Talk:Billy Jack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Spinoza1111 03:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)To say that the message wore thin as the 1970s wore on is faux-hipster POV which treats the wearing-on of the 1970s as an unquestionable process which to all hipsters may only go, chukka chukka and assent. I have changed it. The film did become rapidly unpopular because its message made white boys uncomfortable insofar as they resembled Bernard; the rape scene forced a lot of cool dudes to confront their own feelings and they didn't like what they saw. But, that was the whole point. Furthermore the film has undergone a quiet revival now that a Favored Son, a "Bernard", is President.

Replacing POV with POV doesn't do the job, to be honest. I've rewritten the sentence to reflect established fact, and removed my own WP:OR that I can't corroborate with a WP:RS. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Spinoza1111 00:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Take a look, then, at the revision. I agree that Laughlin grew more political. But at the same time the audiences were drifting in an apolitical direction.

I would prefer to see a WP:RS, but I think the sentence as written is neutral enough to pass muster. Thanks. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In theaters?

The article states,

• • • which quickly lost its resonance with increasingly apolitical audiences of the 1970s (the second sequel never made it into theatres). ***

• • • • Actually, it was the third sequel that never made it to theaters. ****

I am not sure how this can be said, as I myself saw it in a theater in, I think, 1974. To be specific, I watched "The Trial of Billy Jack" in Garberville, CA. Ironically, my mother ran a nearby 'hippie' school, which had recently experienced a no-warrant search by the local sheriffs. -Paul C

I would respond only that your memory, unless you can find a reliable source for theatrical release, constitutues original research—for example, I can recall being deeply moved by the first film (which wove its story into an action-adventure setting), sorely disappointed by the second (which served little purpose other than to drive home its point via sledgehammer), and utterly unable to find a host for the third. That said, if you can find a reliable source for even a limited release then, yes, it should be included. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to 'sign' my initial post. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia. Well I *did* see it in a theater, but may have difficulty posting some 'linkable' evidence or external attribution. I will check around. -Paul C

Wait, I just reread this thread, and I believe I made the same mistake that the author of the passage did—forgetting that Billy Jack was actually the first sequel, not the first film. I've rewritten the passage. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Question: the 2007 movie, that's a joke, right? It's presented here as a real thing. It sounds like a dumb hoax (does anyone take the synopsis seriously??) The actors are OLD now. NO WAY is this a real movie on the way. Correct me if I'm wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.38.49.51 (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free School

The 'free school' in the film was a revolutionary concept that was replicated in teh counterculture movement, leading to the foundation of school's such as Goodman School in Lansing, MI. Article could reflect the concept for the school as shown in the film; this part is almost doccumentary style. 202.82.171.186 02:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Pre-dated by A.S. Neil's actual Summerhill school by a good fifty years, and of course other educational experiments such as the Waldorf schools originated by Rudolph Steiner. It seems like the above user thinks the concept was original to Billy Jack. 137.82.188.68 20:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)