# Talk:Ronin (film)


### Synopsis
I am watching it on YouTube and it looks like Deirdre does enter the bar  in the last scene and goes upstairs or someplace.
This was supposedly an alternative ending but it pretty much looks like this is the actual ending although it is very blurry
I took the liberty of changing the plot synopsis, trying to make things a little more streamlined and removing some of the 'fat' from the previous synopsis. If anyone can think of any good suggestions to clean this up even further, let me know. - Sledgeh101 17:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That would indeed be useful. As someone who has not seen the movie I have no clue as what is going on!
What Iralith says below about the movie's themes, that would do very very good in the plot section (as we have no theme section) --80.171.195.87 (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


### Removed
I removed the following from Synopsis:
(Sam also reveals to her that he, in fact, never left the organization he worked for and is actually there to capture Seamus himself). It is implied, but not explicitly stated, that Sam is an American CIA agent.)
It was obviously added with little thought to the paragraph as a whole, the parenthesis do not even add up.  I do not know the film well enough to redo the section to make this sentence work, so I have simply removed it.  If someone is willing to redo it, go for it, but I see no value in it at all.  Russeasby 06:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have a crack at adding that fact, as briefly as I can, to the current synopsis. I totally agree that the two sentences as they were were weird and messy. But the information's quite important in context--the movie spends ages and ages exploring loyalty, belonging, people's spook/military credentials, the disintegration of a whole world of cloak-and-dagger badassery in the wake of the Cold War's end, etc., culminating in a lecture on the Forty-Seven Ronin. All of that discourse comes off as an examination of what it's like to be Sam, this guy whose CIA background has totally defined him and who's now adrift and middle-aged . . . and then you find out at the end that the it's kind of a scam. Iralith 20:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any confirmation of this speculation anywhere. If a source can't be cited the statement should be removed. Johnatx 05:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This section is clumsy: "The fate of the case and its contents are unknown, however, a montage of news audio clips tell us that the killing of Seamus was somehow instrumental in ceasing the violence between the British Parliament and the IRA."
This suggests that 654 politicians were fighting the IRA, which is obviously not true. Parliament is not government. This could be changed to the British government, Britain, British security forces or the Royal Ulster Constabulary, but Parliament doesn't fit. Is "British Parliament" the actualy line in the film?

The article states that Gregor is "a Russian ex-member of the KGB". Within the film, when Vincent describes the group he is chasing to Jean-Pierre, he clearly states he is looking for "Un Irlandais, une Irlaindaise et un Allemand" - an Irishman, an Irishwoman and a German man (the subtitles duly translate this). Can I just go ahead and change this, or are there any objections?
Ant368 18:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: further clean-up
I don't believe Mikhi's two associates in Arles are Viennese either - as that implies they are of Austrian nationality/origin. The leader of the pair is called Sergei, which is a name I would associate with someone of Slavic nationality. It's merely stated in the film that Vincent encountered them in Vienna, which is where they remember one another from.
Whilst we're on the subject of Vincent's past, is there any definitive reference or source for him being ex-OAS? My own reading is that he is ex-SDECE or ex-DGSE (French intelligence service and its successor). Is it mentioned in any source that he is OAS (ie, a director's commentary? I only have the film on VHS). Is there a similar reference that backs up the two men Mikhi sends to Arles being Austrian rather than Russian?
If not, would it perhaps be better to change Vincent to being a French mercenary with an unspecified past and to change the nationality reference for the two men in Arles to Russian? Ant368 18:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Be bold, go ahead! LDHan 23:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I made those changes and also cropped some items that were speculation more than fact about the film's plot. (ie, the case might have contained nuclear materials, that can definitely be read into the film, but nowhere does one of the character's suggest this, so I deleted that!)Ant368 00:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The second major car chase passes through a Paris tunnel that is remarkably similar to the site of the car accident that lead to Diana...
Sorry but I don't know anything about the tunnels of Paris (and maybe a lot of people are in my same boat) so possibly someone could elaborate about whether the tunnel just looks remarkably similar or in what other way is it similar? Cryptonymius 07:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The two tunnels look enough alike that many web pages (including past versions of this article) have incorrectly stated that it was the same tunnel.  I have found that you cannot just remove incorrect information like this (somebody else will just insert it later), you have to include sourced correct information. —MJBurrage • TALK • 08:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The tunnels in the movie are indeed on the Boulevard Peripherique (as stated below). However, Diana was killed in the Pont de l'Alma tunnel, which is beside the River Seine in the centre of Paris and not on the Boulevard Peripherique. Mesdale (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
If the tunnel has a name, then insert the name in the article. I think this might be a solution.--Mato Rei 09:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
In Paris there is a circular urban motorway (freeway), called Boulevard Peripherique, and most of it is either in tunnel or on bridges. It separates Paris proper from the outskirts (banlieue). The tunnels all look very similar, as they were all built approximately at the same time.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.251.231 (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC) 

