Talk:The Sting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Film (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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 project 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
 
WikiProject Illinois (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Chicago (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / American Cinema (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.
 
WikiProject Library of Congress (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 

Incomplete Plot Summary[edit]

The plot summary is incomplete, and reads more like a long promotional blurb instead. - Matt 08:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Are you complaining that it doesn't give away the surprise ending? Wahkeenah 09:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree Matt, it needs more detail and needs to be NPOV. 156.34.216.68 19:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • What POV problems do you have with it, specifically? Wahkeenah 23:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
All of this sets the stage for a memorable conclusion, including two major twists which amount to cons played on an audience accustomed to being on the inside of all of the characters' schemes.
This doesn't really reflect a neutral point of view and yes, the entire story should be given away. But, it's no big problem whoever wrote the plot summary, it's excellent. TeeHeeHee 22:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolutely - An Eponymous double entendre! I would also like to see Johnny and Loretta's dialogue ("You're just like me. It's 2:00 AM and I don't know nobody...") accurately quoted--OmarFirestone 14:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Fine, I gave it all away. Feel free to polish as needed. Spoilsports. >:( Wahkeenah 15:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
It looks a whole lot better now. LOL, Wahkeenah, it's not like someone who hasn't seen the movie is going to keep reading past the spoiler warning anyway! : D 156.34.209.84 05:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have tightened up the language in the first half of the plot synopsis (tense, syntax etc.) but kept the same ¶s. I have also removed some adverbs/adjectives, "naturally", "clever" etc. for the sake of NPOV. Spoiler warning notwithstanding, I think Wahkeenah's original allusion to, rather than an explicit explanation of, the "double twist" is more appropriate. --OmarFirestone 14:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletions[edit]

  • After Hooker's girlfriend Crystal comes offstage (in the foreground of the scene) from doing her burlesque act, Leonard goes onstage (in the background) and tells a joke to the out-of-sight audience. Hooker and Crystal mostly talk over the joke, so the film's audience only hears the punchline. The complete joke involves a man who had just bought a live chicken and then impulsively goes to a movie theater, hiding the chicken in his pants so the ticket-taker won't hassle him about bringing a bird into the theater. Once in his seat, sitting next to two women, he opens his fly so the chicken can stick out its head and breathe easily. In the darkened theater, the women misinterpret what the man is doing. Most of this part of the joke is heard in the film: "The first woman says to her friend, 'This man's fly is open!' The second woman says, 'When you've seen one, you've seen 'em all!' The first woman says, 'Yeah, but this one's eating my popcorn!'"
  • A foreshadowing of what Lonnegan would be up against, if Johnny Hooker and Henry Gondorff were to be successful in taking a large sum of money from him, is revealed early in the film. Lonnegan's bodyguard, Floyd, tells him about grifters having conned one of Lonnegan's runners out of a few thousand dollars (as the audience knows, but as Doyle does not, Floyd is, of course, referring to Hooker, Joe Erie and Luther Coleman). Lonnegan tells him the grifters have to be dealt with quickly and harshly, because if word got out that he had been swindled out of even that small amount, Lonnegan would have to kill his childhood friend and business competitor along with everyone else who would try to muscle in on his racket.

I believe WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOR cover the reasons for the deletion of this unencylopaedic information. Can anyone really defend quoting an entire joke from the movie verbatim here? This isn't a fansite, it's an encyclopedia. The second para is original research. And the heading 'Trivia' is against WP policy, so I'm changing that to "Other production information".Michael DoroshTalk 00:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

From WP:TRIVIA " If the trivia are funny (at least, fun to more than one person), they can be included in BJAODN - or other divisions of the Department of Fun. No more than half-funny things are however often thrown out of there too."Michael DoroshTalk 00:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks to me like you're on a one-man campaign to (1) pass judgment as to what's trivial/funny or not and (2) eradicate any you don't like, unilaterally. That is a wikipedia violation, son. Wahkeenah 00:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, I'm not your son, and secondly, unless you plan on actually debating the merits of the inclusion of this material - as YOU requested we do - I see no reason not to delete it, as I'll assume you have no reason to keep the material included. Now, did you have something constructive to say? If so, I'm happy to form consensus, but we can't do that if you're simply going to be insulting. So why do you feel the material merits inclusion?Michael DoroshTalk 00:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
You didn't debate anything, you just deleted it. Put it back, then we'll talk. Daddyo. Wahkeenah 01:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Put it back if you like, but I'm going to make a WP:RfC if you insist on not being civil.Michael DoroshTalk 01:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, the see the guideline Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. One-man crusade indeed.Michael DoroshTalk 13:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I have stopped watching the page. You have ruined any interest I had in maintaining it. Wahkeenah 05:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Now who's the spoilsport, Wahkeenah? :D Remember: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. Michael is only following the rules here, you could at least be polite to someone you don't know.156.34.239.11 20:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted the aforementioned items as original research in accordance with WP:NOR.Michael DoroshTalk 20:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk about a total misinterpretation of policy. "And the heading 'Trivia' is against WP policy"...there is no such policy that says this, WP:TRIVIA is an essay and Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles is a guideline. The first word of the guideline should give you a hint, it doesn't say Do not include trivia sections in articles, it says avoid, two completely different things. I also fail to see how WP:NOR applies. --Holderca1 16:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Speakeasy[edit]

