Talk:The Shawshank Redemption/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

High

IMDB number two, nominated for seven oscars. Andman8 04:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah about that, I don't think it's right quoting Roger Ebert, who, to me and many others, is no authority at all, but not mentioning once that the film has been on IMDB #1 for ages. Is Roger Ebert's opinion more important than the combined opinion of 302.583 persons?Alessandro Malfatti (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Old discussion

While there are Stephen King movies that diverge from the book much more (I saw almost all of The Running Man, except for the very beginning, and never realized it was based on the book I had read a month before), The Shawshank Redemption isn't terribly faithful (I still love the movie). One of the two principal character's race changes, perhaps the most memorable part of the movie (Norton's suicide) doesn't appear in the book, another of the candidates for most memorable part of the movie (Brooksie's suicide) also doesn't occur in the book, the cause of the ending (the source of Andy's wealth) is different and there are numerous smaller differences noted in the article. All in all... substantially different, though certainly no The Running Man. Tuf-Kat 04:32, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

The Shawshank Redemption appears to have been deleted... need a revert.

So... revert it yourself, no? Go to history, open the version you want and just to edit and save - thereby reverting. Yitzhak 18:28, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not understanding something (I've never read the book) but -

1. Race doesn't seem to be an issue in the film. Why make light of it here? What difference would it make what race the two principal characters were?

2. The article already discusses the differences between the film and the book, so what is your point? Are there any other differences that need to be added to the article?

--Colin Angus Mackay 21:00, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with On the whole, this film is a pretty faithful adaptation of the Stephen King book. No less faithful than most others, maybe, but it isn't especially faithful. Tuf-Kat 23:09, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Then change the article. If the article is wrong or expresses a POV then you should change it. It is obvious from your comment that pretty faithful adaptation is a POV, so you should change it to be a NPOV. --Colin Angus Mackay 07:07, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you fellow Wikipedians, I was racking my brains trying to remember Morgan Freeman's name, and I apologise for wasting this talkpage space. Boffy b 21:37, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

Theme

The whole Theme section sounds like an personal essay, rather than the well-established consensus of the people who have watched the movie. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It needs to be rephrased to represent reviews by notable critics. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 22:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, you know what? I think our "Theme" author (whoever they may be, I haven't looked at the history) got it just about exactly right! So I don't give a damn whether or not a "notable critic" has said the same thing (although I'll bet if we look hard enough, we can find one); I'm glad our author said it for us here!

Atlant 20:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Plot

Hi. I changed the paragraph about Tommy a little bit. I quoted Red's "B&E" line and I linked to wikipedia's burglary page. 23:21 March 11, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.221.134 (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I cant stand it. The film does not begin with Andy being wrongly convicted. It is only discovered by the viewer that he is wrongly convicted during the scene in the workshop with Red and Tommy. At the beginning there is no indication of this other than Andy's own pleas of innocence. Further more, the viewer does not see that Andy is chippoing at his wall until near the end of the film. There are other details that are left out here as well. I will write some details and re-write some of the existing information for this article over the next couple days unless there are significant objections. - Enemy of the Light 0310 GMT, 21st December 2005

I would agree, presenting the plot more as how it plays out might be a better way to present it here. It should also be noted that the movie actually starts with Andy listening to the radio with the gun outside of his wife's lover's house. Follow that with the conviction, you spell out the better picture that he could have possibly been guilty.--Ronb 16:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me also state that the plot needs to a major clean up. There are numerous factual errors and information being placed out of order in the plot summary. For example, Andy's final "rape" coming after his assignment to the library. In fact, he earns Hadley's trust, gets beaten (not raped), the Sister's leader is beaten by Hadley, Andy gets out of the infirmary and then is assigned to the library. It should also be noted that major plot points (like Andy being wrongly convicted and Norton using Andy for scams) come to light much later in the film than they are presented in the plot summary. If given the time, I might take a shot at a re-write of this soon.--Ronb 16:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll help with the plot, maybe not very accurate but at least we need the right synopsis first. HoneyBee 17:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Object to Disambiguation split.

I wish to voice my objection to this.