The reference in paragraph 2 (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_19980810/ai_n10444144) is now broken. I added it to the references section anyway.
CaNNoNFoDDa 18:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And of what use shall that be?? --80.171.195.87 (talk) 10:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ronin movie 1998.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 insure 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.
BetacommandBot (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ronin isn't really a samurai film despite its title, but was the title derived from [[|Ronin|samurai without lords or masters]]? Homechallenge55 (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Given my recollection, the movie has a minor character who is working on a diorama which depicts the final assault of the Ronin. Other than that there is no real connection to the original story, also because no one is acting very samurai-ish.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.66.80 (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
It's what TV Tropes would call a 'title drop': the bit where they explain the title. The Michael Lonsdale figure, whose hobby is creating that diorama of the last stand of the 47 Ronin -- samurai who had lost their master, but still fought to the death for his honour -- says that the Reno and de Niro characters and their kind are like the ronin: they are old spooks who, with the end of the Cold War, have lost their great cause, but they keep on fighting and dying, out of some sense of martial honour, because that's who they are and that's what they do and they don't know any other life. Khamba Tendal (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the last sentence in Production/Cinematography: "According to Frankenheimer, the film is unusual in that it contains no wipes, dissolves, or similar techniques; all scene transitions are handled with suitably paced cuts."
I don't believe this is true and there was no citation for this claim. In the commentary, Frankenheimer explicitly points a wipe following a pedestrian walking across the screen. He cites the film and director from which he stole the technique. I don't remember the origin, but it may be an interesting fact to add if others have the DVD.
It may be true that there are very few transitions other than cuts. But saying there are no wipes is incorrect.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.23.71.93 (talk) 04:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC) 

@TheOldJacobite: Please review my revisions properly: this movie was produced by two film outfits so obviously the infobox parameter should be "production companies", not "studio"; and wouldn't it be best if CIA is unabbreviated on first mention? Most people won't know what the 'CIA' is without clicking on the link otherwise. SLIGHTLYmad  12:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The CIA is well-known enough to be recognized and, if it isn't, the piped link leads them to the right place. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The runtime in the infobox was recently changed from 122 min. to 116 min., with a source added to the BBFC, a source frequently used on WP.  But, checking the runtime on IMDb, it says 122 min., as does AllMovie.  TCM shows no runtime and BOM says 120 min.  I restored 122 min., as it was the stable version for a long time, but we clearly have a discrepancy here.  Which source do we go with? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't trust IMDb as they're generally not reliable. I'd choose the runtime in the Variety movie review: 118 minutes (FN 12). The site's currently under maintenance but the last time I saw it reports that runtime. SLIGHTLYmad  13:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
The 116 minute time is for the video version (which is shorter than the cinema version due to PAL speedup). The BBFC put the time of the theatrical version at 121 minutes and 23 seconds. They physically measure the length of the film and calculate the time from that. Betty Logan (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
@Betty Logan: Funny because the BBFC reports the 116 runtime as well. SLIGHTLYmad  04:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Please re-read what I wrote. The length of the video release is 116 minutes and the length of the theatrical version is 121 minutes. The shorter video length is due to PAL speed-up. You can see this for yourself by clicking the "feature" tab at the bottom of the BBFC entry where it logs the time of each release and the type of release. Per Template:Infobox_film it is the theatrical runtime that goes in the infobox, which in this case is 121 minutes. Betty Logan (talk) 04:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Betty, for clearing that up. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 11:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ronin (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 08:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I will review this article. Thank you.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments
Wikilink "stakeout" to "Surveillance#Stakeout" for those who may not be aware of its meaning.
Wikilink "Gendarmes" and " Promenade des Anglais" for those who may not be aware of its meaning.
Wikilink Andersonville to Andersonville (film), and add its year of release as well.
"it was impossible to close them during the day" — What do you mean by "close them"? Please clarify.
Wikilink Chicago Sun-Times.
Tarantino is again linked in the "Release" section. Delink it.
IGN is again linked in reference 26. Delink it.
References 37 and 49 show all-caps. Rectify it with only the starting alphabets being in capital letters.
Overall, excellent work on this article, Slightlymad. Address these comments and the article is promoted.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

