Talk:21 (2008 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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the Australian cinema task force.

Non-NPOV

Words like "high-stakes" used in conjunction as a modifier in the text of the article for the genre makes it read like ad copy, and requires substantial rewriting. 69.139.18.204 (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Anyone with any knowledge why the film is called 21? Koalorka (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its a movie about blackjack FearNotMan (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date

Huh? The article says that this film gets released on March 28, 2008. Where I live, it's March 19, 2008 today, and I just watched it. --EinsteiNewton 04:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The official release for US and Canada is March 28, 2008. It has been shown at a couple festivals already. Did you see it in a normal theater? FearNotMan (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/21/international/

Yeah, I saw it at SilverCity in Metrotown. --EinsteiNewton 17:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section on race issue

Section contains links to pages that all violate WIKI:NPOV. Facebook link contains illegal discussion on distribution of movie. Lets rewrite this and come to agreement before re adding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.110.183 (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pasting a version of the section below, minus the facebook link. Do you have any problem with this version?--121.209.123.78 (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casting of Caucasian/Asian

Although the four main characters in Bringing Down the House were Asian-Americans in real life, studio executives have cast mostly white actors to portray them in the film. Ben Mezrich, author of Bringing Down the House, has noted a "stereotypical" casting process on the part of Hollywood.^[1] In the book, Mezrich explicitly states that a young white man betting large amounts of money stands out, while a young Asian or other minority would be less conspicuous. Asian Week called the casting a "whitewash," pointing out that if it were black people replaced by white people, there would be more vocal protest. [1] Two of the main characters from Bringing Down The House, Kevin Lewis and Jason Fisher, are in real life Jeff Ma and Mike Aponte.

Asian Week does not qualify as a valid source to use under wiki policy. The fact that it is quoted in the book also fails to note that the team was not a majority asian and this is just in the story for the point of story telling.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.50.225.250 (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the article being stated for Mezrich's comments on "stereotypical" casting process is out of context. There is already a section on Asian American Portrayal in the media on wikipedia, this article belongs there. Not here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.50.225.250 (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to cleanup the Casting controversy section, attributing quotes to people and turning plain URLs into references with the {{cite web}} template. Help in finding citations to reliable sources would be appreciated. --Pixelface (talk) 05:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, attributing more citations to substantiate the article can be useful. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 03:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, arguments supporting the producers' casting decisions should also be included. I can think of a few arguments, but I cannot find any references. Can anyone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.101.133 (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of a few items to support the casting decision: business decision to appeal to a broader audience, casting the best actor, Jeff Ma didn't have an active role in the process, Jeff Ma was not offended by the casting. I just need help finding references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.101.131 (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More casting controversy

I'm not particularly involved in this page, but the mini edit war is getting a bit silly. Pixelface has put in a lot of hard work in cleaning up the section and in adding references. Please try to use that as a basis for further discussion instead of deleting everything or adding conspiracy theory comments about Sony Pictures. Thanks. --- Taroaldo (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article is protected now. Personally I thought the San Francisco Chronicle reference was the best one in the section but an IP removed that. I also thought The Enterprise reference was okay. The Entertainment Weekly reference said there were posters in New York calling the film racist. I would be interested to know if any of these film critics[2][3] mentioned the controversy. --Pixelface (talk) 10:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sought the page protection because I didn't see anything constructive happening on the page as long as the rapid-fire rvs were going on. Now that the page is protected, the competing editors are strangely silent. If they have a cogent argument to make, they should put it here. In any case, the edit war will not be allowed to resume once the PP has expired.

In my opinion, if the controversy has received significant independent coverage (in this case media) then it is probably worthy of being noted in the article. I don't know that it needs such a large section devoted to it. Since any kinds of suggestions of racism can be a lightning rod for heated debate, the section should be kept to a reasonable length with super-extra-intense attention given to using language which is as WP:NPOV as possible. --- Taroaldo (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music Is Happiness

Near the end of the movie, the track Music Is Happiness by The Octopus Project can be heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.48.46 (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad "Plot" section

The plot section does not tell you what actually happens in the movie. In my opinion, it needs a rewrite. Anyone agree?98.212.49.204 (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, the plot section does not spoil anything for thsoe that have not yet seen the film. However, it can be rewritten to sound better. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biometric Software

