|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 16 Blocks article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
SWAT or ESU
"Plot" section ridiculously long
Would someone like to trim down the "plot" section? It's crazy-long.
It's not so much that it's long, it's just poorly written. Who wrote this??? It goes from present tense to past tense, back to present tense. It's also written with slang, "and then the guy does this...and then the other guy does that..."
Cut it down and took out the plot ending. Seems that plot summary should nto spoil the ending at least for recent movies. not sure if there is a wikipedia policy on that. --Culturenandyogafan (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Casting Reference Added
I added the reference for the casting note about Willis originally wanting Ludicrous. I believe that takes care of all the outstanding references for the article. Zja2 (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Please explain (1)
What does this sentence mean?
- Frank takes Jack's gun and gives it to Eddie. Forced, Eddie fires the gun but before his execution Jack uses the bar's shotgun and cripples the executor.
Who forces Eddie to fire the gun? Does Eddie just fire the gun, or at somebody specific? What does "before his execution" mean, and who is the "executor"? --126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Please explain (2)
What does this mean?
- listing the names of people who have changed on the cake, including them.
This movie is a remake
The movie is a remake of "The Gauntlet", 1977 movie with Clint Eastwood (also director). Somebody should add this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. Whether officially or not, the movie is very clearly a remake of Clint Eastwood's 1977 film The Gauntlet. (And a very good one at that!) So why is this fact not noted anywhere? Does pointing it out when a movie has not been officially labeled a remake violate some sacred Wikipedia policy? Is such an observation — amply supportable in this instance — deemed somehow libelous? 2001:5B0:24FF:2EF0:0:0:0:3E (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)