Talk:The Hitcher (1986 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

The 2007 remake is probably gonna be awful—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jezpuh (talk • contribs) 006-01-22T02:58:23.

are there any standards set on wikipedia as to how to write a movie storyline? this particular one sounds like it was written by a thirteen year old kid - it's all sound and fury. the first half of the movie is dashed through in two sentences, and the last five minutes are given two whole paragraphs. i'm surprised there isn't an exact number of police cars trashed in the movie given somewhere. the plot part of the article should be rewritten, abridged, and given without all of the major spoilers, and without giving away a detailed account of the finale. (i've noticed similarly styled storyline accounts on the articles on pitchdark and it's sequel. is this the same writer? if so, maybe someone should point out to the writer that these kinds of spoiler-laden and finale-giving-away plotlines aren't exactly appropriate?)

another thing: the hauer persona (john ryder - the hitcher) in the movie clearly wishes jim to kill him. does anyone have an inkling as to what this might mean? if so, it should probably be included in the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.172.254.65 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-28T02:58:44.

Roger Ebert gave a truely disgusted review of this at the time, similar to the tone he gave more recently for Wolf Creek (which is interesting in itself). He attributed the apparent "bond" between Jim and Ryder to nihilistic homoeroticism, and supported it with dialog references (albeit circumstantial, and with the nasty death of the movie's only female character.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.54.198.112 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-16T05:01:47.

There are many plot errors in this page (Jim is only arrested once; he pulls the gun on the cops the second time; with the third run in, the cops try to get Jim to touch the cops hand so as the cop can justify killing him --- this is when Nash pulls the gun on the cops because she realizes what they were about to do, etc...). Yes, I liked this movie as it really scared the bejeezus out of me when I first saw it as a young teenager.

Remake deserves its own page?[edit]

Does anyone agree with me that the 2007 remake deserves its own page? I believe it'd be cleaner -- and more logical. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 12:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, this has since happened. I vote to remove the second about the remake from this page - it's redundant; a link to the remake's page is sufficient. Any objections? Thestorm042 05:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Headlines[edit]

articles to use.--J.D. (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation and Expansion[edit]

This article requires some more attention to it. Some sections need to be expanded in more detail than what they're currently at, these sections which need to be expanded include the production and reception sections. The production section is moderately developed, however, it is missing important information on the filming portion of the film's production which needs to be added and given proper citations. The reception section is too short and doesn't contain enough information, more reviews from notable critics needs to be added including its initial and later reception. The legacy section is unsourced and needs to be given proper citations for its information. Finally the lead section is way too short and does not adequately summarize the contents of the article like it should, it needs to be expanded through use of cop editing which will take care of this problem. All of these changes and additions need to occur in order for this article to meet Wikipiedia's guidelines and standards of a well developed and properly sourced article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Critics[edit]

The Critic section claiming the Hitcher is "a slasher movie about gay panic, a nasty piece of homophobic angst for the age of AIDS" doesn't belong. The citation for this is broken, there's no link so the reader is just going to be confused about what content in the movie justifies that take. (there isn't any) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.28.113 (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That quote is mentioned as a quote with source A Way With Words. You should be able to find the source. Adakiko (talk) 01:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Offline sources are allowed as sources (how else would we cite books and newspapers that haven't been digitized?), and you can't just remove reviews because you dislike them. If everyone did that, the reception section would be blank. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"That quote is mentioned as a quote with source A Way With Words" - a link to a podcast about etymology that mentions a fragment of the review?

That's not a source, offline or not, it's simply not cited properly.

Again, WHY is it homophobic? Why would an encyclopaedia need such a bizarre critique? It reads like a conspiracy theory.

Im saying it makes no actual sense, and should be replaced with one that actually references the movie. 46.7.28.113 (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's cited to a review in The Globe and Mail, a newspaper. You already said you don't like the review. It's irrelevant whether you like the review, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, when discussing an allegorical interpretation of a creative work, a WP article should state the source's basis for that interpretation. Of course, it's possible that The Globe and Mail itself didn't state the basis for its interpretation, but if it did and if someone has access to that source, it would be helpful to add that info. While it doesn't justify removing the review, 47.7.28.113's point about reader confusion is valid. Martin IIIa (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]