All  Done. Slightlymad 11:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.
Pass or Fail: 

Great job, Slightlymad. Keep up the good work.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to remove this film from List of box office bombs (1990s). There isn't enough information in this article to support that claim, as I write this article claims the film "performed moderately well" but there certainly isn't enough information to support the claim that it was a box office bomb. -- 109.77.248.175 (talk) 23:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The list will probably be deleted soon anyway, it's a dumpster fire. -- 109.77.248.175 (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: There's no policy that prohibits supporting roles from being included in the lead. I'm using the The Thing, a Featured Article, as an example of this. Besides, you just said that they cannot be included if they're not in the article, which is why I was obliged to delete some of them. So, now I'm kinda confused what your beef really is with my revision... Tks, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

My beef is, as I pointed out both times, that the lede is being padded out unnecessarily so.  The lede should be a consise summary of the article, and that means only the distilled details should be there - that means stars, not supporting roles.  As for The Thing, well that's what WP:OTHERSTUFF is for, (Article "A" has it, so Article "B" must also...) additionally all sorts of precedents can be seen - Star Trek: The Motion Picture makes no mention of any of the cast apart from William Shatner, simply stating that it "stars the cast of the original television series" - without actually saying who they are.  You are correct that there is no policy preventing supporting actors from being present, but nor is there a policy saying they can.  Hence we discuss it, and I think that small roles by definition are not to be mentioned in the lede.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and CinemaScore provide an overview of the critical response. They provide different information and should be in a separate paragraph from the specific opinions of individual critics (at the moment they are in the same paragraph that explains how critics appreciated the good car chases). Some people like to put this overview information at the top of the section WP:MOSFILM. Other people like to put this information at the end of the section especially for films like Ronin that came out before sites like Rotten Tomatoes had been established. there is an argument to de-emphasize them and put them at the end of the critical response section.
I think a line break is a small simple thing that improve clarity and I don't think Rotten Tomatoes and other overview information belongs in the same paragraph as other (unusually good quality) discussion about details of the film. -- 109.79.71.51 (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm arguing for different types of information to be in different paragraphs. I've no problem with the suggestion that more modern interpretations get a separate paragraph, I'm merely suggesting a line break to put different ideas in different paragraphs. -- 109.79.71.51 (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
A whole separate sub section is unnecessary, User:Slightlymad, but it is better than it was, which will have to do. -- 109.78.208.32 (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The piece makes no mention of the IRA, which seems unnecessarily squeamish and PC. There are sufficient clues in the film ('Deirdre', 'Seamus', well funded, a political agenda, Irish accents, etc) which clearly navigate the viewer to this conclusion. There is an outside possibility that it is not the IRA, but taking all factors into account, that seems overwhelmingly unlikely. Worth a mention? Mike Galvin (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe. A reliable, high-quality source is still required for such claims; it doesn't matter what anyone says. Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The article makes no reference to the IRA. Roger Ebert's Film Review Site describes McElhone's character as an "IRA paymistress". Most other reputable film review sites make the same, bluntly obvious connection. 
We rely on reputable sources. In addition to this, common sense must also be applied. It seems to me that to not reference the IRA is misleading by omission. 
Thoughts? Mike Galvin (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Is this a pet project of yours? It seems like vandalism. That IRA reference cited three sources, two of them go-to and long established. Was The Washington Post and Roger Ebert not enough? You suggested "high quality sources" (that being rather subjective at the best of times). These sources would seem to meet that criterion. Justify this.  Mike Galvin (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Three sources cited for that change, all high quality. Washington Post, Roger Ebert being two. You have deleted the reference again. Explanation? Mike Galvin (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@Mike Galvin: This information is redundant by the fact that it's already mentioned (or should I say implied) in the Cast that their employer is the IRA since Deirdre is a member of it. Besides, this is just one of the many subtexts of the plot, and as such, we don't add stuff like this in the lede, which should only provide an overview of the entire article. And what makes this a reliable source? By that, I mean what professional editorial control does it have that can make it reliable? Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA declaration; text below copied from the article by me. I'm leaving it here in case the removal of extended text breaks any refs. (Actually, I didn't remove much text and no refs during my c/e). Baffle gab1978 00:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