1. The movie is very well known (Number 2 IMDB) and has this title.
2. The Story has a different title and is mainly known because of the movie.
3. The movie article points to the book in it's 2nd line.
4. This was not discussed first.
5. Talk page was not moved.
6. No pages linking to here were moved.

I would request things be restored to where they were previosly. Thoughts? SimonLyall 11:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I object as well (as I did over on The Green Mile where our editor has attempted a similar change).

Atlant 12:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with SimonLyall. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 14:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

As With Anything In Life....

People will object with every decision you make. And with this, people obviouslly have. In my opinion, people like to know what their are two pages and that they have a choice - to read about the movie, or to read about the short story apon which the movie was based on. That's just my opinion, and as I can see here; I am getting "flamed" from it, and for my work on The Green Mile page. It's a free world; you folks do whatever you want.--Matt von Furrie 21:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Reverted. If one thing gets 50 times the hits of the other it should probably be the main page. See guidelines is diambig pages. SimonLyall 22:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Difference between novel and movie

The following statement needs clairification: "The escape of Andy occurs 9 years earlier, from 1975 to 1966." Since I have not read the book, and could not find these dates on the Web, please distinguish and clarify this statement. Thanks, Steven McCrary 15:44, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Am I the only person that thinks this section is ridiculously over-detailed?

Yes, this section needs a clean-up and I feel most of the entries can be removed. Rtcpenguin 05:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See #List_of_differences below. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the entries do not say which aspect is from the book and which is from the film, for example: "Red was paroled after only thirty-eight years instead of forty."--Sadistic monkey 06:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Integrity

Apparantly User:Flex takes issue with the section on "integrity." Not sure why, please provide discussion here. In the mean time, I reverted the edits. Steven McCrary 21:52, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

It's just that the Wikipedia is not the place for original analysis (see the theme thread above), and I have seen nothing about this theme from the original author (S. King), in the reviews by any well-known critic (feel free to supply some), or in the director's commentary (Darabont actually specifies two themes: hope and friendship). Personally, I find integrity to be a questionable theme because Andy and company are involved in laundering money, which Andy later takes as his own. Not clearly wrong (cf. the discussion with Andy and Red in the library), but not beyond reproach either. --Flex 23:28, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I found a few Web sources that see integrity in Shawshank, and placed them in the article; but the sources may be inappropriately placed, if so, please move them. I removed my speculation about King's use of integrity. Regarding integrity as a questionable theme: I guess it depends on how integrity is defined. By definition, integrity means adherence to a moral or ethical code. Normally, that code should include honesty and trustworthiness. However, under these adverse conditions, isn't dishonesty necessary, even noble? As far as the money laundering goes, well I agree that it is not beyond reproach. Still, does that destroy Dufresne's integrity? Either way, that very discussion makes the topic of integrity worthy for inclusion as a theme in Shawshank. My 2cents; what say you? Thanks, Steven McCrary 13:51, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Steven. I find Andy's integrity questionable because he was an active participant in the warden's money laundering schemes. True integrity by almost any standard, IMHO, would have refused to help the warden in his scam or would have not taken ill-gotten money for his own. Admittedly, that's just my opinion, but my opinion does go to show that it's not cut-and-dry clear-as-day (unlike the themes of hope and friendship which are pretty explicit and unquestionable).

As for your citations, as in the thread above, I think you need to find a well-known critic (or one of the creators) who makes the case, not relatively obscure websites and anonymous users on forums. The Wikipedia is intended as a compendium of accepted human knowledge, not a place to present original research or criticism. For this reason, I still support deleting the integrity theme. As for the formatting, should you locate some qualifying sources, you could put them under the "References" section at the bottom and follow the formatting scheme there. If they need to be in-text citations because they follow a quote or something, you could put the website in brackets so it shows up as a footnote like this: [1]. Cheers! --Flex 00:59, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Flex, a couple of things:

I included a source written by Roger Ebert on integrity.

Your concerns about "accepted" human knowledge really got me to thinking about my contributions to Wikipedia, this entry particularly. Not sure I agree with your interpretation of the Wikipedia policy, though. For the case of integrity, the fact that many individuals saw this theme in the movie indicates to me that the theme exists, even if the original author did not intend it, or if an expert did not write about it. Still, I understand the need for Wikipedia to represent accepted knowledge, a grey line, and you and I seem to see this issue in different shades.

