# Talk:Get Carter

I wanted to get people's opinions on the recent changes to the plot by a few IP addresses, mostly 87.127.153.231.
Do people think Glenda's death is an important plot point?  I would tend to think not, nothing really hinges on it except to show the brutality and callousness of the men's actions, but as she is mentioned several times in the plot maybe it would be best to say how she dies for the sake of continuity.  I suppose she is one of the people Jack takes revenge on because she's implicated, but it seems her death is unintentional.  It's not clear whether Jack intended to do something else with her later or if he was using her as evidence or a bargaining chip.
Secondly, do people here think that mentions of what car Glenda drives is relevant material for the plot section? See these additions:
"He is rescued by Glenda driving a 1968 Sunbeam Alpine Roadster sports car," then;
"Jack put Glenda in the car boot (trunk) of her Sunbeam car and drives off to find Albert."  Then later on; "Before they escape, the London gangsters push the Sunbeam into the river, with Glenda still in the car boot (trunk)."
I tend again to think it's not, if we start on that we have to list every car driven by every character in the film. Surely the London gangsters' Jaguar is as iconic as Glenda's sunbeam?  And 3 mentions of the same car seems excessive.  I would like to remove this info from the plot.  I was thinking about having a section on the cars used in the film, I've idenitified them all now, but not sure how it would sit in the article.  It's outside the MOS guidlines for film.
I'm asking other people's thoughts because I don't want to get proprietorial here, but I don't think these edits add much to the article.  I'll agree to including a note on Glenda's death but apart from that I'd like to remove them.  So what do others think? Kaleeyed (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the points you're making are valid and since you've contributed so much to this article, I think you reserve the right to make sure that the plot summary is up to scratch; I tend to find plot sections are rather magnetic to over-elaborate detail. I know some of the articles I wrote when I was new here had rather long plot summaries, but now, I almost try and make them the shortest section. Bob talk 18:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree too - Glenda's death is not an important plot point, even though it illustrates the kind of casual callousness for which the film is famous. I don't think the men knew she was in the boot of the car, and Carter wasn't in the least bit bothered about her death. He was probably planning on it somehow anyway. A brief mention of her death will do just fine, I think. I also don't think the cars are important enough to mention in the plot section - a separate section would be interesting, but not essential. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to cut it back down to size then! :-)  I deliberately tried last time to get it down to the basic outline, but then people come along and add things they think are important, I mean nothing wrong with that, but then it gets- bloated.  Obviously some major fan of the Sunbeam out there.
I did actually start looking at the cars ages ago and wondering what they were all are.  I think they're interesting, and each one says something about the occupants.  Most fascinating is the mysterious Land Rover with an Alsatian (police dog?) in it, that appears to observe Carter at the start, then appears at the end when the police arrive to arrest Kinnear in it.  Some people see this as a blooper, I think it's not, Hodges is making a very important but unspoken point here about the close relationship between the criminals and the police.  He said he didn't want to play this up too much in the film because he had a lot of assistance from the Newcastle police in making the film and he didn't want to annoy them.  But this is a subtle dig.  Also, although the cars we tend to remember are the Jaguar, the Sunbeam and the Rolls,  the only car Carter drives is a Ford Cortina, a mass market car, unshowy, practical and anonymous, an everyman's car, perfect for an assassin.  Anyway, I don't think a section on the cars would really fit into the article, but I find it amazing how much significance everything in the film has, Hodges really thought of everything. Kaleeyed (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 

I'm no expert on this film (just a fan!).  On watching the film a few times there appears to be some (minor) plot themes not covered in the article:
That Doreen is Jacks daughter, or Jacks thinks she could be his daughter.  I can't 100% remember why I think this is inferred but may explain his rage at Doreen being in the film.
Jack _is_ concerned at Glenda's death - not because he cares about her, but because his plan was to kill her in Kinnear's garden with drugs to frame him.  He then has to use Margaret for the same purpose.
Perhaps these areas are covered in the book - however I think there is enough left open in the film to make the above the triggers for Jacks actions in the bigger plot.
Also is there a scene which explains why Doreen takes part in the pornographic film?  The current text just says 'forced', but is this force physical, emotional, financial or is she tricked into it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2ghoti (talk • contribs) 10:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC) 