### Cast
Robert De Niro as Sam: An American mercenary formerly associated with the CIA. According to director John Frankenheimer, De Niro "was always dream casting" for the film.
Jean Reno as Vincent: A French gunman who befriends Sam. Frankenheimer sought to establish the friendship between Reno's and De Niro's characters, since he considered it pivotal to the story and wanted to strengthen the off-screen bond between the actors.
Natascha McElhone as Deirdre: An IRA operative commissioned to steal a briefcase by Seamus O'Rourke. McElhone had a dialect coach on set to help her speak with a Northern Irish accent. McElhone said she was thrilled to do the role because she got to portray a character that moved the action forward.
Sean Bean as Spence: An English firearms specialist formerly associated with the SAS. During production, Frankenheimer did not know what the future held for the character and thought about having him killed by shooting him off-screen (after the team drove out of the warehouse) or snatched from a Parisian street into a van driven by the IRA. Ultimately, he dismissed him from the team. Bean described the character as egotistic and "a little bit out of his depth".
Stellan Skarsgård as Gregor: A German computer specialist formerly associated with the KGB. A fan of Skarsgård, Frankenheimer praised the Swedish actor for "bring[ing] so much to the role." Of the character's backstory, Skarsgård suggested that Gregor was abandoned by his wife and son, for which he became "quite suicidal and cold".
Jonathan Pryce as Seamus O'Rourke: A rogue operative in pursuit of the case through Deirdre. Like McElhone, the Welsh Pryce was coached to hone his Northern Irish accent.
Skipp Sudduth as Larry: Another American and the team's designated driver. Sudduth, who had appeared in Frankenheimer's George Wallace (1997), performed most of his driving stunts.
Michael Lonsdale as Jean-Pierre: Vincent's friend and colleague whose pastime is creating miniatures. Frankenheimer intended to make the character a miniature artist, partially due to his own love of creating miniatures. The film was Lonsdale's third collaboration with Frankenheimer.
Katarina Witt as Natacha Kirilova: A Russian figure skater. Witt wanted to become an actress after a career as a figure skater; Frankenheimer had always wanted to shoot an ice-skating scene, and cast her in the film.
Féodor Atkine as Mikhi: Leader of the Russian mafia
  Baffle gab1978 23:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
"Irish Operative" is scarcely the same thing. Nor does the lede state anywhere that Deirdre is a member of the IRA. "Operative" could mean almost anything. The fact remains that by a process of rational elimination, she couldn't possibly be working for anyone else EXCEPT the IRA, so why not simply state, rather than "imply" that? 
I'm not sure I take your point that the sources are unreliable, any more than someone insisting that 2+2 = 4 needs to be confirmed by Stephen Hawking (RIP). What source would you deem reliable to state the obvious? Give me an example. The Washington Post is hardly a tabloid, and Roger Ebert is probably the world's best known film critic. Yet you have set yourself above their judgement. Why? This smacks of pride. And obstinacy. And, if you'll pardon me, bloody-mindedness. Mike Galvin (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