Regarding Andy' integrity: how much guilt should we attribute to Andy for his complicity in the warden's schemes. Afterall, the warden holds Andy's entire life in his hands, yes his very existence. To me that provides a great deal of freedom for Andy. In other words, the warden's power over Andy prevent Andy from making a truly free choice, therefore his action is coerced, and his integrity remains intact.

Sincerely, Steven McCrary 02:46, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. The mere fact that you and I are having this ethical discussion indicates to me the importance of this theme in the movie. Steven McCrary 02:48, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to enter into a discussion of whether or not the Andy Dufresne character has integrity---this talk page is not the place for such discussions. What I will take issue with, however, are the two links that are given in that section of the article. The first link takes the reader to a political blog on which an article appears claiming Andy Dufresne is a rational character with integrity. Pardon me, but that proves nothing. The second link takes one to a page in which it is said that a nonnotable group has given the film an award for making the viewer feel good. Once again, this is proof of nothing. At the beginning of the section on integrity, it is stated that Roger Ebert said the character has integrity. A link to the review in which he said that would be acceptable. I very much doubt the other two sites would pass muster. Neither meet the standards set by Wikipedia. Frankly, the whole "interpretations" section should go, and would not be missed. Most of that can be dealt with in the section on critical reception. ---Charles 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

What needs cleaning specifically? --Flex 15:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The "themes" section reads like a high school essay, not an encyclopaedia. No offence, but it really doesn't belong, or if it does, ti needs to be greatly emasculated into a single paragraph or two.

Similarily, things like Jesus' first miracle was turning water into wine, whereas Andy's first wonder was convincing the guards to give the prisoners beer. violate WP:NOR, and again border on making this a book report/essay

Ditto on the "names" bit, like but he is on a far different trajectory from Brooks because he has found hope.

The Count of Monte Cristo, which is about a prison break, was written by Alexander Dumas (mentioned in the film but pronounced "Dumbass" by Heywood), and Andy Dufresne escapes from prison in the movie. Both first names start with the letter "A", and both last names start with the letters "Du" and have a silent "s". is really stretching it.

References should not include reviews, and the IMDB paragraph at the top should be trimmed down a bit, though it is good to mention

How about you remove the Count of Monte Cristo trivia item instead of copypasting it here and complaining about it? It takes like, five seconds. 24.79.138.212 12:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I edited the above mentioned entry, adding much more similarities between the two works. I left in the part that may be a stretch, but if anyone feels it really shouldn't be there, feel free to delete that part yourself. Conquerer 20:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The "A review by James Berardinelli" in the References section needs cleaning up. The link is not active anymore.Zuracech lordum 16:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Corrected Errors

Goofs: "Red says Andy arrived at Shawshank in 1949, but then tells Tommy he came to the prison in 1947. He indeed came in 1947 because it took Andy 19 years to escape, which he did in 1966." -- This is not a goof and was simply interpreted incorrectly by this person. Red narrates near the beginning: "So when Andy Dufresne came to me in 1949 and asked me to smuggle Rita Hayworth into the prison for him, I told him no problem. And it wasn't." He is specifically referring to when Andy came to him and asked for the Rita Hayworth poster, a scene we later see in the film, not when Andy came to Shawshank Prison. The next thing Red says in narration a minute later is: "Andy came to Shawshank Prison in early 1947 for murdering his wife and the fella she was bangin'." No goof present here. I deleted the incorrect entry and the "Goofs" title, since that entry was the only one. Conquerer 03:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the Goofs section, and added a significant continuity goof. Interestingly, this one isn't even noted by IMDB.

