Jump to content

Talk:Easy Rider

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


POV detected!

[edit]

The plot section states: "with two woman SEEMING to...". This is a POV, since it's someone personal opinion instead of proven facts regarding this movie. Needs a rewritting. --Δ Mr. Nighttime Δ (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! That's funny! I love it when abusive editors rip apart people's work! Good job! Keeping up my faith in wikipedia (Lower case intentional)!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.58.247.77 (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're not drug dealers

[edit]

- Wyatt and Billy scored drug money one time only in the entire movie.
- There's no dialogue to assure that they're drug dealers instead of mere couriers to the "connection" (played by Phil Spector).
- Character background story is not provided.
- The goal of both characters was to score money in order of "to retire" in Florida. We could think on retirement from the drug dealing business OR retirement from a previous style of life not described in the movie (not drug-related).
- We can't see the characters dealing with drugs along the movie for profit, instead they offer drugs for free to other characters (Hanson, played by Jack Nicholson, and the hookers). Sharing drugs was "in" with the hippie style of life they have and not necessarily have anything to do with criminal enterprise.
- According to the 60's zeitgeist, they're moving away from The Man, so I decided to rewrite their occupation as "freewheeling hippies" instead of "drug dealers" as previously stated in the article. --Δ Mr. Nighttime Δ (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

[edit]

I added a link to my blog which has been 2 years of research and visiting movie locations in Easy Rider crossing several states. To my knowledge, it is the only of its kind to show a map, and screenshots from the movie as well as what the sites look like today. MrZip66 (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)--MrZip66 (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i made some major - but obvious - changes. i integrated the trivia into a coherent (but incomplete) "production" section, as well as a section on the bikes. most of it is taken verbatim from what was in the trivia, but streamlined where necessary. all of that information is included in either the Easy Riders, Raging Bulls book, or the making-of documentary on the DVD, or both, but the citations should be put into footnotes.

i also got rid of the tracklist, since that's in the soundtrack article, and replaced it with some actual information about the soundtrack, again, from the documentary. i left the trivia that i couldn't do anything with, but it should probably be deleted - there's plenty of trivia on IMDB. overall though, i think this is a big improvement Sebs26 22:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot deeper than it sounds. It both creates and destroys the hippie ideal, all at the same time. Taking a toke versus a bad trip on LSD leading to a death; the intolerance of the Deep South for nonconformists. "Steal This Book" by Abbie Hoffman does the same, but on paper. You've gotta see this. (The great soundtrack helps, too.)

I concur. This is one of the greatest films of all time. It's up there with 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner, Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, etc. The Wookieepedian 11:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spinoza1111 05:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Hmm, why should I have to put up with somebunny who writes "a lot deeper than it sounds" when he so obviously meant, like wow man, to write the reverse. Oh well...[reply]

Spinoza1111 05:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)The above reverted the following passage:[reply]

Despite its "countercultural" ambience, the film had a conservative subtext. No space was given to the idea of social change within viable communities and the "commune" is a joke. Captain America and Billy buy in to the same values of power and control, in the "hippie" register, as the society and for this reason are perceived by the locals (portrayed unflatteringly by real people in a foretaste of modern "reality" shows, and their contempt for reality and the people in it) as in competition and fit for nothing but a drive-by shooting.

Women are treated as sex objects and markers of power and control, and the popularity of this film caused not a little feminist rage in reaction to male hippiedom.

Shortly after this film, and after Altamont and the Manson slayings, the very idea of the hippie became the sickest of jokes at best.

For this reason, it is not at all ironic that Dennis Hopper is today, a Republican and a supporter of President Bush.

