Talk:Layer Cake (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
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I was working on centering the Cast page and I fuck it up becaue know I can not edit the page, some one needs to revert to the second to last edit I made, So sorry, I love Layer Cake was only trying to make it better Grosscha 03:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel?

Maybe I'm just stupid but it says a plan to create a sequel with XXXX going to the Caribbean or whatever...

Didn't XXXX die in the end? (-Kid. 13:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

No, he didn't. He was shot, but it was very carefully filmed to depict him keeping his eyes open so that his fate would remain unknown (until they announced the sequel, that is). 64.8.175.8 19:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The National Board of Review's review of the first film says that Connolly (the author) is already working on a sequel, but I can't find confirmation that it's going to be filmed besides IMDB's trivia page. There's a note from the director on the writer's page that says a sequel is being planned. Phyrkrakr (talk)

Article details

Most articles about a book/film/story have a notification of "plot endings begin here" (or something to that effect) should this article have that? Most of the plot is there, and I couldn't find them anywhere.

--VisualShock 11:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why then was everything about the sequel removed from the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.126.24 (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Layer Cake poster.JPG

Image:Layer Cake poster.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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why Steve?

Okay, call me dense if you must, but I don't understand why XXXX is referred to as Steve in the article. Why not just refer to him as Steve as he is credited in the movie?

That's exactly what I came here to say! Why Steve? What about "Fluffy the Bunny"? XXXX will be fine - that's what the credits say. Mark83 (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to find this out too. I was always under the impression he was just XXXX - where in the film is he referred to as steve? 82.24.156.27 (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was just an invention by 82.141.225.26, whose edits should just have been removed out of hand - effectively they have now, as the article is almost back where it was before his edits, except for a few references to "XXXX" now reading "our protagonist" which sounds a bit awkward. -- Arwel (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack incomplete

The soundtrack is incomplete. For instance the song "Gimmie Shelter" by The Rolling Stones, whichj was used in the film, is missing here. 90.156.20.65 (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack album may not include all the songs in the film. If you add any more be sure to add a note or reference explaining what is or isn't on the soundtrack album -- Horkana (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Differences from the book

Are there any substantial differences from the book? Presumably there will be some small differences to keep the film running time from getting too long but from looking the article for Layer Cake (novel) there don't seem to be any major changes. -- Horkana (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beating of Freddy

in the Book, apparently Freddy could have carried all the time alone, but, he let Morty carry 5 years.

In the film, if i got it right, Freddy got 3 and Morty got a bird or 10 years.71.178.199.89 (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the beating isn't mentioned in the article as it is; additionally there are two meetings with Eddie Temple that are conflated here as one; In the kidnapping Eddie outs Jimmy as an informant, specifies that he had his daughter's drug addict boyfriend killed (relating to some 5000 gbp), and notes that Jimmy planned to use her as collateral agains Eddie, something Eddie doesn't want thereby dropping the task of finding her as a concern for xxxx. Sometime after killing Jimmy there's a slightly disjoint scene of xxxx walking into a library, and Eddie asking to buy the drugs for 3 million while seeming to black mail him about Jimmy's murder. By then Dragan, also not discussed much in the article, has contacted xxxx and asked for the drugs and Duke. The attempted assassination of Dragan resulting in an accellerated schedule should probably also be brought up. Lastly it wasn't clear to me that Gene worked for xxxx, i thought that was Morty who did, while Gene worked for Jimmy, explaining the rage at the murder of Jimmy. But I may have misunderstood. Dlamblin (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel?

There was originally some information on a possible sequel included in the article but it's been removed. Why? Even sequel speculation can be included in an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.126.24 (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous link to Welrod pistol

