Talk:The Maltese Falcon (1931 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
 
WikiProject LGBT studies  
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Edits by 24.6.23.248[edit]

24.6.23.248, I reverted your edits. They were not of a neutral point of view, not encylopedic, and not sourced. Statements like "It is also obvious in this film that Ricardo Cortez has slept with every women starring in this picture" and that Hayes "tried to make sex un-American," etc... all need legitimate sources. It's clear that you like this version of the film better than the 1941 version, think Bebe Daniels is "seductive and beautiful," think America became needlessly prudish in the following years, etc... all of which come off as POV. Feel free to add your material again if sourced and written in a neutral tone (for instance, find a critic's review of the 31 version that compares it to the 41 version). --71.251.55.14 21:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

My source is the film, which you apparently have not watched. As for the censorship that occured on films released in the USA after 1935, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Code. If you don't find Bebe Daniels attractive maybe you might find Dwight Frye handsome who played the part of Wilmer Cook. I never heard anyone say Bebe Daniels was not attractive... but plently of people have complained about Mary Astor "Mother Hubbard" look in the 1941 version... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.23.248 (talkcontribs)
I feel that these edits have gotten carried away as well. For example, it is not necessary, and is in fact distracting, to wikify every instance of an actor's name. In a number of other places, it sounds as if you are writing your own personal essay on the film, which is not at all the purpose of Wikipedia. Your opinions on the film, the actors, characters, etc. are irrelevant and have no place. ---Charles 18:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


There aren't any "neutral points of view" on Wikipedia, everything is subject to the whims of political correctness. And the dude is right, this original version of the movie is vastly suprerior to the watered down 1941 version; although neither one has the ending Hammett wrote. Roger Ebert must have been on drugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.21.81 (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Poster/cover image?[edit]

It would be more suitable to have an image from an official poster or video cover in an infobox rather than the random, grainy screenshot that is currently there -- if something is available, that is. Just a suggestion. :) María (habla conmigo) 17:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hammett[edit]

I can't cite it, but Joe Gores' novel, & the movie, were clearly inspired by the '31 The Maltese Falcon, right down to Wilmer being a "gunsel" (see etymology 2...). It also inspired stories in JSF & Spider-Woman (the green & purple Bogie is a dead giveaway...) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 07:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

clean-up[edit]

i cleaned up a number of awkward phrasings, run-on sentences, eliminated some mildly biased points as well as some erroneous info (claims that bebe daniels was shown nude, that "at one point in the film, a character mutters 'son of a bitch'", etc.) in the 'Cast' section, whoever wrote the original draft for this actually misspelled Polhaus as 'Polhouse', despite using the correct spelling elsewhere in the article. as i said, overall, the article was very, very poorly written, i was just looking to tighten it up and improve its accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.148.58.136 (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2012‎ (UTC)

changed the film genre to 'proto-noir', as it contains several noirish elements, was the main inspiration for the '41 noir version, and is listed by Wikpedia as a proto-noir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.55.33 (talk) 05:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I have -- again -- reverted your edits. There are several reasons for this, but the fact that "proto-noir" is not a recognized category is a major one. Since you cited the Wikipedia article List of film noir#Proto-noir (where "proto-noir" is not given as actual genre but as a description of noir-like films that were made before film noir became an established style) you should look at this policy page in which it is clearly stated that Wikipedia articles ... are not reliable sources for any purpose.. In other words, you cannot cite a Wikipedia article as a source. Period, end of sentence, no exceptions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

congratulations - you've totally abolished any interest i still had in improving horribly written articles on Wikipedia. i'm just going to argue on the side of logic rather than go over the ludicrous 'policy page' you threw at me, & i'll put things diplomatically for your benefit: if 'proto-noir' is used to label and categorize films of a specific type, it is "an actual genre". "period, end of sentence, no exceptions." (you meant "end of story" there, incidentally.) my attempt at making a more precise article is no cause for you to get crotchety/petulant and feign some kind of authoritative tone (although your annoyance is more likely in reaction to my completely redoing your horrendous previous draft of this page, rife with bad information and even misspellings.) "Wikipedia articles ... are not reliable sources for any purpose." - as long as you're writing 'em, that's apparently true - nevertheless, i leave you with this quote direct from Wiki's own 'genre' article which backs me up: Genre is the term for any category of literature or other forms of art or entertainment, e.g. music, whether written or spoken, audial or visual, based on some set of stylistic criteria. Genres are formed by conventions that change over time as new genres are invented and the use of old ones are discontinued. Often, works fit into multiple genres by way of borrowing and recombining these conventions. but what the heck. since "Wikipedia articles ... are not reliable sources for any purpose", we'll take in some Merriam-Webster: "Genre... 1. a category of artistic, musical, or literary composition characterized by a particular style, form, or content."

..."Wikipedia articles ... are not reliable sources for any purpose"... if this is really the case... why do you even concern yourself with them? take care, ken. enjoy Wikpedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.142.97 (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)