--58.105.111.37 15:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Christian Themes

I could be crossing memories of the novella with those of the movie, but isn't it Andy's goal to make it to Mexico and set up a hotel on the beach? The article currently states that he's embraced the life of a fisherman and I recall nothing of the sort from either source, aside from the assumption one could draw based on the fact that he is sanding a canoe at the very end of the movie (more than a small stretch in my opinion). Can someone refresh me & hopefully the article? Wangoed 19:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Shawshankin

A term from whose wherabouts are unknown has now become part of the American lexicon. The term 'shawshankin' refers to the act of passing gas and shaking it out the bottom of one's pants. The term refers to the scene in the movie where Andy needs to find a way to redistribute the dirt he excavates from his escape hole. He decides to carry the dirt outside in his pants and shake it out on the baseball field.

This was in the article for some reason. I'm not sure if it's supposed to be a joke. Ich (talk) 07:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's just run of the mill Wiki vandalism. I've removed it (again) and warned the editor.

Atlant 12:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

List of differences

The list of differences with the novella is quite long and should perhaps be moved to a separate article, retaining only the most important ones here. What say you? --Flex 16:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If it's worth saving them at all, they should be their own article or something, because it's crazy long.24.193.227.46 01:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)sean

No way! It belongs in this article. "Longiness" is not a good enough reason for splitting, and the list isn't really that long. So please, let's keep it here. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 16:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well if it does stay here it really needs to be improved.--Sadistic monkey 06:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Brooks was here" vs. "I've decided not to stay"

This recent edit was correct, as far as I know. Why was it reverted "per policy concerns"? - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 02:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it was reverted, but "Brooks was here" is definetly correct.--Sadistic monkey 06:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, "I've decided not to stay" is what he writes in the letter, whereas "Brooks was here" is what he writes on the wall. The way it is written, it can go either way, though I think "I've decided not to stay" works better, given the previous sentence ("[...] he's tired of being afraid all the time"). EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

JibJab

JibJab's Great Sketch Experiment included a way shorted rap version of this film, the winner of the contest. Should that be included anywhere on here? 67.160.87.2 02:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say no per WP:EL (it's not "symmetric"). On the other hand, it may be notable that a parody of it was made so long after the film's release, the assumption being that for most folks to get the jokes, they'd have to know the movie. On the other-other hand, I don't know the details of that contest. Anyone can take a poll, and sneaky people can fairly easily rig a vote on a poorly implemented poll. (I'm not alleging that anything like that happened, just that a contest-winning parody isn't necessarily also a notable parody.) --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

2001 Reference

Heywood and Floyd are obvious references to Dr. Heywood Floyd from the film 2001: A Space Odyssey. I would add the trivia myself, but Wikipedia seems to have gotten a bit uptight about trivia lately so I decided to ask here first. --NeoVampTrunks 01:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You might be right, but I don't see that as "obvious." Did King say this somewhere? Is there some other connection between 2001 and Shawshank or between their respective characters? --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

King might easily have dated someone from Heywood and been a big fan of Pink Floyd. I wouldn't call this "obvious" at all... EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the best films of all time?

Where is it "consistently ranked among the best films of all time," other than IMDB and related lists? It's not on the AFI list, and certainly not Sight and Sound. I think this statement needs more support. (Eeesh 22:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC))

I think it would be more apt to say that it is critically acclaimed and give some references. It is certainly highly reviewed. And it did receive nominations and awards. I think this would be better to note.--Ronb 16:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is on the 2007 version of AFI's 100 list, something like #72. However, this film's inclusion is a new trend with AFI, and therefore it would not be accurate to say "consistently ranks" for either the Sight and Sound or AFI list. Seeing as how the only place it has consistently ranked near the top is on audience polls, this is an important fact which I think should be mentioned. --Mad Max 09:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The AFI business is covered under The Shawshank Redemption#Critical Reaction. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Norton's suicide

Would it be important to mention towards the end of the plot summary that the warden commits suicide when the police come to arrest him? I posted this once, but it was then removed [2].

I think so, and put it back accordingly. The editor who removed it apparently did so to eliminate unnecessary paragraph marks - which I didn't read as an objection to the text itself. If this violates some policy, or just someone's sensibilities, please feel free to revert my edit. 67.189.48.7 20:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Update - my edit lasted all of 10 seconds. I have never had an edit stick here at Wikipedia, perhaps because I have never had an account. It seems anonymous/IP edits are prohibited here, not by policy but by convention. Sorry...I tried. 67.189.48.7 21:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it was reverted because you broke several other things by rolling back edits. Besides, the existing text contains a sentence with the same substance already. --Flex (talk/contribs) 01:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation

IMDb contains a summary which is lifted from the corresponding Wikipedia article. IMDb, of course, claims copyright and exclusive right to all material submitted there, although in this case the posting user clearly "borrowed" it from here.