Call me a gun-nut, but the article for some reason has a link in parenthesis for the Wikipedia article on Welrod pistols, next to the reference to the gun XXXX uses to kill Jimmy. While a Welrod is seen in the film, it isn't the gun used to kill Jimmy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.26.249 (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved, retarget Layer Cake to Layer cake. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Layer Cake (film) → Layer Cake – I believe the film to be the primary topic, as it's received nearly 48,000 more views than the novel in the last 90 days, and produces between 1.7 million and 1.9 million Google hits, versus the novel's 266,000 (the search term using "book" produces 6.5 million results, but it includes many books on the food rather than the novel). As for the title only being Layer Cake, per WP:DIFFCAPS, it's highly unlikely someone will type in Layer Cake and not be looking for the film. Thoughts, everyone? Sock (previously Corvoe) ^{(be heard)} 12:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning oppose - I think WP:DIFFCAPS is harder to apply to names of foods, which may be perceived as formal names, and are often capitalized like titles on a menu (see, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). bd2412 T 12:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: I take issue with that argument. The problem in my opinion, at least with those examples, is that every entry on those menus is capitalized. "Onion Rings", "White Chocolate Chip", "Chicken with Broccoli", and "Extra Shrimp" are not proper titles; this is simply a stylization on the restaurants' behalves(?). That, and the worst case scenario is if they're looking for the cake and they capitalize the C (which I still think would be unlikely), there'll be a hatnote right at the top them to the food. You're obviously welcome to disagree with this assessment, just my opinion. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 12:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, every entry on those menus is capitalized. That's the point - that people may think of names of specific recipes or dishes as proper nouns, to be capitalized. This is also reflected in names of recipes in cookbooks (see, e.g., [6], [7], [8], [9]). bd2412 T 13:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you're coming from. I still disagree that people would assume it's a proper noun, but I respect your opinion and don't see a need to continue to argue with you about it. Thank you for your input! In a related note, if it's decided not to move the page, we should probably change Layer Cake to redirect to Layer cake instead of the disambiguation page, as I think that redirect was due to the novel and film not having a decidedly primary topic at the time. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 13:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would completely agree with redirecting to the lowercase; absent the WP:DIFFCAPS argument, it is the clear primary topic of the term. bd2412 T 13:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All right, so I'd say we leave it for now and decide when this RM closes. Sound good to you? Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 13:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Err, Layer Cake already redirects to Layer cake (disambiguation) and has for a very long time now. I'm not sure there is sufficient reason to change the arrangement. older ≠ wiser 01:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per WP:DIFFCAPS and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If somebody goes to the trouble of capitalizing the C, they should be taken to this article, which should include hatnote links to the novel as well as the actual cake and dab pages. --В²C ☎ 23:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BD2412's argument. Names of foods are often capitalized on menus, so Layer Cake should be a redirect to Layer cake. O N R (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if I understand the nom that's a 60/40 view split between Layer Cake (novel) and Layer Cake (film)? Sounds to be working fine. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as views on Wikipedia, the film had 50,674 views in the last three months, where the novel only had 2,154. I don't know that it's quite an even split. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 11:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should have said that in the nom. However it doesn't change anything since books and readers often capitalize dessert names. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Capitalised or not, the cake is the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- People who bother to capitalize the C in the search box are more likely to be looking for the cake than the film? --В²C ☎ 00:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a fan of disambiguating by title case alone since it assumes readers are familiar with Wikipedia naming conventions. "Layer Cake" should be redirected to "Layer cake". Betty Logan (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:DIFFCAPS makes no such assumption. Have you read it? --В²C ☎ 00:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all of the discussions above. As to the question about Layer Cake not being intended for the film, everyone knows that Layer Cake is a wine and we don't even have an article on that yet. So this is another case where moving a dab page does not fix anything and creates problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – we have a long tradition of primary topic for Apple being the fruit, not the company that gets lots more hits. Similarly Layer Cake should have Layer cake as primary; or perhaps a disambig page as now; but certainly not a film as primary. Dicklyon (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: I don't know if this misconception exists, but some of the posts seem to think I'm suggesting Layer Cake is the primary topic over the food. I see how my initial wording implied that, but I was meaning that it was the primary topic over the novel, not the food. I wasn't suggesting we change layer cake, just that Layer cake links to the food and Layer Cake links to the film. Like Pulp Fiction and pulp fiction or Panic Room and panic room. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 05:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It is implicit, however, that if Layer Cake is to point anywhere other than Layer cake, then the lowercase version can not be the primary topic of the capitalized version. I think (and I believe others have agreed) that the lowercase version is the primary topic of the capitalized version because names of dishes are occasionally treated as proper nouns. Look at the component words of this phrase - "Layer", which implies several layers of something, and "Cake", which implies a baked confection. I think that it would be very difficult to lift that combination of terms out of primarily referring to a dish, no matter what capitalization was used. This is somewhat different from Pulp Fiction and Panic Room because the uncapitalized uses of these phrases are much less likely to be treated as proper nouns. bd2412 T 12:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm realizing my argument was a bit shoddy, and would rescind the nomination if not for the one support. I'm a bit confused as to the use of WP:DIFFCAPS in general. To be honest, I thought this discussion would go how the discussion at Source Code went. Everyone agreed that WP:PRECISION and DIFFCAPS applied, but it's been clarified, in this case, that many believe people may search for layer cake as a proper noun. I still don't really agree, but the opposing arguments are all strong and I'm willing to rescind mine. Sock (pka Corvoe) ^{(be heard)}_{(my stuff)} 13:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - when a reader or editor uses the search function it does not care about capital letters - thus any version/variation of L(l)ayer C(c)ake needs to be the dessert not this film. MarnetteD|Talk 15:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Quad poster

This article needs a quad poster. Kade Klodt (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Scene

I saw this film when it came out, and have seen it several times recently, but … who is the guy who gets tied up and left to die with an iron on his chest? XXXX, Morty and the other guy find him dead just after they have met with the Liverpool guys trying to shift the pills. Is he an associate of theirs, or of the Liverpool guys?Paulturtle (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC) OK, I've sussed it after finding a copy of the script online. He is Paul/Paulie, in whose boatyard Duke and his guys were holed up earlier, off their heads on the pills they had stolen. We are later told he was killed by Dragan the Serb. Not sure if it's worth adding to the article.Paulturtle (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cake layer in the nut shell!!🥜

we dad!👢& no other option is to use lays in Australia or the uk to be a winner every time you buy 163.53.144.89 (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]