# Talk:The Irishman

An anonymous editor keeps moving Harvey Keitel up higher in the infobox cast list, saying "Keitel is of the same level as DeNiro and Pacino." I responded that his opinion of Keitel's "level" is irrelevant.  But, regarding both cast lists, is there a source that justifies the current cast order, or is this simply someone's opinion? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The opening paragraph of the 'financing and budget' section is almost identical - except the first few words - of the second paragraph of the 'development' section. One of them should be removed. My suggestion would be the paragraph in the 'development' section, as the paragraph is more about who owns distribution rights than anything else.Robbmonster (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

No responses in close to a fortnight. I'll go ahead and make whatever changes please me.Robbmonster (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The website for Whats on Nexflix has just published an announcement about the poster for the film here [1], a number of publicity stills, and a useful five sentence summary of the film which appear useful to this article. If someone has the time then it might be nice to bring in at least the poster image in WikiCommons as fair use. CodexJustin (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm gonna remove the "biographical" genre, since the film is based on a book in which too many events are not confirmed to have actually happened. For example, Goodfellas, which is arguably a more historically accurate film, doesn't feature the "biographical" genre in the lead too. If you have any disagreements, feel free to discuss here. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 19:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, per WP:FILMLEAD, "the opening sentence should identify [...] the primary genre or sub-genre under which it [the film] is verifiably classified", so it's fair to use simply "crime film", especially because of the controversies around its source material that I mentioned above. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 19:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Mazewaxie, I don't mind this change, but maybe make it clearer in the first two sentences that the characters are depictions of real-life figures? I know the blue links help indicate that, but it should be a little more upfront. And if there are issues with biographical and/or historical accuracies, we should have a section about that in this article. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Erik: Maybe we could write something similar to Goodfellas, like "based on the 2004 non-fiction book"? --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 09:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I support that. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