See http://imdb.com/title/tt0111161/synopsis and note the lack of references to GFDL, and IMDb's copyright notice at the bottom.

Plot Again

To further my comment that was made on the plot a looooong time ago (see item 4 on this page) I have removed the comment at the beginning of the plot that says Andy was wrongly convicted (since this is only ever corroborated by Tommy's story. The audience is never shown whether or not Andy did it. It is, perhaps, implied by the nature of his character, but never demonstrated.). I have also made a minor tweak of the sentence about Tommy confirming his story.

If anyone has any objections, feel free to say so. I'd like to do a more extensive edit to the plot, and i'll likely do that at the weekend provided there are no objections.

Enemy of the Light 22:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, well done on the "guilty" clarification. I never saw the earlier discussion, but the way you tell it, it rings perfectly true as the way the facts are presented to us in the film. I like what you did.

What further changes to the plot do you have in mind? I just overhauled it. I know it can be trimmed in a few places, but I'm wary of it growing -- and, of course, I'm somewhat partial to the current version (everyone's recent contributions included). So, if you read this before you, uh, tear my work to shreds, I hope you can let me know what you think needs improvement :) -- ManfrenjenStJohn 20:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings

I've added them to the plot section. I'm surprised they were not there before. -RunningOnBrains 05:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed them. What did you expect the plot section to contain, if not the plot? See WP:SPOILER for our guideline when to use spoiler warnings. Kusma (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings are no longer used on Wikipedia. 76.173.68.45 04:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Raped?

Was Andy really raped? I dont agree this should be included in the plot description. Yes, 'The Sisters' beat up Andy for two years. But more than that, nothing more is said ( or shown ). So saying that he was raped is just guessing. Lets stick to facts... So, can someone remowe the sentence? 89.212.104.197 20:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, they are called "The Sisters." Red refers to them as "bull queers" (bull would imply "dangerous") and says to Andy "They've taken an interest in you." Andy responds "I don't suppose it would help if I told them I'm not homosexual?", explicitly saying that their interest is sexual in nature. Red also mentions that "Bull queers take by force," a clear reference to rape. Boggs initially propositions Andy in the shower by saying "Anybody get to you yet? I could be a friend to you" in a way that can only be interpreted as sexually threatening. When Boggs and the Sisters first assault Andy in the laundry, several men restrain Andy while Boggs says, "Yeah, you fight. It's better that way." Also, the camera makes a point of ominously retreating, leaving the following events to the viewer's imagination; since the camera does not otherwise shy away from showing physical violence (e.g. "Fat Ass" being beaten to death by Hadley, or Tommy being shot), this implies that the content of the scene is not "merely" a beating. Boggs also threatens Andy during the movie screening with "You're going to swallow what I give you to swallow." I think this all suggests rape very strongly. The movie does not "say" or "show" rape as you say, because the filmmaker has chosen to convey this in a more elegant and subtle fashion (though in my opinion it's still essentially overt.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.199.128.156 (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Andy likely was raped. I doubt it would matter if it said Andy was beaten and raped or just beaten by the Sisters, I think its up to the viewer to interpret. Take for instance the scene where the Sisters corner Andy in th film room. Andy seems to realize whats going to happen and turns around and bends over merely saying "Lets get this over with" likely implying that Andy knows he's going to be raped and just wants it over quickly. However, Andy then attacks a Sisters member with a film plate before being beaten as a result.[Marball] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.214.14.96 (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it's completely controversial whether or not Andy was raped. If you pay close attention to the scenes in which rape is possibly depicted, it is merely implied. The first scene where Andy encounters The Sisters in the laundry room you see Andy threatened and beaten to the ground, where he is repeatedly kicked before the camera fades away. This could mean that Andy was possibly raped but Red's narrative clearly states "He never said who did it but we all knew", meaning the principal of the scene was to stress Andy's beating (not raping) and how he retained noticeable scars that everyone saw which sets a prelude to the tedious elements of Andy's routine. This is why the camera pans away instead of continuing forth with the laundry scene. Also another statement to back up that Andy wasn't raped, when Andy is confronted in the film room he is undaunted by the dagger/knife that Boggs presents infront of him, Andy insists that he's willing to embrace death before allowing Boggs to proceed with his proposal. It is then shown that due to Andy's flippant remark Boggs becomes hesitant of his first choice and then rather decides to beat him severly. Red's narrative proves that nothing took place their besides violence. I don't know, the matter is subjective to the observer, the creators purposely left that mysterious but I'm still leaning more toward he wasn't raped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.47.136 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Andy was definitely raped. Darabount, the director talks about it on his DVD commentary. In the novella, it's much more detailed about it. Dan20001 (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