His character is described as having a "connection with the SAS". Surely the point is that he has never had a connection with the SAS, and is simply a Walter Mitty figure. This is borne out during his conduct at the arms trade, during which he effectively goes beseryk and later vomits in fear. He is later embarrassed by Sam in the "coffee ambush" scene which leads to his dismissal from the group. During that scene, he also appears unable to recreate a simple, tactical drawing (hardly the behaviour of a soldier from an elite regiment). For the benefit of any non-Brits, there is a sad tradition of losers claiming association with the SAS, 1 Para, and other prestigious branches of The British Army. He surely falls under that category, and this is quite clearly inferred throughout. Mike Galvin (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

How likely is it that the IRA would hire ex-SAS personnel? Even one who claimed to be a disgruntled, former employee? My understanding is that the IRA regarded the SAS as an existential threat from the early 70's to 90's.
This makes even more unlikely any SAS connection. Whether Spence's genesis is a question for Frankenheimer himself or Wiki, I'm not certain, though assigning Spence an SAS "association" in the article would seem to rest squarely with Wiki, since the only character in the film who seems to suggest this is Spence himself. And we all know how convincing that is. Intelligent inference required? Mike Galvin (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I suppose we could write something like "claiming to be a former SAS member" if he's really the only one claiming he's SAS (I don't remember how he was initially introduced in the movie). I wonder if Frankenheimer or the writers ever touched on this in director's commentary and such. Daß Wölf 00:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
@Daß Wölf: I had access to the audio commentary and Frankenheimer didn't comment on the political subtexts in the film, nor the briefcase being a MacGuffin. As far as Spence's SAS affiliation, he does introduces himself as being a part of that regiment when asked by Sam during the impromptu coffee test scene. My theory is that Spence was indeed a member of the SAS, but got booted out because of his excessively arrogant behavior (which he exhibits to the team). Irl, people can get fired for acting like a cunt in the workplace. Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Earlier, I made two changes. One, stating in the lede that the employer organisation represented is the IRA. This had two reliable sources; The Washington Post and the Roger Ebert Film site, both of which drew the same inference. This was deleted by Slightly with the a complaint regarding the credibility of the sources and "Who are THEY?" (Sigh). I cannot understand why this fairly obvious fact should not be stated in the lede, since 'Deirdre's' character is described as being an 'IRA operative' in the Cast section.
The second change I made was to the description of the 'Spence' character, who is described as being SAS. This is most unlikely for several reasons.
1. Nowhere in the film is he clearly identified as being ex-SAS. Further, his basic lack of any fieldcraft would suggest overwhelmingly that he has never been attached to that regiment. Slightly's "opinion" (?) is that he was in the SAS, though "thrown out for being a cunt" (??). My understanding from two older men I know who served in that regiment is that any psychological weakness would have been spotted early in pre-selection. Spence would not have made it through the first week of the process, far less made it through to the end. He is more likely from a rank-and-file infantry regiment and suffering from PTSD (Gulf, Round One?).
2. Facts. A. The IRA would never employ an ex-SAS man. How would they ever know he wasn't working undercover?
B. There are only two occasions in the film when this 'SAS' thing is mentioned. Firstly, when Gregor suggests he's with "the boys from Hereford" and Spence shrugs importantly. Secondly, when he shouts it aloud during the 'coffee ambush' scene; and this could hardly be more ridiculous. 
All things considered: his amateur theatrics at the arms deal, his inability to re-draw a basic schematic, his inability to defend himself, his big mouth ALL point to a Walter Mitty. The SAS does not select guys like Spence, full stop. I know - because I've been lucky to meet a couple of the real ones. These are quiet, courteous men. You would never know they'd been in any sort of military.
So I'm making that change to 'Spence' again. As to mentioning IRA in the lede, feel free to chip in. The Washington Post did, but that wasn't good enough.for Slightly. Mike Galvin (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, your personal essay on the matter is irrelevant nor is it qualified for inclusion unless you can provide a source that can prove the claim as false. And could you provide a diff that proves that I'm vandalizing this article? Don't you think removing sourced content like what you did here doesn't qualify as vandalism on your part? Your edits on this article have been pretty disruptive for the past two days and it's getting a bit annoying. You don't seem to have a good grasp of this site's policies, which is why you project your ignorance to editors who do. I'm not gonna tell you again, stop the disruptive edit or I'll have you reported immediately. Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Read the "essay" again. 
It is you who needs to prove he is associated with the SAS. You haven't. Wiki deals in facts, not your "take" on things.
You vandalised a correction to the article several days ago which supplied two reputable sources, one The Washington Post - and without explanation.
I'll do an RfC on this later. I believe I've made my case thoroughly. 
Aside from expressing your "take" that Spence is "a cunt" who was thrown out of the SAS you have provided nothing to support that view, or indeed challenge mine.
Try again. Mike Galvin (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Uh, I didn't include my opinion in the article, did I? Fine, that does it; this will come to ANI shortly. Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

