirects here, but when I search for "velcro" in the article text it doesn't find anything. --60.225.3.7 09:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue is this: Imagine somebody sees the film, and then goes on Wikipedia to search for "silent velcro". They'll then see that this directs them to the Garden State article, meaning that silent velcro was simply something from Zach Braff's imagination. It doesn't matter that there isn't any more info on it (nor that it isn't even mentioned in the article), as there's nothing else to say about it. -- Kicking222 21:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Silent velcro *is* mentioned in the "Velcro" article, albeit only very briefly. Still, since it's at least mentioned in that article, and is not mentioned at all in this one, perhaps "silent velcro" should redirect there, instead? Or maybe there should be a link from here to there? While I agree that most people will search for it because it was mentioned in Garden State, as I did, the status quo seems unwise, as there actually *is* Wikipedia information on this topic, as I found when I Googled it. --ABPend 01:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Go for it. --Hurtstotouchfire 11:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Use In Film

The section of the film itself, that this page and or user refers to is a small piece that is not really worth mentioning. If someone develops a Trivia section or something similar to that on the Garden State page, then this should be put in their. Otherwise, it's really not that worthwhile. --Matt von Furrie 07:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Redirecting Redirect

I've posted Silent Velcro to Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial proposals. To the best of my ability to determine, that was the appropriate place. (appreciate wisdom otherwise)--Hurtstotouchfire 21:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Such Great Heights

This article lists Such Great Heights, in the soundtrack, as made by Iron & Wine. It's really made by The Postal Service, is it not? --Spug 00:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I think so. I've never heard this song before The Postal Service edition and have never heard that it was a cover. I haven't seen the movie, but if I remember right, the trailer was using The Postal Service edition. I think it's a safe bet to change it. Cookiecaper 06:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I have the soundtrack, which lists the song as by Iron and Wine. That is consistent with information at, e.g., the amazon.com page for the soundtrack. I don't actually have the CD on me right now, but I'll double-check when I get home. Neilc 05:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The Iron & Wine version is a cover of the original, which was indeed done by The Postal Service off their debut album "Give Up". Pwv1

The Iron & Wine version is both in the final movie and on the soundtrack. The full trailer uses The Postal Service original and another song left out of the movie/soundtrack. Viewdrix

The other song used in the trailer is Love Will Come Through by Travis. It may have also been picked out by Braff, as it fits in with the other songs in the film.

Film Locations

It's probably just me, but as a resident of the locations which were used for filming in New Jersey (specifically South Orange and Maplewood), shouldn't Maplewood also be placed in the film location section? It's true, my experience is anecdotal, however I was able to pinpoint several spots throughout the movie which could be considered sections of Maplewood, and not just South Orange. For example, the drive-by past the high school (Columbia High School), which is officially in Maplewood, despite being a part of the combined Maplewood/South Orange School District.

That would be great if you could fix it up. Cvene64 22:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ricky Moody's 1992 novel!

It says on the Rick Moody (an author) page, that he wrote the novel of Garden State back in 1992, so this film is obviously based on that book...it even says it on the Rick Moody page, so I think that this article should mention it, although I'm not certain on whether it is true that this is based on the book, could someone please confirm that it is? RaptorRobot 13:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no evidence that it is. More likely than anything, someone edited that page, which wouldn't be as popular as the article for a film of the same name, and no one noticed. Let me guess, it's not sourced? -- Viewdrix 14:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"Garden State" is a term to describe the state of New Jersey; it's not necessarily a unique phrase. If you read about the book at Amazon.com, it doesn't sound very similar to the film. In addition, due to the lack of citation between this novel and the film, I removed the information. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 15:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler in opening paragraph?

"...when he accidentally brought about his mother's paraplegia". This text is in the opening paragraph. This is not made known to the viewer until a decent way into the movie, and therefore I think it should not be included in this section, but maybe in the one below it which has a spoiler warning. It seems like a bit of a spoiler to me.

It's not such an important factor of the movie, so I don't see why moving it to a spoiler would be neccesary. --Chitomcgee 05:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. That is definitely an important factor to understanding the protagonist and the build up of the viewer not knowing why Large has been on drugs, why he is estranged from his father, why he says his family is "way more fucked up" than Sam's is all crucial to the effect of the movie. It's also unnecessary in a general description of the movie. I'm getting rid of it. Dwinetsk 21:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually think this seems resolved and can be deleted from the talk page, but since it's pretty recent I'm leaving it up for now. We ok with deleting this soon? --Hurtstotouchfire 05:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Cast

I have deleted the cast section, because I doesn't add anything to the article. It wasn't a cast section all together, it were small descriptions of the lead characters, already explained in the plot section. I think someone was trying to be helpful, but it is a bit pointless to add it twice. --Soetermans 22:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Music

Does anyone know what the song is that plays in the main menu on the DVD? I don't believe that it's on the soundtrack, although I could be wrong. Bluemoonflame 13:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was called "GS Motorcycle Ride", as shown on Chad Fischer's myspace music page. [2] 63.226.201.200 03:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Quotes section:

very simply: is this quotes section a joke?

i do not know of any "Zach Braffin." the ubiquitous google search yields nothing.

i intend on deleting the entire "quotes" section if there is not a legitimate reason for the "quote" to exist on this wikipedia page.

Family Guy

This film was referenced in Family Guy Season 6 Episode 9, should this be added to the article?Norgy (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of information

After reading this information, wanting to contribute to that, and seeing it just disappear without even a mention on the talk page on change [3], I thought I'd start a discussion about it.