Hi 2ghoti.  Thanks for your interest.  Here's my thoughts.  Firstly Doreen's parentage, whilst an interesting point, is not I think a suitable addition to the plot.  This is because whether she is or isn't Carter's daughter really has no bearing on the outcome of the film.  I think his rage is explained by his words to Glenda; "You didn't know her name?  Well it's Carter! That's my name! And her father was my brother, and he was murdered last Sunday."  This is about family.  Doreen is family, the same way Frank was.  Carter's family name has been disrespected, knowingly, by Eric and Kinnear.  I think he would have behaved the same whether or not Doreen is his child.  But his real motivation is speculation that's up for discussion, and therefore does not belong in the plot.  The plot should just say very plainly what happens and how the action moves along, not go into detail about character's inner motivations.  And we are focussing on the film plot, not the book here.  Anything additional that's discussed in the book could either go in the Production section or belongs in the article on Jack's Return Home.
Jack never says what his plans for Glenda are, are you talking about what happens in the novel?  Again, we can only focus on what is in the plot of the film here, and Jack's plans for Glenda are never discussed, so they can't be included in the plot.
In terms of Doreen's involvement in the porn film, there is no explanation of why she takes part, I have already added to the plot everything that is evident from the film, Albert only says Doreen was 'pulled' by Eric, it is difficult to say what this entailed, but it sounds like what would today be called grooming.  In the film she looks extremely uncomfortable throughout and tries to force Albert away from her when he comes up to her on the bed.  We don't know the circumstances so it's difficult to go into more detail than that.
Hope this helps. Kaleeyed (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, agree probably not suitable for plot section, but where else?  Section titled 'screen play' or 'adaption'? There is also the clever way that later scenes and dialogue make clear earlier ones to keep the viewer both in suspense and attentive.  This method of telling the story isn't in the article at the moment.
Agree that Jacks plans are never made clear in the dialogue, I haven't read the book so don't know what it says there. In the film he deliberately keeps Glenda locked in the boot for a future use (or keep her out of the way) while he sorts out other people and finds out information. The future use he planned could be planting her dead body to frame Kinnear - she has strong links to Kinnear so her presence would look 'normal' to the police - given she has been kidnapped it would seem logical he would use her for that (in the whole film he uses people for his own ends without any remorse).  When the car gets pushed into the water with Glenda in the boot the camera lingers on Jack looking thoughtful, I think he isn't concerned at her dying but peeved that his hasty plan has been partly spoilt. He then uses Margaret. I accept the above can be seen as 'original research' so completely ineligible for wikipedia :-)
This is what I love about the film - there is a lot more going on in it, some things partly explained, other things left to the viewer to think about.
Preceding unsigned comment added by 2ghoti (talk • contribs) 17:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You cannot introduce speculation. Anywhere. WP:NOR. Leaky Caldron 16:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The current version of this article says "it is later implied that Doreen is Jack's daughter", which I guess is referring to Keith's lines that "Frank said you were a shit and he was bloody well right. You even screwed his wife, didn't you? The poor bastard didn't even know if the kid was his." This may be an inappropriate level of analysis for the plot summary, though. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is that bit of dialogue in the film which suggests Doreen could be Jack's daughter. 2ghoti (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

