Talk:Raging Bull

Source of the script anecdote is Stephen Bach's memoir, "Final Cut".

Removing Link

I'm removing the link to the poster site. It's akin to an advertisement, and the brief synopsis it gives is redundant.--Pewpewlazers 03:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Plot

Needs extensive revision, picks up on miniscule details whilst ignoring much more significant plot details (e.g. the fights with Sugar Ray). Several mistakes ("second glitch of Vickie") and totally omits the end of the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.116.67 (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

i know i'm getting that sorted out but you are going to have to be patient. i will take your advice into account so thank you anyway Kilnburn (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

i have since cut down much of the plot and it is now at a managable size. i'm really pleased with it and thanks for those who did those neccesary changes Kilnburn (talk) 10:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

This film is extensively studied in a lot of academic circles, especially film schools, most notably for the sound design. Is any of this wikipedia worthy? I'm talking about how certain sound effects are used, such as the sound of breaking glass for camera flashes and the like. Also, is the fact that Joe Pesci's ribs were broken in real life during one of the sparring scenes notable for addition here? (just as long as the source is cited?)Toquinha 18:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Also wanted to add that the trivia-esque comment, "DeNiro gained 60 pounds to prepare for his role, more than any other actor has gained or lost for a role" is untrue and has been appropriately deleted. Jjmckool (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Analysis

The topic of analysis on this page is profane, biased, and hardly relevant. Please change it.

Agreed. I haven't seen it, I was just passing by as a fan of some other Scorsese films. Wikipedia should hold a neutral opinion, and that said stuff like "it's an extremely thematic film", and the comparisons didn't seem relevant at all. It may be that those who do most, dream most. (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

After removing it, I think it's fair to say that it's a start, not B class quality. It may be that those who do most, dream most. (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As well it says DeNiro supported Jake LaMotta even though he is suing us, it was Joey LaMotta NOT Jake in the speech —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.25.183 (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

B Class?

I have not seen the film. In turn I have not read the plot description. Criticize me if you will for taking concern in a film I haven't seen, but this seems far from "B Class", especially after I deleted the slightly irrelevant "Analysis" section. I put this up for reassesment, and would feel it appropriate if it were changed to "Start". P.S. I'm sure it's an amazing film and all, but the article had some POV issues. It may be that those who do most, dream most. (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been reassessed, and it's still B Class. Perhaps the plot summary is well written (I don't know), but the other sections are meager. It may be that those who do most, dream most. (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In the course of time, I think it's fair to note that I've seen it now and may take it on as a project. I still strongly object to it being B Class. Of all the sections, If find production to be the only one that's engaging. The person who reassessed it gave no clear reason as to why it should remain in this state. MwNNrules (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

it's start class material in my opinion, along with the fact there are no pictures (exception of the movie poster on the info box) and few sources making this a rather poor article. some of the content of the article also looks strangely familiar as it has maybe been copied from a book word-by-word. ihave seen the film about 7-8 times (a favourite of mine) and have got this in my work to do, it needs to be sorted out. Kilnburn (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Myspace Poll

I don't see how the opinions of sixteen year olds are relevant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.235.0 (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For an article on a landmark film, this one has an appalling number of ungrammatical and even incoherent sentences. I've made a few changes, but the article still needs a great deal of work. A plea to potential contributors: please don't rely on others to fix up your sloppy writing. The fact that Wikipedia is an open source encyclopedia is no excuse for carelessness and unprofessionalism.