"The search for Andrew's mother's pendant, presented to him as a gift by his friend Mark, represents a search for meaning. Mark tells Andrew he would be lying if he said the pendant was what he had been looking for all along. They find the pendant in a ship at the bottom of the quarry. Living in the ship are "guardians of an infinite abyss". Mark, Andrew and Sam scream in defiance at the abyss. One of the guardians, Albert, claims to have explored the abyss extensively. As the three characters leave the quarry Andrew says to Albert, "good luck exploring the infinite abyss". Albert replies, "Hey, you too."

At the close of the film, after declaring he wants to spend his life with her, Andrew asks Sam, "What do we do?". This may lend a clue to what the abyss represents - the enormity of the future, the hollowness of infinite possibility, and the absence of guidance in finding a way forward. "

Now, according to the policy, you aren't expected to remove immediately unsourced material: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Unsourced_material Moreover, while a blog can't be a totally reliable source, interpretation is important in movies and art. So I'd rather leave the text while prepending something like "an interpretation is". --Blaisorblade (talk) 08:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Text can be removed without discussion per wikipedia's Be Bold policy. Except for disputed material, no changes need to be discussed at all. It is generally desired for poorly or unsourced material to have a tag put up before removing material so the contributor has a chance to source it, but I find it unlikely this particular conceit can be sourced. If you can find an acceptable reliable source, I'd gladly restore the text. Otherwise, it needs to be removed. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or a blog citation database.--Loodog (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Blogs should not be used for sourcing, interpretation or otherwise. You have to find a reliable source which gives what you want to include in the article. Apterygial 13:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

References

Missing events in the plot summary

I don't like the plot summary at all. While the article shouldn't carry my interpretation of the movie, I think (and I hope that people watching the movie agree with me) that a lot of moments which really have a symbolic significance aren't even mentioned in the plot summary. It's a cold and impersonal summary. I'll start to add some mention of important facts on it, and I hope somebody will join me. --Blaisorblade (talk) 08:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

However, I'm unsure of where to add a real mention of the dialogue with Albert the guardian of the abyss. Even if original research shouldn't be present (and the given interpretation was controversial), the removal discussed above removes any mention of a scene quoting both the working title (Albert's house is referred to as an ark) and Sam ("doing something that's completely unique, that's never been done before"). I don't want to have my feeling about the scene on the article, but the facts about it should be described, with a minimal interpretation. Saying that "the new couple is probably impressed by what they say" would be OR? Because there's really something in how the two in the "new couple" look at each other.

--Blaisorblade (talk)

This page is on my watchlist because I was going to take it to FA, but I got distracted. By all means, go ahead and add some symbolism into the plot summary, provided you can reference it. That's the challenge. Apterygial 08:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

To Featured Article status you mean? That's a great challenge, expecially given the current lack of any real comment, or of a decent plot description. Basically, one is supposed to find critical reviews of the movie to back up anything one writes except the plot summary? --Blaisorblade (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Featured Article. You have to be able to open the net as wide as possible to source a good article. Critical reviews are one part of it, but you also want to look at the Google News archives to see if anything came out about the movie when it was released. Finally, if you have the DVD, the commentary (if there is one) could be invaluable to sourcing themes and production. If you want to take it to FA, I can help you with grammar and manual of style issues, as well as sourcing. I love this movie, and would love to see it at FA. I personally find an article easier to improve when you start with the husk of an article, like you have now. Build your own sections. Apterygial 09:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I loved this movie instantly, and I'm sorry, but in this particular moment of my life I simply can't consider such a huge work. Fixing the summary could be cool though, if I can find the time to do it properly. --Blaisorblade (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I remember I already got started with mentioning individual significant quotes, like about "changing his life". I realize I express the connection implicitly, or rather leave it to the reader. Is careful selection of plot events original research, even if one puts emphasis on it? I don't like to trick policies or be wikilawyering, but indeed I don't think this edit adds anything which is not a fact, can be challenged, or is non-obvious: [4]. Then, I also think style in writing has a place in Wikipedia, even when expressing plain facts (I can show an article in Wikipedia discussing complaints about the lack of this in Wikipedia articles, if wanted, even if it's not a policy). --Blaisorblade (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. My suggestion would be that you keep the plot summary fairly "cold and impersonal", but add a "symbolism" section, where you can outline it more detail. The last thing you want is a plot summary that takes up half the article. It might be useful to split that. Finally, could you consider wrapping diffs in square brackets ([ and ]) so they don't take up so much room :) ? Apterygial 09:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

What I actually wanted to do is something like this: [5]. And what I added doesn't fit a "symbolism" section. Above, I was complaining about removal of mostly symbolic parts; well, actually, what I missed was first the mention of those fact, and only afterwards possible interpretations. Looking at the guideline and its provided example, I do think that the significance of the facts should be described in-between the plot. I'm not sure if that's what the manual of style actually says. --Blaisorblade (talk) 09:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You at the very least need to cite the "possible reference" part. Apterygial 12:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

But what about the kind of change? I think these kinds of notes are important to really understand the plot and the movie, and I would like to ensure there is consensus on this. About that statement, I hoped I didn't need to (at least, the "direct quote" stuff is an obvious deduction, I'm glad that was OK). I've added to that for now, while looking for any possible reference, to warn the reader; however, I hope it's not removed for now, because it's much less controversial than symbolic interpretations and so on (I guess this should be solved for "Featured Article" status, though). --Blaisorblade (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

For instance, I do not appreciate most of the edits of this combined diff, from the same author of the one I discuss above: [6]; the old plot summary was indeed too detailed with insignificant stuff, but while removing all the stops of the trip with Sam, Andrew and Mark is good, removing the mention of their kiss is not; also the story of how Andrew paralyzed his mother is fundamental to the whole movie. Since the plot summary should not actually simply reiterate the plot but it should discuss it, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction), even mentioning the cinematographical aspects, such things are to be mentioned. And emotional events of the plot should be as well. --Blaisorblade (talk) 09:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)