Spinoza1111 05:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)I want this back in. What, we're supposed to accept that this film is about two "liberal radicals" versus "conservatives"?? Bullshit.[reply]

Spinoza1111 05:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Captain America and Billy are fucking thugs. Even the makers of this film are laughing at people who in any way think that Captain America and Billy were heroes, or even anti-heroes. Their Amerikkka is so fucked up that they themselves are fucked up, and, as Captain America says, they blew it.[reply]

Spinoza1111 05:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)To worship this as a great film is nonsense. It was exploitation at worst and healthily realistic at best.[reply]

To answer your question: The contribution you made was both commentary and extreme POV as outlined in the Wikipedia guidlines. If you dispute this, you are welcome to follow the guidlines, and officially dispute the deletion. Rsm99833 09:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems funny that you know "so much" about actors and write about "Nicholas Cage." His name is Nicolas Cage. It's Italian. This is supposed to be accurate, for crying out loud! I changed it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.68.60.129 (talk) 10:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitchhiker character

[edit]

Can someone explain how/why the hitchhiker is the leader of the commune? Perhaps this is described in some book, DVD commentary, etc. but it is not at all obvious (at least not to me) when viewing the film itself. Thanx, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is. He's a combo of various "communes" of the time, who were a "kinder" version (my words, not his)of Charles Manson. Overall, these guys were the "leaders" of a bunch of women. Any other guys just happened along. It's described in the DvD in more detail. Rsm99833
I believe Luke Askew in the "special feature" portion of the DVD/interview in 1999 indicates the no name guy is not a member of the commune, but a traveling salesmen who supplies drugs to communes. Boondocks Ranch 13:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting theory, Boondocks Ranch, but I don't think a hippie commune have a "leader" nor a "drug supplier". Certainly there are people to provide both a leadership and a supplying of drugs to a 60's commune, but since the movie states nothing about the hitchhiker doing it, we can't take a deep dip on the subjectivity and it's better to think of him as just one more hippie from the commune and not much special character to the main plot. --Δ Mr. Nighttime Δ (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that we can tel if he is the leader - but many hippie communes did have strong leaders. Look up the Farm or Twin Oaks, for instance, which survived. Both had leaders, despite an ideal of equality. By the way Mr. Nightime, you are as speculative as the edits you are criticizing as POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.43.32.160 (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wyatt & Billy

[edit]

Isn't Hopper, Wyatt and Fonda, Billy? The article has it vice versa Boondocks Ranch 13:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article looks correct to me. Check the imdb page also. --David Edgar 11:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is right. Fonda's Wyatt AKA Capt. America, Hopper is Billy. I just re-watched the film plus the documentary and I also watched with the commentary, so believe me, I'm up to my ears in Easy Rider right now, and I can safely tell you the article is right.207.127.128.2 04:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, along the movie Dennis Hopper character states his name as Billy and Peter Fonda character as "Captain America". Hopper is Billy and Fonda is Wyatt, so. --Δ Mr. Nighttime Δ (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misstatement

[edit]

There's a howler of a slanderous misstatement in the trivia part of this article: "In the documentary, "Easy Rider: Shaking the Cage", Hopper claims he told the locals that he raped and killed a young girl outside of town in order to elicit the responses he wanted from the local men." I watched the documentary last night (it's on the DVD) and what Hopper says is, he told the local cops in the diner scene to play it AS IF Billy, Wyatt and George had raped a girl outside of town. -- EB

It's actually ambiguous the way Hopper says it. I watched the documentary recently, and what he says is that they can hurl whatever abuse they like, "cuz we just raped and murdered a girl outside of town." I assumed he meant the characters, too, but it is an ambiguous...Snyrt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.192.68.117 (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Hopper had said to the town sheriff that he had just raped a girl, odds are that the sheriff have arrested him in no time. I saw the documentary and I concluded, by the most obvious interpretation, that Hopper asked the sheriff to treat them AS IF they just raped a girl from outside of town. --Δ Mr. Nighttime Δ (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Film score

[edit]