There are just two occasions in the film when the SAS is mentioned in connection with Spence.
1. When Gregor suggests it and Spence responds with a self-important shrug.
2. When Spence claims membership during as altercation with Sam, following his disastrous performance at the arms-trade. In this scene, he is unable to answer the question, "What colour is the boat-house at Hereford"? (There isn't one, BTW. It's urban myth) and is choked by Sam when he falls backwards, spilling a coffee cup.
There is no other reference to his belonging to the SAS regiment.
Following this final embarrassment, he quits in disgrace. As a parting shot, Deirdre advises him to forget what he has seen and heard, as they (The IRA) "will not forget". This can be taken to mean they realise he is an imposter who has wasted their time.
So....
1. PTSD or not, how likely is it that a former member of the SAS knows nothing - and I mean nothing - about basic fieldcraft?
2. How likely is it that a guy who trained with the SAS cannot recreate a simple, tactical drawing?
3. How likely is it that a member of the SAS would feel the need to throw up after an exchange of gunfire?
4. How likely is it that - to quote Slightlymad - that he was possibly "thrown out of the SAS" for being "a cunt", when this regiment has the most rigorous selection process in the military world with a 100% retention rate of successful candidates?
No reliable source (ie: Mamet or Frankenheimer) are on record as confirming this guy is ex-SAS. Critics may express their own views, but these would be based on the same film the rest of us saw, and therefore contain no greater validity.
The question is; on the balance of probabilities, is Spence real SAS or a fraud? Mike Galvin (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Wooooh! Mike Galvin (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

See WP:OR. Contributors don't get to guess the 'balance of probabilities' of Hollywood depictions of fictional events based on their (presumably limited) personal knowledge concerning the non-fictional SAS. Even ignoring the WP:OR aspect, it is fiction, and probabilities don't apply. And see WP:RFC, since sticking 'RfC' in a header doesn't make this one. 86.133.149.192 (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The Keeling reference (8) Den of Geek is misapplied, since the piece goes on to rightly deduce that Spence is not, nor has ever been as SAS member.
It describes the 'coffee ambush' scene as follows, stating that Spence draws a "woeful heist plan on a whiteboard for the rest of the team". 
It goes on, "Sam promptly stands up and rubs it out, before emploring his colleague to "draw it again". While Spence panics and looks befuddled, Sam uses mind games to reveal the beleaguered Brit as a fraud".
Most rational people would take the word "fraud" to mean that Spence is not what he claims to be (ie: SAS).
Not sure why this has been used as a 'source'. Mike Galvin (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I find it odd that of what I wrote, you take issue with a single, badly chosen phrase. Any thoughts on the actual substance? Mike Galvin (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