IMDB Top 250

Why is this mentioned? The IMDB top 250 is based on user ratings, which is discouraged by the WikiProject Films style guidelines (see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#IMDB_User_Ratings). I don't see how this is any exception. JYi 06:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, get rid of it. Maybe something on how well liked it is by the general populace (backed up by a source, of course--of course!) That talk page discussion wasn't so much helpful as it was confusing. Anyone interested should check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines instead, where it says IMDb is not to be used. (For clarification, it says "comments" and "star ratings"--not overall rankings--aren't permitted... Dunno if overall rankings is equivalent with star rankings). Have fun, -Mysekurity 07:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If over a quarter-million votes is considered a user rating, you might as well refuse to include the results of state elections. Lukesed 02:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Critical analysis

• Deacy, Christopher (2006). "Redemption Revisited: Doing Theology at Shawshank". Journal of Contemporary Religion. 21 (2): 149–162. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Something for Interpretations. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Opera Song

Does anyone know what it is? 81.158.173.219 22:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Try reading the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.232.49 (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Randall Stevens

it isnt Randall Stevens, its Randall Stephens. take a look at the license (or whatever form of ID andy is carrying) in the scene when he is in the bank. Theres a shot of the license and you can clearly see that its spelled Stephens. The shot im referring to is when the camera is over the bank managers shoulder and you see him holding the ID forms. then the shot moves up to andy's face. Red is narrating, he says: "The next morning, right about the time Raquel was spilling her little secret, a man nobody ever laid eyes on before strolled into the Maine national bank. Until that moment he didn't exist- except on paper. He had all the proper ID (this is where you see the name) Drivers license, Birth certificate, Social Security card, and the signature was a spot on match. (andy hands the teller the outgoing mail, Red continues) Mr. Stephens visited nearly a dozen banks in the Portland area that morning. All told he blew town with better than $370,000 of Warden Nortons money- severance pay for 19 years." i love that line, a classic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.33.77 (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Film/Movie

In the opening paragraph alone The Shawshank Redemption is described as a 1994 drama 'film' and a 'movie'. I thought usually only one was used if there was an american/british clash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.199.181 (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Impact

Isn't this just a useless "Trivia" section which should be got rid of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisjwmartin (talk • contribs) 16:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Prisons

If anyone's interested, a new wikiproject has been proposed for the creation and improvement of articles regarding specific prisons, internment camps, and detention centers here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference in Runescape

There is a reference in the game Runescape to this story, which I think should be added somewhere.

This is the reference: In the new Stronghold of Safety, there is a jail. If a person walks into the jail, then walks into the only open cell, they will see a poster, a cot, and the door to the cell. If one uses the "Examine" choice on the cot, it says "It looks like someone made this chess set with this tiny rock hammer." In addition, if one "Examine"s the poster, it says that it is "A Grubinch Pin-up. Eww."

Chris122990 (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Critical reaction and public votes

The Critical reaction section lists some critics but also includes IMDB and Channel 4's 100 Greatest Film Poll.
Shouldn't such public votes be separated from the critics? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Le Nozze di figaro pic

Are there any problems foreseen when publishing this picture @ The_Shawshank_Redemption / references ? Qagnix (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)