This article states "The score of the film was asked to be done entirely by The Band." Easy Rider Soundtrack states "... Crosby, Stills, and Nash were originally slated to do the soundtrack ..." Which is correct? Or maybe both are in some way? Neither of them appears to be referenced. --David Edgar 11:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone supply citation that Dylan wrote the first verse of "Ballad of Easy Rider"? In the credits, it lists McGuinn as the author, and in the Shaking the Cage documentary, Fonda says that McGuinn wrote the lyrics while the two of them watched the last shot (rising from the wreckage); Fonda says that McGuinn asked him what the shot meant thematically, and Fonda said something about the river being "the road that God built". According to Fonda, McGuinn wrote the lyrics down right then and there. Snyrt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.192.68.117 (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McGuinn has long stated that Dylan gave him the lyric "roll river roll". The implication being McGuinn then wrote the rest of the song. He has been insistent on Dylan's contribution and always credits Dylan whenever talking about this tune. I think I can come up with a quote and will source this when I get the opportunity.THX1136 (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Johnny Rogan's book, Timeless Flight, has the following quote from McGuinn: "Dylan did write half the lyrics and I wrote the other half . . .". Rogan states that this statement by McGuinn was after an earlier interview where "McGuinn again stressed that Dylan was responsible only for composing a couple of lines". This information was taken from page 129 of the book published by Square One Books Ltd., 3rd ed., 1991, ISBN 1 872848 00 0. This section of the book is a track by track look at the Ballad of Easy Rider album. As this does not verify the authorship of the first verse I am reluctant to use it as a citation in this instance. It does support, in a general way, the statement in the article itself. Also, the footnote (31) used in the next paragraph supports the authorship question. THX1136 (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

[edit]

I just added a bit of worthless trivia that the title characters are both in Grand Theft Auto games. Therefore, this message of approval isnt necessary.

Fair use rationale for Image:Easyrider76.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Easyrider76.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. GentlemanGhost 19:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

misquote

[edit]

Didn't the group "Dance for our dinner," rather than sing for supper?Phaedrus420 00:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The line is actually something like "Play for our dinner" User:Snyrt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.192.68.117 (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracy

[edit]

Though cocaine is implied, it is never stated. This was intentional. (source was an interview on NPR with Fonda, but it seems more important to have sources for the facts, not lack of) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.49.163 (talk) 05:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never stated, also, was the possibility of both characters be just couriers instead of dealers of something that appears to be cocaine. --Δ Mr. Nighttime Δ (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Shaking the Cage" feature on the 30th anniversary DVD release (which I recently watched), Fonda implies that powdered sugar was used in the scene where he and Hopper partake of the drug before buying from the dealer in Mexico.THX1136 (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Context?

[edit]

After reading the article I realized that it's missing something important: cultural/historical context. It comes across as though it's written for people who are already cognizant of that context, which is undoubtedly true for some readers, but it shouldn't be assumed to be the case for everybody. It needs to have some material that lays out that context and explains how the film hooked into the zeitgeist, for readers who weren't around in the U.S. at the time it was made.

Also, I was expecting the Impact section to discuss the critical reaction at the time (not just its award noms), and especially the film's reception among the under-30 generation. There is some material that touches on that -- the lines re Steal This Book and Doonesbury -- but the meaning of Abbie Hoffman's remark is ambiguous as presented here, and in any event, there should be a full paragraph on each of these larger subjects (which would also help in terms of giving readers a sense of the cultural/historical context). Hope this has been helpful! Cgingold 19:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contradict

[edit]

I marked this because it states that Rip Torn pulled a knife, then later goes on to say Torn won a lawsuit against Hopper for saying that very thing on television. 69.221.158.99 (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:EasyRider.jpg

[edit]

Image:EasyRider.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unproduced sequel

[edit]

Perhaps the article could mention the sequel that was planned, "Biker Heaven"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guano II (talk • contribs) 21:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC) all right!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.252.55.217 (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Considering the Deletionists won't allow a section abt a sequal that is being released, I don't think there's any hope of you beating the anti-fact people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.211.148 (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolson as writer???

[edit]

The first paragraph of the article states that Jack Nicholson is one of the writers of the movie. I have never seen a reference for this anywhere before as either a credited or uncredited writer. And I don't believe he is listed in the WGA as such. Can anyone verify this? Tlatseg (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is "CSN"?

[edit]

The article presently reads toward the bottom:

When CSN viewed a rough cut of the film, they assured Hopper that they could not do any better than he already had.