What new text are you proposing? 86.133.149.192 (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Under 'Cast', Deirdre is described as an IRA member, though in the plot introduction as an "Irish operative".
For clarity sake, why not simply say "IRA member". The term "Irish operative" is opaque, and could be taken to mean any number of things. Mike Galvin (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The sentence in question: "At a bistro in Montmartre, Irish operative Deirdre meets with American mercenaries Sam and Larry, and French mercenary Vincent" The remaining people in this sentence are described in general terms, by nationality. I can't see any particular problem with this. The lede already makes clear what sort of 'operatives' the team are. A disparate bunch assembled for a nefarious purposes. This is a Hollywood action thriller, not an exercise in historiography, and nit-picking over the exact words used to describe one of the individuals portrayed seems a little pointless. 86.133.149.192 (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Deletion of that source. Mike Galvin (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I find this a misuse of the talk page, which after all is supposed to be a rational dialogue between different viewpoints. Slightlymad and his pals have taken to re-directing responses I have made to their remarks to new topics I have raised, thus trying to create an impression that I am responding to myself.
Excellent knowledge of Wikipedia "tricks" guys, though REALLY not cool. Mike Galvin (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. If there is a behavioural issue, this really isn't the place to discuss it. Whatever 'it' is, since you haven't given the slightest indication what you are referring to... 18:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.149.192 (talk) 
Since the entire point of the film is that these characters have been assembled to conduct what is clearly an IRA operation, pointing out a failure in the lede to state this obvious fact is hardly "nitpicking", any more than objecting to the opening sentence of the entry for Hitler as "a German guy with a moustache and an agenda" would be.  Mike Galvin (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you find that people will respond better on this talk page if you post your replies in the relevant section. 86.133.149.192 (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

As stated elsewhere, this quote is misused since the article goes on to qualify the use of "SAS" a few sentences later by refuting the idea that Spence is a member and stating he has been found out as "a fraud".

It's not enough to simply find a source that mentions something in passing. It needs to confirm the point being made.

Amy objections to deletion? If so, what are they? Mike Galvin (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I think that this obsession with whether fictitious characters in a Hollywood thriller should be identified with the SAS or the IRA is rather missing the point of the film. It isn't, in my opinion (an opinion apparently shared by some reviewers) about 'the SAS'. Or 'The IRA'. Instead, it is, as the title suggests, a more general story about confused and questionable loyalties in a time when 'operatives' (like the Rōnin samurai) find themselves no longer fighting for the cause they espoused. It is a film about ambiguity, in as much as it is anything more than a variation on the Hollywood heist trope. It is a story as relevant to feudal Japan as it is to 1990s Europe, and the specific former allegiances of the characters really aren't that important. What matters is the ambiguity - something that the film quite deliberately encourages by not making clear who is supposed to be working for who, what their backgrounds really are, and what the heck it is they are going to achieve by acquiring the mysterious suitcase. The characters in the film have no reality beyond it, and making bold assertions about their imaginary background beyond the events depicted in the film does it a disservice. So yes, the article shouldn't be making categorical statements about whether Spence was formerly in the SAS, for the same reasons it shouldn't be making categorical statements about whether Deirdre and O'Rourke were really acting on behalf of the IRA. Write about actual facts (who made the film, who acted in it...) as facts, and leave the imagined back-story for the characters for the viewer to decide, if they want to make such a story at all. Sadly, confusing in-universe fiction with verifiable external fact seems to be a common fault with Wikipedia articles on works of fiction, but I see no reason to do so here. Wikipedia can do better than that. 86.133.149.192 (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

At 1:35:56 during the Vincent/Sam discussion about the case, "go with what you know", Vincent says Gregor is KGB. 174.53.172.192 (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

"Vincent says..." - John Frankenheimer said "Gregor Gurrman". Do your math. 2003:DC:F735:A700:A919:4FA3:8A45:D04F (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)