Talk:Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005 film)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005 film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Mr. & Mrs. Smith (score) was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 31 March 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005 film). The original page is now a redirect to here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.|
|Mr. & Mrs. Smith (soundtrack) was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 31 March 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005 film). The original page is now a redirect to here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.|
|WikiProject Film||(Rated Start-class)|
- 1 Spy film??
- 2 Deleted
- 3 Cleanup-tone
- 4 Poster differences
- 5 Incomprihensible sentence
- 6 NPOV?
- 7 Rip-off
- 8 Differences between versions
- 9 Alternate ending?
- 10 Plot description is unclear
- 11 Fix the Page!
- 12 Copy protection
- 13 Production section - stuntwork
- 14 how long is the Director's Cut?
- 15 Infobox
- 16 Cast Section restored on this article.
- 17 Colombian law
Why does this have the "Spy Comedy Films" category? I confess I haven't seen it, but I've seen nothing in the summary, or anywhere, to indicate that they are spy's or that spying is a big part of the plot. -- Kace7 (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- They are either spies or assassins but I think the film makers marketed it as a spy-comedy film. Prathik Rajendran M (talk) 08:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I spent a good hour trying to improve this article and it seems someone deleted virtually all of what I wrote without a word on this page. Is there anyway to see who erased it or if it can be restored?Coolguy1368 1:14, 10 July 2006
yeah use the history button u see on top of the page
This article seems to suffer many of the problems suffered by other articles that attempt plot summaries, specifically the plot description section seems to be more of an attempt at creative/engaging writing that covers every single scene than an encyclopedic plot summary. E.g., "They make love that night through violence." Probably most of the plot section can be salvaged, by making it shorter and summarizing more.--sk19842 02:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Encyclopedias don't usually give plot summaries of movies. I took out that poor sentence and revised the whole section for similar mistakes/poor sentence structure. But remember this is a part of WikiFilms and it states that users are encouraged to give "an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide." Coolguy1368 13:00, 3 July 2006
Is this a remake?
No. Not even close. The Alfred Hitchcock film is about a couple who finds out that they are not really married. --Veemonkamiya 01:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
The end is in plain sight of the top! And how do they know the ending when the movie's not out yet?
- Although it has been claimed that the poster without the gun came first, I disagree as I saw it with the gun long before I ever saw the gunless version. Either way, it is clearly two versions of the same image. Does anyone know what went on here -- was the gun airbrushed out (my contention, having had the pleasure of viewing rather close-up a 20-foot print of the poster at a theatre), or was the gun CGI'd later? I don't believe it was two different photos as her face and pose are absolutely identical in both versions. In the edit in question I have removed the comment that the gunless version was censored but I think it was. Can anyone provide proof one way or the other? 23skidoo 22:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Ctrl+F "Mr." or "Smith" on this page. The Thursday, April 7th entry says that this newest, final poster "basically merges the two earlier character posters - and gives them guns". The version without the gun, here, is listed as "Version 2" (and it's obviously an early "teaser" poster, as it doesn't have the full title of the movie or a date), and the version with the gun (full title, and obviously a conbination of the original character posters) can be found here, listed as "Version 3" (look in the URLs). Perhaps more concrete proof: this page, dated December 3rd, 2004, proclaims the "first ever look" at the two teaser posters -- no gun, no garter. This page, dated 4 months later, April 7th, 2005, shows the "first look" at the final poster -- gun and garter. Max22 03:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I wonder is somebody could explain better this sentence:
- When they are assigned the same target and essentially cancel out each other's mission, they end up trading shots at each other (literally and figuratively) when they are assigned to assassinate one another.
this reads more like promotional material than anything else.
Differences between versions
I have a problem with a couple of the items in this section. It's mentioned that one of the scenes added to the unrated version is a bit where John's friend wakes up to see the two assignments for John and Jane Smith. However I'm pretty certain this is in the original film as I remember seeing it. Also, an anonymous poster added that the unrated scene has John performing oral sex on Jane. I've been conditioned to treat anonymous additions with a grain of salt, and this seemed unlikely so I deleted it. If in fact such a scene is in the film then please restore it. 23skidoo 19:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- I added a note about the change in dialogue between the pre-Danz heist van scenes. Since in the unrated version John mentions "Are you counting innocent bystanders?", it sort of kills the sexual innuendo from the rated version, where it was left ambiguous about what they were referring to when they were talking about numbers. I mentioned the downplay of the double-entendre, but if that's too much like unverifiable info then remove it.
- I ripped both versions to .mp4 and played them on my Mac in Quicktime at the same time to get an idea of what's been added and what hasn't (cuz I gots me that kinda time). I went ahead and added what I learned and fixed the order of the differences completely. It's funny because so many DVD sites are simply reporting, "oh, they just added 19 seconds of extra sex to take advantage of the Bradgelina crowd." It's truly amazing what a different movie this is now. There was close to 10 minutes of extra stuff added here and chopped there. The film has a slightly better flow and slightly more serious tone to it. Granted, everything I wrote may not be accurate so I might just go through it all again to make sure. TabascoMan77 19:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Was there an alternate ending to this film involving Father(Keith David) being attacked?(the original commercial has him in full view screaming that the smiths are there). If so Can someone post what happens on the film page?
Plot description is unclear
I can't figure out what the second paragraph of the plot description, particularly these two sentences:
"Both are waiting for him in the same desert locale when they discover one another's presence. They both stopped each other from killing their guy. The ultimatum: it's John vs. Jane, hired to assassinate each other."
Are they given the contract seperately, not knowing that it was also awarded to the other? How did they stop each other? What ultimatum?
I haven't seen this movie, if someone who has could please rework the plot description to make it clearer that'd be great. I can't make heads or tails of it. 220.127.116.11 07:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- I sorted that a little, but the plot section still reads like a preview rather than an actual summary. It's been a long time since I last saw it, so perhaps someone else can flesh it out a bit more. Slurms MacKenzie 06:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Fix the Page!
Could someone please put in the full plot, and fix the critical reception. (18.104.22.168 12:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC))
Production section - stuntwork
Should a production section eventually be added, a source should be found for the fact that Jolie did the last 100 or so feet of her cable jump herself. Unfortunately, I know this because the producer bitched about how in the final edit you can't tell she did it herself so it is WP:OR. I think it was also show in the HBO: First Look about the film. SteveCoppock (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
how long is the Director's Cut?
With so many differences, surely it's not the same length as the original. And yet both this article and IMDB give only one running time. So how long is the director's cut? Observatorr (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- I fixed this. There was an incorrect change to the starring actors that messed it up. Timster (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Cast Section restored on this article.
I brought back the cast section on the article of this movie since it was entirely deleted by User:TheOldJacobite for less than necessary reason. He admitted this is on his edit summary "This is not IMDb, most of these roles are minor", but that doesn't give the right to remove it entirely. BattleshipMan (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The following sentence contains a number of errors and is unclear. The government of Colombia does not "proclaim a law", it passes a law. How does "Ley 1556 de 2012", require "the state to return a portion of the production costs for movies set in the country"? What does that even mean? And "returning a proportion of production costs" has nothing to do with showing "the reality of different places of the country".22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)