I am about to change the word "speakeasy" to in the section The Set-Up to "tavern". "Speakeasy" usually refers to an illegal tavern operating during prohibition. The Wikipedia article (although clearly in need of work) describes it this way. In 1936, prohibition was long gone. Although one may argue that the term could still be applied to an unlicensed establishment operating after the end of prohibition, there is no clear indication in the film that this description applies to the business depicted. It is unambiguously a tavern, but only possibly (probably not) a speakeasy.

Comments please. Steven J. Anderson 00:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Speakeasy is still used today to refer to an illegal drinking establishment. "Blind Pig" is the only term I'm aware of that is no longer in use for such establishments, although that might be a west coast term. bobanny 06:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes in plot summary[edit]

Reference is made that not having previously met Hooker, Lonnegan is unaware "at first" that Hooker and Kelly are the same person. In fact, Lonnegan is NEVER aware they are the same person, first or later. I removed that phrase. Also, Hooker and Gondorff are described as exiting the alley way "with the large sum of money left by Lonnegan." In the film, Gondorff asks Hooker if he's not going to stick around for his "share," to which Hooker replies, "Nah, I'd only blow it." I took this to mean that the two con artists, in leaving together, plan to start from scratch, leaving the loot for the remainder of the company. Correct me if I'm wrong here. ElizabethD22 03:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

We just cannot tell. The ending is left completely open. Gondorff may come back for his share or have Billie pick it up for him. Or he may just ignore it since he had more than monetary reasons for joining the caper. Hooker in the only one that states he won't pick up his share.--J-Star 07:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Somebody (Gondorff?) says that they should meet at Duke's at some later point to get paid.Gusssss (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Gondorff instructs his minions to "take this place apart fast" and that they'll meet later to divide their winnings. He then leaves with Hooker, who says he's not going to take his share of the winnings, as he would only spend it all foolishly. That way they can "walk off into the sunset" (or at least the iris-out) together. Regarding the earlier comment, no, Lonnegan never becomes aware that Hooker and Kelly are the same guy. He has his assassins looking for Hooker, but obviously Lonnegan never sees a picture of Hooker, or he would have put 2 and 2 together quickly, and Hooker would have been dead meat along with everyone else playing the con. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stingredfordnewman.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Stingredfordnewman.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 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.

BetacommandBot 11:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hooker[edit]

It's a little known fact that "Hooker" was also an alias. His "natural" name was Roy Hobbs, and after this sting, he resumed his former career, as a baseball player and led the New York Knights to a pennant. You could look it up! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

6 parts[edit]

The current plot sum up shows 4 parts whereas I'm currently watching the movie, part 4: The Wire, which plot is roughly the second half of current summed up part 3: (maybe that is because of some version cuts, although I strongly doubt it..) Also, I believe it is inappropriate to express the part number (part 1 ,part 2, part 3...) as they are not displayed in the movie. Staarkali (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Ok, I have watched it all and there is definitively 6 parts (with The Shut-Outas part 5). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staarkali (talkcontribs) 14:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Listing the specific minutes, while interesting, might get challenged on the grounds of "original research". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The plot summary is way too long. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 05:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Production[edit]

The production section is pathetic. Surely, something has been written about the making of this important film, yes? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hickey is a con man[edit]

Regarding recent changes to the plot section by Ferrierd, there is no reason to change the wording to reveal that FBI agent Polk is actually a con man named Hickey. This is revealed at the end of the plot summary, just as it is in the film. We need not make a point of saying "He's a con man" when describing Hooker's first meeting with Polk. That just seems silly and unnecessary. Anyone have any thoughts on this? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 01:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

David F (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC) - Characterizing someone's contributions to Wikipedia as "silly and unnecessary" is silly and unnecessary, and it is unhelpful to assert there is "no reason" to change the wording of a Wikipedia article.
David F (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Added Dramatic Irony subsection
No, that was not appropriate. The plot summary says what happened in the film, without drawing particular attention to one aspect or another, and certainly without offering commentary on said events. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
David F (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC) Why "not appropriate"? Dramatic Irony lists numerous Wiki plot summaries that contain similar "commentary on events".
That is irrelevant. The plot tells what happened in the film, in the order that it happened, period. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Creating a separate section is overkill of the obvious. Keeping it within the Plot section is quite sufficient. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)