Talk:Billy Jack

I have revisited this page two years on

I have revisited this page two years on. It is now clear to me that wikipedia shares in the normalized violence, since Jimmy Wales is violating tax law by using his nonprofit status to create a for-profit encyclopedia, and destroying online and meatspace reputations to do so.

Any "POV" that attempts to create necessary preconditions for the very ability of the least well off in society to have and express points of view is not, I repeat NOT, just another POV. It need not stand in line with the points of view of Greed, Fear, Pride, Lust or any of the seven deadly sins.

The POV that convenience store clerks and fourteen year olds may destroy the online and meatspace reputations of lawyers, doctors, and teachers who have in good faith contributed free time only to find themselves threatened and attacked isn't a POV. It's behavior, and in some cases it is psychotic behavior as was Wales' behavior when he destroyed the reputation of the actual inventor of the wiki concept and divorced his first wife for her wanting to be a nurse.

Therefore I have none of the considerable amount of compunctions I had in 2006 about altering wikipedia as a user now posting from an IP address.

Go ahead and cheat your neighbor.

Edward G. Nilges

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)

Minor note 60.240.187.128 (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC) shouldn't the section SEQUELS be SERIES instead (since at least one of them is even listed as a prequel, it doesn't seem fitting to be under the title of Sequels - or was it chronologically created afterwards - kinda confusing...)

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 (ForgeAus) 11:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

About as Encyclopedic as a Novel

The former often react by nervous laughter and an attempt to categorize the film as some sort of "Sixties" document despite its constant success in the real market. The latter feel like targets when the everyday violence of the town is reversed against the town's leaders, taken as they are from the same social class as film investors, and are confused when the commune members themselves question their own violent instincts, and ask if an escape is possible from an unsustainable world of "hate your neighbor, cheat a friend".

That is ridiculous. This article needs a major rewrite. SensiblePaladin (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hapkido...?

The article states that the type of martial art used was Hapkido. With almost exclusive use of footwork, I would have guessed Savate. --Studio 126 (talk) 10:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)