Talk:The Bank Job
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
You haven't mentioned Gale Benson. She was killed by Micheal X because he thought she was a spy. Pretty horribly too. She was the actual reason due to which he was hanged to death later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
So... Anyone have any information on the bank robbery that the film supposedly depicts? Or is it the truth that it will really be revealed for the first time? I find that hard to beleive, given the in time that it takes to make a film, there are undoubtedly be some information leaked....
This is the only article I've read connecting it to the real robbery.New Yorker Article - - - There's almost nothing to be found on the internet that deals with historical fact (or otherwise), as opposed to the film plot and the allegations it makes. However, since no-one seems to be calling 'hoax', this doesn't seem to be an idle conspiracy theory. After an exhaustive internet search, the most informative/authoritative sources I could find were a few connected press articles in the Chicago reader, the Daily Telegraph and the Observer. http://blogs.chicagoreader.com/film/tag/Conspiracy%20Theories/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/02/15/bfbankjob15.xml http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=515138&in_page_id=1770 But they're scarce on detail, and so many questions still unanswered. For one, was there really a purge of Scotland Yard officers following the affair, and how did this impact the institution? CPH.
- I've added a Historicity section, based on what I could determine. I'd still like to know the answer to questions such as whether there really was a purge of officers. John M Baker (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Is the word "Historicity" absolutely necessary? Is there not a simple English way of expressing the same thing? Sure it is the kind of word that looks impressive in an academic essay but it seems like an overly complicated and inaccessible choice of wording for the wide audience Wikipedia enjoys. -- Horkana (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Feel free to change it, if you think of something better. John M Baker (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Re:conspiracy theory...it's not even a conspiracy theory, it's just a fictional film & it's highly effective advertising campaign. The 'based on real events' is that it's based on the Baker Street Robbery, but there being any photos, MI5 involvement, Michael X, D-notice...is all fiction. Papers go along with it because it makes a better story. It's a weakness of wiki taking newspapers as RS, when they ain't even close. The real robbery was just a robbery. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The Alleged Princess
I saw the movie on March 8 in the United States, and it clearly referred repeatedly to Princess Margaret. However, people who have seen it in the United Kingdom seem to think that the princess is not named. Were two different versions released? Is there any way of confirming the details of this and, if so, which versions were released where? John M Baker (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- hi john....i dont know how to use this site so i will reply here......the british version does not mention princess magrarets name at all. i would like to see the us version... there is a biography of a living british gangster that came out in early 2000 and it mentions that he met princess margaret at a "gangsters" party. maybe the british goverment have edited the film????? element of truth maybe??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm Korean living in Korea. The name "Princess Margaret" was repeatedly mentioned in the film. I thought this name is a pseudonym and reached here while searching for the real princess. --Queenmillennia (talk) 07:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I recall, the version I saw on cable in the US did mention Princess Margaret. – ukexpat (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Trivia/blooper sections are common for movies on Wikipedia. Unsourced facts can be dealt with in other ways that cutting them out--this just cuts down on the information in the article and makes it less informative. I consolidated a blooper from the plot section and other ones from history into a trivia section. If you disagree let's discuss this before getting into a revert-war. Tvh2k (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment: "So... Anyone have any information on the bank robbery that the film supposedly depicts?" Yes. I lost everything I had of any real value in "the bank robbery" and can attest to it being a very professional job, just like the Great Train Robbery that preceded it, and not unlike the Brinksmat job some years later. The idea that this audacious crime was actually orchestrated by MI5 to protect Princess Margaret from being revealed as sex maniac is sheer fantasy, her "reputation" was already well established and well known by the 1970's and if there had been incriminating evidence in a safe box at Lloyds Bank, MI5 could have walked in, flashed the necessary ID. and opened any or all of the boxes and removed the so called evidence. I find it rather offensive that this movie seeks to make us look like idiotic fools who would rather believe the evil government is to blame, than to point the finger where it belongs, at the criminals who continually prey on innocent victims, yet are the heros of big Hollywood. Of course, the issuance of the "D-Notice" is taken as some sort of signal that the evil government is manipulating things, rather than preventing the press from alerting the criminals from what steps are being taken to apprehend them. Believe what you will, the was a crime committed by very well organized criminals, and that's really all there is to say. It wasn't the first time (Great Train Robbery) nor was it the last. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapaparazzo (talk • contribs) 06:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I feel the plot section is way too long in comparison to most other movie articles in wikipedia and it seems more like a summary of almost every scene in the movie rather then a plot outline. Does it really need to be included for instance that a police officer comes to the shop because of the vibrations?