The film is obviously iconic - time has proved that - but it is wrong!
If you read the book, which I did in the early 70's, you will realise that the actual location is Scunthorpe.
To get to his destination from London, he changes trains at Doncaster. This would not happen if he was travelling to Newcastle.
Scunthorpe was a steel town then. This is very instrumental to the plot.
I grew up in Scunthorpe in the 60's and recognise the places described.
And for the record, in the book it was a single barrelled shotgun - not double.
Scunthorpe has little going for it, so it is a pity that Newcastle stole this
Clive Addy<ref>Get carter - the original book.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.6.72 (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Get Carter. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121008035228/http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/podcasts/transcripts/british_film_posters.asp to http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/podcasts/transcripts/british_film_posters.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

As Jack is walking along the shoreline, he is shot in the head with a sniper rifle by the hitman.
This omits the crucial plot detail: just before collapsing from the rifle shot, Jack brings the gun in his hand up to the level of his shoulder, with the muzzle pointed behind and away from him, as if preparing to hurl the weapon into the sea. In the action, we might suppose, as well as his feeling sick to the stomach over the whole business; there may even have been the seed of an intention to renounce violence itself. Nuttyskin (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

That's certainly an interpretation, but since that's not explicit, it should just remain matter-of-fact. Bob talk 19:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Besides, I always assumed he was about to throw the gun into the sea simply to dispose of evidence. Given his behaviour throughout the film there's nothing to suggest he's all of a sudden renounced violence.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

There is an editor indiscriminately deleting anything from WP:DAILYMAIL1. I seems like he thinks deprecated and deleted mean the same thing, and hasn't read the discussion, or chooses to ignore it. In particular this part of the summary: 

 if there are topics where it might be a reliable source, then better sources (without its disadvantages) should also exist and can be used instead.

This emphasizes finding other sources to use instead of The Daily Mail, but no such effort is being made to find replacements, the editor is deleting indiscriminately like a robot.[1] In this particular case he has removed praise from actor Phil Daniels who considers Get Carter one of the greatest British films, without which other influential British films would not exist. 
Perhaps someone can find another source for this, because the editor who deleted is clearly more interested in deleting anything related to The Daily Mail than anything else, even if it means removing the good faith efforts of other editors and ultimately dis-improves the article. -- 109.76.137.4 (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Deleting anything from the Daily Mail seems a sensible policy, as I think the plan was originally for this article to gain Good Article status, and a Mail quote won't be considered reliable - I've had a look at the quote, it's not really one worth losing any sleep over anyway. Bob talk 22:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I disagree that this kind of indiscriminate deleting is even close to sensible policy, but if it was what was wanted they could have a robot do it, but WP:DAILYMAIL1 is a discussion with plenty of nuances and it urges replacement where possible. Skepticism of the Daily Mail is reasonable, but this kind of deleting and disrupting stable articles is not.
It is not merely the quote in isolation but also the fact that Phil Daniels is saying it, and put it right at number 1 on his list. This isn't a case where the Daily Mail can be replaced, and it shouldn't be dismissed with a disingenuous claim that the Daily Mail can never be used for anything. -- 109.78.203.194 (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The Good Article review was in 2012 which predates the recommendations against using the Daily Mail (2017 and 2019). The quote has been in the article unmolested since at least 2012.[2](I didn't go back further, the Phil Daniels article is from 2011). Although on the website DailyMail.com the article is from The Mail on Sunday a different newspaper from the same publisher (and disreputable in quite a different way). -- 109.78.203.194 (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Old bad stuff in Wikipedia articles should be removed - "but we've used the terrible source for years!" is a reason to remove it, not keep it.
If you don't have a good source for a claim, it should not be in Wikipedia. WP:BURDEN - which is hard policy - says The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. I'm challenging that this claimed quote ever happened. Can you provide a source that meets WP:RS to verify this claim? If not, it shouldn't be in.
If you want to argue that the Daily Mail is actually a good source, then WP:RSN is where you need to go to get this broad general consensus, reached in 2017 and ratified in 2019, overturned - an article talk page isn't the place - David Gerard (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm saying deprecated does not mean delete indiscriminately and does not mean "should not be used or trusted for any claim" which you continue to disingenuously claim, when WP:DAILYMAIL1 does not say that. The guideline says "remove/replace them as appropriate" and I see no effort being made to replace. I don't think the guideline WP:DAILYMAIL1 trumps writing good articles. I'm saying this article from the The Mail on Sunday and this quote from Phil Daniels are not replaceable. I'm saying it is a strange decision to disrupt stable articles with indiscriminate deletes.
Get Carter is a classic and Phil Daniels is legend, it is a real shame to have his praise removed from the article for no good reason. -- 109.78.203.194 (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
That sounds like "no I don't" - David Gerard (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
These indiscriminate deletes are being discussed. In one such discussion The Mail on Sunday was brought up.[3] There does not seem to be a ban on the Mail on Sunday. -- 109.78.222.21 (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:RSN, dailymail.co.uk literally turns out not to be a reliable source for the contents of the actual newspapers. MOS not being literally the Daily Mail does not somehow make it an RS - it's still a low-quality tabloid, and a dubious source for what is fundamentally a decorative claim.
Your previous stated reason was - literally - Get Carter is a classic and Phil Daniels is legend - that's not a reason to add a decorative claim to an article. If on an assumption of good faith you meant that seriously, then you fail at competence - David Gerard (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I have again restored the WP:STATUSQUO. I would welcome comments from an objective third party. -- 109.79.181.181 (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I strongly suggest WP:RSN at this point. WP:STATUSQUO is an essay; WP:RS is a widely-accepted guideline, and WP:V is policy - David Gerard (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
David Gerard doesn't understand the meaning of the word deprecated, and is on a bizarre crusade against the Daily Mail, to the point were he is willing to massively overreach what WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:DAILYMAIL2 recommend, and even insists on deleting reference to the Mail on Sunday which is a whole separate newspaper from the Daily Mail. The vandalism he has done to this article is one tiny example of his many many lazy and disruptive edits. -- 109.77.213.49 (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Despite assertions that the Mail on Sunday "should not be used or trusted for any claim" the question is far from decided. There is a very long ongoing discussion on the matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Mail_on_Sunday -- 109.78.207.89 (talk) 04:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