I thought I should give some examples here to support my claim - still standing as of the last edit - that "Biometric software" stood in for a wide array of new technologies . It's outside the scope of an article on the movie - maybe I should link to the wiki article on card-counting - but in addition to biometric face recognition systems to identify known counters or cheats, many casinos digitally record play at the tables and do skills checks using a play recognition systems with voice input. Some casinos embed RFID chips in their chips to track the exact flow of bets made (e.g: the Wynn in Vegas), other casinos use automated card readers embedded in some tables to track the exact flow of the true count (e.g.: Eldorado in Reno). Still other casinos prohibit mid-shoe entry on high-roller tables, switch some decks to use continuous shuffle machines, or tweak the odds in the casino's favor with rule changes such as "blackjack pays 6:5". The upshot of these changes is not to eliminate theoretically beatable blackjack games entirely - most casinos still have them - but to reduce the number of tables that need to be watched and how closely they need to be watched. Even with all this, you still need humans around to identify suspicious behavior, use all the new tools and interpret their results, and watch for cheating as well as card-counting plays. --Blogjack (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factual inaccuracies

I don't agree with either point made in this section. The biometric identification comment is not accurate because Lawrence Fishburne even states in the move that biometric technology couldn't have pointed out that Kianna signaled Ben. The continuous wins comment is not accurate because the movie clearly shows the team losing, so I fail to see how the movie implies continuous wins. FearNotMan (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They only lose when they don't follow the system.

Thats not true. Ben loses a ton of money following the system. Then he decides to "gamble" once the cards go cool, which was not following the system. FearNotMan (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "In reality casinos today use continuous automatic shufflers" is false in that it implies there don't still exist beatable games in Vegas and around the world. Although some casinos do use automatic shufflers for some of their games, standard shoe games and handheld games are still ubiquitous, especially for high rollers. And biometric technology can help identify people but you still need to recognize that they are counting, which relies on other technologies and forms of expertise. It's just kind of a mess.

I suggest replacing the Factual Inaccuracies section with this list - not comprehensive, but it seems like a good start to me:

Most casino locations pictured in the film did not exist during the time portrayed. Specifically, the Hard Rock Casino, the Bellagio fountains, and the Wynn hadn't yet been constructed.

No MIT professor was on the MIT team; Kevin Spacey's character was highly fictionalized.

Many details related to the nature of profitable blackjack play were simplified or incorrect. For example: spotters would not keep playing once the Big Player arrives - doing so wastes the good cards. The Big Player wouldn't need somebody else to tell him when "the deck has gone cold"; the count tells him that. A spotter who only makes table-minimum bets wouldn't get comped to a suite. Skilled players can have losing streaks even when playing well and according to a system.

In reality, card counters get peacefully asked to leave rather than immediately beaten in a back room when the casino first notices them. Since counting cards is legal, players who are beaten up or robbed have recourse to seek legal redress so in reality Laurence Fishburne's character would likely have been arrested and/or sued for his actions, as would Kevin Spacey's.

Many details related to casino game protection mechanisms were simplified or incorrect. "Biometric software" seems to have stood in for a wide array of new technologies that are changing the nature of game protection but there is still the need for human evaluation of play at the tables.