Isnt the white goy that michael x is photographed with meant to be John Lennon? After all, he looks like him, and the real John Lennon once bailed Michael x. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Sir Mick Jagger
It is written: The premiere was held in London on 18 February 2008, and the film was released in the UK on 28 February 2008. This disagrees with the Infobox, which says: February 29, 2008. Concerning the premiere date in London, it also disagrees with the IMDb (25 February). Which one is correct? Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Where Is The Other Movie???
There are actually two movies. The current article pertains to the one that was released in 2008(IMDb link:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0200465). Another one was released in 2007(IMDb link:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0928372). I suggest that this movie topic be disambiguated into two parts; one for the 2007 movie, and the other for the 2008 one.
- At the moment there is no article on the 2007 movie. Until there is, no need to disambiguate the title of this one. – ukexpat (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Anthony Johnson track
Anthony Johnson's "Gunshot" is playing at a party scene in the film, despite not being recorded until a decade after the film is set and being in a very different style to the reggae that was around in 1971. It seemed out of place when I watched the film, and this seems a bizarre mistake to make. IMDB doesn't list this track as part of the soundtrack, and I can't find a reliable source that actually states that it's in the soundtrack - anyone know why? --Michig (talk) 09:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Plot vs reality & advertising
The films' promotion intentionally stretched the 'based on a true story' thing with careful phrasing & reporters eager to allow the misunderstanding for a much more sensational interview far past the point of lies. I've tried to improve the 'historical background' section, sources that are dodgy quotes from people advertising the film should not be used, I forget the exact policy wording but RS do not include either primary sources or advertising for disputed information. If a source implies that a fictional plot point is in any was based in reality, it's, by demonstration, not a RS. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I tagged the "Historical background" section for synthesis, as parts of it seem to be original research performed by Wikipedia editors to guess which aspects of the film were based on reality and what inspired them. In particular, the Lord Lambton section seems like it's complete guesswork and is based on news articles from the 1990s, years before the film was released. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Good catch. I never noticed that. I removed the $20M figure, as it was unsourced. The citation that followed it did not have a budget listed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC) edit: I guess I should have clicked on the source in the infobox before thinking this was resolved, as it turns out that the budget in the infobox was wrong; the source says $20M, not $30M. An IP editor changed it in . Well, I really fixed it this time. I guess someone could put the $20M figure back in the box office section if they wanted. I don't think it's absolutely necessary to say what the budget was when it's already in the infobox. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Moved here because it's not actually relevant. Nevertheless there might be a home for it somewhere.
|“||The major political sex scandal of the period was the resignation of Lord Lambton in 1973. Again the circumstances were somewhat different from those shown in the film. Lambton resigned after a photograph was circulated around Fleet Street by the husband of one of two prostitutes he was shown in bed with, smoking marijuana; along with more photographs of other "prominent people". The prostitute, Norma Levy, did specialise in sado-masochism as a dominatrix, but remembers Lambton as being "relatively straight", and if anything more interested in the marijuana. She had been introduced to Lambton in July 1972 by upmarket madame Jean Horn. The affair was subsequently investigated by DCS Bert Wickstead of the Serious Crime Squad, who had also led the investigations into Silver and Humphreys. A confusion led to the additional resignation of another minister, Lord Jellicoe, although he had not been directly connected with Levy.