I assume "CSN" means Crosby, Stills, and Nash, but I don't know this for certain; furthermore, it isn't explained why "CSN" (whatever this means) viewed a rough cut of the film.

Perhaps someone could explain? --Skb8721 (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it referred to Crosby, Stills & Nash. Your quote from the "Shaking the Cage" documentary is connected. After the fact, but wanted to verify for future readers.THX1136 (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Culture References: Akira

[edit]

Source? Only one member of the gang pops pills and only after the government messes with him. As for the gang of bikers? Bōsōzoku Not every free spirited motorcyclist in Japan is influenced by Easy Rider. This clearly looks like someone's opinion instead of something the author said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.186.228 (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation of $500 price of four motorcycles

[edit]

I reverted this edit which was explained as "what is the mania with inflation adjustments? things have changed so much, these numbers are meaningless)"

Indeed, things have changed. That is the point of inflation. By adjusting for inflation, you compensate for the many ways that things have changed in order to get a better idea of how much money was actually spent. I added the {{Inflation}} template to get a more accurate number.

If the point is to object in principle to the concept of Inflation, well, see Wikipedia:Fringe theories: Inflation is a widely accepted, mainstream tool for understanding change in value over time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Achieve freedom, in lede

[edit]

That phrase is incredibly bad english. Greglocock (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually perfectly valid English. Nothing grammatically, syntactically, or semantically incorrect in that sentence. If you're trying to say you don't understand what it means, just say that. Yworo (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think I understand what the idea is , but the phrasing is appalling. Freedom in an absolute sense is not an achievable state compared with enlightenment or bankruptcy, for example.Greglocock (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that complete freedom comes with complete enlightenment, so if enlightenment is attainable then so is freedom. Another way would be to eliminate all obstacles to freedom, though that would probably require either the elimination of all other people or complete withdrawal from them. People who choose to live on the high seas come pretty close to this ideal. Yworo (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Trip (1967 film) is not mentioned

[edit]

Please integrate it! 87.164.124.81 (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be? It's a different film. Do you have sources connecting or comparing them? Yworo (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And neither is the sequel! Why the hatred for information? The deltionists are ruining this site with their desire to have Wiki contain no information. I got to screen Easy Rider 2: The Ride Back, and it was a pretty good movie. Just because the deltionists hate it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.210.225.199 (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. If you want to integrate it, you need to find something to integrate in a quality source. It's not that hard. For example, here, is a good source which gives the opinion that the acid trip sequence in Easy Rider is derived from a similar scene in The Trip. There are other sources that discuss the two films as well: [23][24][25].

Sitting around bitching about deletionists is no substitute for doing the work yourself. All you need is to meet Wikipedia's basic standards for any article, which means closely following what has been said by reliable sources, with no embellishment. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the actors went on a gay bashing rant so attacking the movie by deleting all information about it is the only right thing to do in this situation. I will personally check Wikipedia every single day to make sure no mention of that movie survives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.116.228 (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.194.62.140 (talk) [reply]

Since we don't lack of sources saying the movies are related, there's no valid reason to leave The Trip out of this article. Trying to expunge content from any article because of something unrelated to the article that one of the actors said is not acceptable. It is also not acceptable to ignore consensus by returning to the article to delete content you don't like. That is edit warring and it is likely to result in a block from editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don Quixote theme

[edit]

It has a pretty clear Don Quixote theme to it. Fonda is Quixote. Hopper is Panza. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.230.115 (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcycles section

[edit]

In the opening scene of the movie, Wyatt and Billy arrive at the La Contenta Bar riding off-road/motocross bikes. I believe these bikes should be mentioned in the Motorcycles section of the article. I, for one, would like to know what they were, which is what drew me to the article. I've been unable to determine the make/model of either bike, however.--Racwp (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fonda on red Bultaco Pursang, Hopper maybe on Norton P11 Ranger.--193.159.103.128 (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marijuana vs cannabis

[edit]