This article includes IMDB votes which are not normally allowed because they are unreliable WP:RS and WP:USERGENERATED. Was there a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to make an exception? I see no previous discussion about it. 
It is a low quality source but the text claims that Steve Chibnall mentioned the IMDB score in his book, so maybe there is reason to make an exception. (I'm not convinced the IMDB votes are notable. If someone was trying to use the scores to make a point about gender, and even if it was rewritten to make that point clearer I'm still not convinced it is notable.) -- 109.77.213.49 (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Chibnail himself made the point that less than 6% of IMDB votes represented female viewers. Dimadick (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Could you please clarify. Are you saying that because it was mentioned by Chibnail that you think it is notable?
I think that despite his mention it is still not notable but maybe people want to make an exception and keep it.
It might at first seem notable that a very high percentage of IMDB votes are from men, but (IMDB votes are not particularly notable to begin with and) according to Wired 70% of reviewers on the site are men anyway.[4] Any supposed significance in the particular gender disparity of the reviews of this film, would be misleading if not put in the context that the site already skews heavily male.
Do editors want to say this film has a very male fanbase or that it is unpopular with women? If so maybe there is a better clearer way to make that point? -- 109.77.213.49 (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Main article states Chibnall has established that the film was shown on LWT in 1976 and 1980 "in a bowdlerised version" (which edited out Britt Ekland's phone sex scene). It was also screened in 1979, either by the BBC or, more likely given its prior showing by fellow UK independent TV company, Yorkshire Television. This screening definitely included the Ekland phone sex scene. I can’t be certain of the precise date, but it will most likely have been a Saturday in June of 1979. I’d welcome any further clarification by anyone with a more exact memory than me.
92.238.220.14 (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)