--Blogjack (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think with you are confusing "factual inaccuracies" with "differences between the movie and the real life story." The comments about the time period and professor are liberties that the filmmakers choose to use. I don't believe they claim the movie is supposed to portray real life. FearNotMan (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. The movie does claim (with a leading "based on" credit) to be based on a book which in turn claims to be based on real life, but the story got significantly hollywoodized along the way. My guess is that the team's organizer was changed into a professor because Kevin Spacey wanted to act in the film and he's too old to plausibly play a student. With all the liberties taken it's really more "inspired by" than "based on" the real events. --Blogjack (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The team was actually organized and led/created by several people. The character "Mickey Rosa" (Spacey in the movie) is a composite character, based on numerous real-life individuals. Supposedly, the main influence for the Rosa character was a man named J.P. Massar. I'm not sure what Massar's specific connection to MIT is, but if the History Channel documentaries are accurate, he was a good bit older than most of the team members. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe Massar was a grad student at the time whereas many of the players were undergrads. I actually played on one of the blackjack teams Massar founded later. (Though it occurs to me April 1st isn't the best day to make claims like that... :-) ) --Blogjack (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did Ed Thorp contribute anything to Micky Rosa character? He was a professor and yet still counted cards in Blackjack, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.129.169 (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the {{editprotected}} request: looks like you're still trying to figure exactly what to write. As the article protection will last only less that 2 days more, I see no need to hurry and edit now. Use the time to reach consensus here and then edit. Enjoy! - Nabla (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added some of the new material, taking into account the comments here. I tried to avoid too much "original research" but a little may have crept in here and there and I'm certainly open to corrections/additions/suggestions. --Blogjack (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but the locations are incorrect. All the players were, according to the film, MIT students, yet the classrooms and buildings portrayed are NOT from the MIT campus but, as far as I know, from Boston University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.93.43 (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- So is Apollo 13 inaccurate because it wasn't actually filmed in space? Its call a set. FearNotMan (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the "Game Show" example presented at the beginning of the movie, I'm afraid that I have an alternate view here. My take on it is that the two events, event 1 involving the 3 doors, each with a 33% chance, and event 2, involving only 2 doors, are independent of each other. Being independent, the percentage of occurrence would not be contributed to one door over the other. They are two samples in which the conclusion of one sample is entirely exclusive from the conclusion of another. Thus, in event 2, the ratio of odds is not 33:67, but rather 50:50. I may, however, be missing a psychological aspect of the experiment that was brought about by the game host's words. Can someone either verify my theory or else point out my mistakes? - Odarkconofman (talk) 05:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your theory is incorrect because the two events are not independent of each other. There was a flaw in the film's presentation of the problem that made it a little confusing but if you know in advance that the host will always show you a door and give you a chance to switch, then you will gain by switching after the door is shown. The chance of your original guess having been right was 1/3rd before the extra door was shown and you already knew one of the other doors had the goat so his demonstrating this provides no new information regarding your original choice. Thus the chance of your original choice being right is still 1/3rd. Switching changes your odds to 2/3rds. --Blogjack (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? You will never gain anything. You're completely right Odarkconofman and if there are any doubts, just spend 5 minutes in excel writing a program to calculate the odds, you'll always come out at 33%. If I knew how to post the sheet I would just to eliminate pointless debate over this. --Nickstuckert (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odarkconofman is wrong; when the problem is correctly presented you double your odds of winning by switching. Go see Monty Hall problem if you're still confused. --Blogjack (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music from 21

 1. You Can't Always Get What You Want (Re-Mixed and Re-Edited by    Soulwax) The Rolling Stones 6:09     
  2. Time To Pretend (Super Clean Version) MGMT 4:20     
  3. Big Ideas (Album Version) LCD Soundsystem 5:40     
  4. Giant (Album Version) D. Sardy featuring Liela Moss 3:42     
  5. Always (Album Version) Amon Tobin 3:38     
  6. Young Folks (Album Version) Peter Bjorn And John 4:37     
  7. Mad Pursuit (Album Version) Junkie XL featuring Electrocute 4:16     
  8. Sister Self Doubt (Album Version) Get Shakes 4:22     
  9. I Am The Unknown (Album Version) Aliens 5:27 Album Only  
10. Shut Up And Drive (Album Version) Rihanna 3:34 Album Only  
11. Alright (Album Version) Knivez Out 3:31     
12. Tropical Moonlight (Album Version) Domino 3:27     
13. Hold My Hand Unkle 4:58     
14. L.S.F. (Version Revisited) Mark Ronson featuring Kasabian 3:32     
15. Tender Buttons (Album Version) Broadcast 2:51 Album Only

The song that is playing while he is walking through the airport for the first time is by Moby: Slipping Away (Axwell Vocal Mix) - Moby — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.196.67 (talk • contribs)

Anyone know the song after Ben's pep talk with the team? I don't think it's in the soundtrack. ~ E meZ x X ` 04:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flawed "Car & Goats Problem" scene

(See Monty Hall problem for a full treatment of the car & goats challenge.)