I don't understand why we would ever want to change the reference to marijuana to say cannabis in lines like "scenes showing the use of marijuana and other substances." Marijuana is a part of the cannabis plant that is used as a recreational drug, which is specifically what is shown in this film. Calling it cannabis is like saying "violins are made out of trees" instead of saying they're made out of wood. It's just misleading to say they used cannabis. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The original edit to this article [26] is part of a series of edits across a wide range of articles, changing 'marijuana' to 'cannabis' (e.g. [27], [28]), and 'alcohol' to 'ethanol' (e.g. [29], [30] and [31]).
@Clr324: I'm always suspicious of such campaigns, because regardless of the merit of the idea behind the changes, they so often seem to ignore how appropriate it is for individual articles. For this article, 'marijuana' seems by far the better choice of word. Willondon (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Willondon: Hello! Please ping me *before* you talk about me behind my back. Thanks.
No really though. I 100% agree that marijuana is the best word for this article. I just want to use the formal word first. Such as "cannabis (marijuana)" and then use marijuana thoughout the rest of the article. Clr324 (say hi) 07:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What you're doing is really confusing to readers, and it misinforms them if you mean, formally, that cannabis is the whole plant. Why are you doing this? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Marijuana is a form of cannabis extract. The kava beverage is a form of kava extract. Etc. Clr324 (say hi) 22:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which is what I meant about saying violins are made out of trees. It's true, they are, but it's more informative and accurate to say they're made out of wood. The drug consumed here and in most similar contexts is marijuana, not other drugs also made from cannabis, and not the stems, roots, seeds or other miscellaneous parts of the plant. I can understand if somebody wanted to casually or figuratively treat cannabis and marijuana as meaning the same thing, but that's the opposite of what you're claiming to do. If we want the most accurate word, we want marijuana. I hope you haven't done this to too many articles because it's not good. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Going with the violin analogy, you wouldn't call violin trees but I don't think there would be a problem with calling a violin made from white willow a "white willow violin" and not "white willow extract violin". The fact is marijuana and hashish and other forms of cannabis and cannabis-based drugs are the same thing (sort of, hashish has more THC but you know what I mean)! Unless bred otherwise all cannabis products contain the same phytocannabinoids. Wait cut that, hemp contains THC just in minute amounts. Clr324 (say hi) 06:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We're agreed then that 'marijuana' is the appropriate word in this article. Again, bulk edits across many articles often change things for the worse in some articles. "Formal" means the version of the word used when form is paid special attention. It doesn't mean the best, or most appropriate form of the word. I compare using the formal word first to arriving at the gym in a tuxedo, before changing into shorts and a T-shirt. Willondon (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I try to do my best to be aware of the context of the article. Clr324 (say hi) 22:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change to reference section headings

[edit]

I would like to note that the citation formatting and also the reference section style and headings are subject to WP:CITEVAR: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." The headings in this article have always been a level2 "Notes" and a level2 "References" section, as they are in this revision from 19 March 2016. I don't see any discussion about this started on the talk page by the involved editor, much less any new consensus, so the citations and sections should remain as they are and not be changed from the current state of the article, which is the continuation of its historical headings, to a single individual editor's "preferred" headings. That means you, User:Beyond My Ken. You know better. Skyerise (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the last scene in the plot section

[edit]

The last part of the Plot section might have grown a little long. A shorter version could be:

The final scene is a confrontation on the road with two rednecks in a pickup truck that escalates to the point that Wyatt and Billy mortally injured from both gunshot and motorcycle crash injuries.

The ambiguity of the last scene, and the implied motives of the rednecks -- that they meant to scare but not necessarily hit Billy with the first shot, but then returned to kill Wyatt since he was a witness -- can be fully described in an Analysis section, along with commentary on the use of a disorienting reverse cut that emphasizes the the Captain America bike crashing, but not showing the rider, and the stars and stripes fuel tank explodes. Also, the military funereal-like covering of Billy with an American flag and Wyatt's stars and stripes helmet left behind on the side of the road as he rides for help. The rising crane shot from a helicopter suggests the poiont of view of a character's spirit upon death -- see Felina (Breaking Bad) [32], Community S1E23, etc. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Easy Rider. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Easy Rider. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Easy_Rider&oldid=1194478933"