Talk:Transporter 3: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:41, 4 September 2010

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the French cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. In addition, they should only briefly summarize the plot; detailed plot descriptions may constitute a derivative work. See Wikipedia's Copyright FAQ.

Blockbuster Status?

Blockbuster Status: It says Transporter 3 is the first film starring Jason Statham to reach Blockbuster status. A worldwide cumulative total of over $100 million does not qualify as blockbuster and the link only takes you to the Box Office Mojo page that actually contradicts this.

Please sign your comments with4 ~s and start discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

Does anyone even know what [[Blockbuster (entertainment)|blockbuster status is anymore? I don't see a source saying this line. I also did see others mentioning Driver as the potential first (google news). Erring on the side of caution and removing.Cptnono (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Headlines

Jason Statham is Back as Frank Martin!, November 25, 2008

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fox

I don't know about near the top where it says it's the first not to be dis. by 20th Fox in the US, I saw it in theaters today and it has the 20th clip before the film...--Tyler (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quality?

The plot section reads like it was written by a junior-high student. Can we clean it up a bit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.46.157 (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. "Frank gets all excited" doesn't sound very professional at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.158.135 (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worse, it constantly switches tenses. It was clearly written by fanboys who were desperate to tell the world about their favourite film. Couldn't they take some cues from another film entry?KhProd1 (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They could have used a better looking Russian girl then Natalya Rudakova, who IMHO looked ugly as hell. Now Olesya Rulin would have been yummy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.88.230 (talk) 07:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agreed. I've taught myself English off television shows and various other media. It saddens me that this very english you see here, this non-professional, or "out-of-school" english simply aces school english by MILES. I mean, honestly, what the HELL is wrong with america's school system?It keeps pumping out rejects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.52.197 (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if you taught yourself English. Do not disrespect American schools like that. It just makes you sound like a douche. At least people want to speak English, rather than whatever garbage language your country speaks.

Plot summary

The plot summary used to replace the infringement is taken from earlier in the article's history. Attribution for it can be found there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natalya Rudakova

The casting of Natalya Rudakova received substantial coverage by verifiable and reliable sources. Since an article for her does not meet WP:BIO and her page was redirected here, does it make sense to add this information to the article to convey this information?Cptnono (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. She looks weird. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.216.246.4 (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a forum.Cptnono (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid Vasilev?

from where the name Vasilev came? the Jeroen Krabbé's character was referred throughout the film as "Minister", and was never addressed by name. his name was revealed only in written form, on the name sign on the conference (1h26m in the film) - "M. LEONID TOMILENKO / Ukraine". 192.28.65.210 (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 No.  She looks weird.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.216.246.4|69.216.246.4]] ([[User talk:69.216.246.4|talk]]) 02:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 ::Not a forum.[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 05:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
+== Leonid Vasilev? ==
+from where the name Vasilev came? the Jeroen Krabbé's character was referred throughout the film as "Minister", and was never addressed by name. his name was revealed only in written form, on the name sign on the conference (1h26m in the film) - "M. LEONID TOMILENKO / Ukraine". [[Special:Contributions/192.28.65.210|192.28.65.210]] ([[User talk:192.28.65.210|talk]]) 02:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)