The movie has an intriguing but flawed scene intended to highlight Ben's ability to rapidly grasp and resolve "math problems" (even though the card counting system portrayed in the movie doesn't require such skills of the players).

In this scene, the professor does not adequately describe the game show or its host's actions, and even suggests the show host may want to deceive the player, which would actually reverse the "correct" and "incorrect" answers. So either Ben does not answer correctly (not so smart), or he already knows the problem and its answer (no need to think), or he fails to notice the "shortcut explanation" offered up by his professor (not all that observant).

But let's not make Ben (or me) look bad. Since this is a movie, we can just reinterpret the facts to enhance my comment's cimematic appeal, like this:

Ben's brilliant mathematical mind is just his foot in the door. The actual skills required of the players will be such things as rapid recall, focused attention, and social adeptness including the ability to appear aloof and unconnected to the other players.

So to make Ben spectacular, we will just conclude that due to his glowing social skills (ignoring the oversimplified puzzle and going for the impressive answer) and ability of rapid photographic recall (fetching the answer from his earlier reading), he instantly chooses the best course of action without a moment's hesitation (and does it very quickly too). —Preceding unsigned comment added and edited and reedited and reedited by 204.210.143.31 (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities to movie "The Last Casino"

21 seems to me to be very heavily inspired by a recent Canadian flic called "The Last Casino". Does this merit mentioning in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.42.82 (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both movies, 21 and The Last Casino, were inspired by the book "Bringing Down the House" and the real MIT Blackjack team. While The Last Casino did come out first, 21 takes its premise from the book, including having the author as a contributing consultant. So both movies are just different interpretations of the same original storyline. With that said, it can be added the article but I'd be careful not to call 21 a remake. FearNotMan (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the plot of The Last Casino is very similar in plot, I'd be hesitant to say that the movie is based on Bringing Down the House without adequate citation. The IMDB details for the Last Casino don't show any conclusive link to Bringing Down the House. I'm not saying the writers of The Last Casino are guilty of plagiarism, but it's perfectly possible they came up with the plot on their own.--122.109.132.196 (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, if you want to mention that "The Late Casino" is based on the book by Ben Mezrich, you must have proper citation. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legality of Card Counting

Although card counting without the assistance of mechanical devices is legal [in Nevada, not necessarily in other jurisdictions], I am virtually certain that it is illegal to collaborate in any form surrounding a card game. Because I do not have the legal citation, I have not edited the article, but someone with the time and inclincation should look into it.24.219.30.190 (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not illegal for players to collaborate in blackjack. It's also not the kind of game where collaboration changes the expected outcome. Players often show their hands and ask the table - or the dealer, or a significant other sitting nearby - what they should do. Or they consult with one another on how much to bet. It would be difficult to define the notion of "collaboration" in a way that excludes typical blackjack-table camaraderie. --Blogjack (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it turns out I need to qualify that. The legal definition of cheating in Nevada is sufficiently vague that it is conceivable a casino might be able to make a case that signaling is a form of cheating. Cheating is defined as anything that "alters the criteria which determines the outcome of a game". However, so far as I am aware, no casino has ever tried to convict anyone of cheating in that situation. So it's a speculative notion, not established law, never tested in court. My source on this is Blackjack and the Law by I. Nelson Rose and Robert A. Loeb. --Blogjack (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure counting cards, without the use of any special electronics or gadgets, is totally legal. However, casinos are private businesses and can expel you for any reason they see fit. If you are winning more than they like, they can kick you out. Private businesses in the US can refuse customers as long as its not a discriminatory basis. In response to card-counting, casinos are using continuous shuffle machines to reduce the success of calculating the outcome of the next card dealt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.187.165 (talk) 03:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filming dates

I have merged this into the "Production" section. There is no need for it to have its own one-setence header. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DVD

The DVD is coming out within 4 months of being in theaters...this is unusually fast. Anyone know why? --Erroneuz1 (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C++ source code for "The 209" contest

FYI, the source code from 0:11:21 (chapter 3 of DVD) is from NOAA's GPS Toolbox. Visible lines are 1348-1392 (page 1) and 1584-1631 (page 2). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvh2k (talk • contribs) 03:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]