Talk:Scoop (2006 film)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scoop (2006 film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Film||(Rated Start-class)|
Worst Woody Allen Movie Ever?
Whoever said that this was the worst Woody Allen movie ever hadn't seen that stupid one he was in where he played a tourist with Michael J. Fox and Dom DeLouise and, I think, that girl from "Blossom" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
This wasn't a film directed by Woody Allen.
I don't like the section where it says that it mostly recieved bad reviews. In Spain and most parts of Europe it got really good reviews. I don't know why but in the USA they don't appreciate much Allen's films (maybe because of the scandal with Mia Farrow and her adopted child?) Will please someone put some good reviews there? Joanberenguer 02:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't Woody look really old in the picture??
Well, he is 70.
according to the IMDb, BBCfilms isn't involved, but focus features is only one of many: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0457513/companycredits Amo 22:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Hugh jackman6b.jpg
Image:Hugh jackman6b.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.
Plot twist at the end of the film
I did not see anyone refer to this twist, but I can see it clearly in the film. Here is the full transcript of what the editor says:
"Fascinating observation. Lyman lost a cyufflink at the flat of a prostitute that was later killed by the Tarot-card killer. Hmm Hmm. Well, this upright chap certainly enjoyed patronizing some dodgy women. Unfortunately for Elizabeth Gibson, she elected to blackmail him."
No mention of any morder attributed to Lyman, although the last sentence is ominous.
It seems clear to me that this is not a plot twist, but merely explaining why Lyman's cufflink appeared at an earlier murder scene--a murder he did not commit. It was this coincidence that made his secretary suspicious and started the events in motion. Since it turned out that only the final murder has his, the audience needed an explanation for the coincidence. (Presumably he was already planning his copycat murder and so wanted to avoid any connection to the other murders, so he murdered his secretary.) Viewed in this light, "Unfortunately for Elizabeth Gibson, she elected to blackmail him" as well as the fact that the paper is running a story at all both support the idea that he has been exposed. I am removing the reference to this supposed twist from the main article. AmericanLinden (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Scoop (2006 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/aug/3/20060803-084654-8657r/print/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.