For brevity I have used the city names when referring to the film festivals in those cities in teh release section of the page. Otherwise, it would read "the Hamptons International Film Festival, San Diego International Film Festival, International Rome Film Festival and Tokyo International Film Festival." Further complicating matters the place name for the Hamptons in Long Island actually refers collectively to Southampton and East Hampton. My hope was to achieve brevity and simplicity for the page, but this appears to be too confusing for some editors who have repeatedly removed and reinserted the "the" in Hamptons and the "in" when referring to the cities because they think it's more appropriate to refer to the festival itself when the language actually uses the place name. So I am posting here about it in hopes that there can be a consensus on what can actually be done to avoid an edit war about these two tiny little two letter words. Can we make a table about it? I leave it up to the consensus. Warm regards. Kire1975 (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kire1975: I'm not a English native speaker, so my opinion could be easily wrong, but I think that writing "The Irishman is also scheduled to have screenings at other film festivals, including Hamptons, San Diego, Rome, and Tokyo." it's correct, because we are referring to the festivals' names, not the locations. I could be totally wrong but that how it "sounds" better to me. Anyway I'm okay with any decision. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 10:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Mazewaxie:: Perhaps the problem lies in your edit here adding the word 'including'. You said "those are the most relevant" but if you are aware of any others film festival screening, they are just as notable as all the others and should be included. I've been googling it several times this week. If there were other film festivals, I'd be adding them, like I did with Tokyo later on. How about we go back to the original: "The Irishman is also scheduled to have screenings at other film festivals in  The Hamptons, San Diego, Rome, and Tokyo."? Kire1975 (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kire1975: Oh, okay got it. For me the version you proposed is fine for me. I'm gonna change it now. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 15:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kire1975: On IMDb it mentions a screening on October 8, 2019 at the "Mill Valley Film Festival", but I wasn't able to find any source regarding this. Do you know anything about this? --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 15:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Good question. I know that it's not on the Mill Valley Film Festival website. Kire1975 (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mazewaxie:: Now you're reverting my edits again instead of talking about it? Saying English is not your first language is not an excuse to call things what they are not. The San Diego International Film Festival is not "San Diego Film Festival." The Festa del Cinema di Roma is not "Rome Film Festival". They all have long names. I have already stated once that for the purpose of brevity I originally wrote it just mentioning the name of the city. If you want to keep it that way, then you have to acknowledge that these are film festivals in their own respective cities. The way you keep editing them refers them as proper names that don't exist. You are very much in danger of edit warring. I'm really trying to be civil here but I'm right and you're wrong. It's such a petty little thing, but you keep reverting my edits and changing it to language that doesn't make sense. As a college educated native speaker of this lange, the errors are glaring. Up until now you've been very friendly about our disagreements, but if you continue to edit war about this, then there are consequences.
I see your comment in my talk page, if your concern is that Lumiere is not a city. If you want to "refer to the film festival names" you will have to include four or five redundant words each. Can we change it to Lyon? or Lyon, France? Kire1975 (talk) 10:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kire1975: I don't see the issue in this. "The Irishman is also scheduled to have screenings at the Hamptons, Lumière, San Diego, Rome, and Tokyo film festivals." It's just a listing of the festival names, I don't understand why can't it be this way. To me is the simplest way to write this. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 10:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Mazewaxie:: Those are not the names of the festivals. Why don't you see the problem? 10:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kire1975: Yes, they are. We don't need to specify for each one "film festival" (they are all called this way; some also have the word "international" but it's omissible, since they all have redirects). They don't have "fancy" names that need to be specified, we just need to list the actual names (Hamptons, Rome etc.) followed by "film festivals". They way you changed it is wrong because it makes it look like Lumière is a city, when it's not, and you are not specifying the festival names either, so if my "version" is wrong, yours is even worse. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 10:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Mazewaxie:: Thank you for being honest and letting me know this is personal. The hyperlink goes to the film festival page. What's your excuse again? Kire1975 (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kire1975: I'm sorry if it looks it's personal, but it's not. I have nothing against you and I don't know why you feel this way. We just have different opinions. As I said in my previous reply, if you consider my edit to be wrong, then yours is worse, because Lumière is not a city (and the way you worded the sentence makes it look like it is), and you don't mention the names of the festivals either. Also, I don't understand what you mean with "What's your excuse again?" I'm not using any excuse, I'm just pointing out facts. And I will write it one more time: I'm not attacking you, I'm sorry if you feel that way. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 10:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Mazewaxie:: It can either be changed to "film festival in Lyon" with a hyperlink to Lumiere Film Festival, or it has to refer to the full name of every festival including at least 15 redundant words. Any other way is ungrammatical. Kire1975 (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kire1975: I will answer to a previous comment you made that I didn't notice. You said that <<The San Diego International Film Festival is not "San Diego Film Festival">>, but if you add a wikilink, look what happens: San Diego Film Festival, also <<The Festa del Cinema di Roma is not "Rome Film Festival">>. But if you add a wikilink, look what happens: Rome Film Festival. That is what I was trying to tell to you.
It doesn't have to link to the full name of the event. Another example could be the "San Diego Comic-Con". The actual name would be "Comic-Con International: San Diego", but no one usese that, because is more common to refer to the event as the "San Diego Comic-Con". Also the "World Science Fiction Convention", commonly referred to as just "Worldcon".
Listing the names Hamptons, Lumière, San Diego, Rome, and Tokyo, followed by the word "film festivals", and each one of them linking to the respective festival, it's just fine, there is no need to change Lumière to Lyon, not to mention the fact that it would also be misleading to readers that are not familiar with the subject. I hope you understand my point and again, I'm sorry if you felt I was attacking you before. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 10:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Mazewaxie:: I see what you did there. Other than the fact that the San Diego Film Festival officially changed its name to include International in 2016, according to the source on that page, your reasoning does make sense to me and I am satisfied now. A reasonable person would understand which festival is being referred to if it's edited your way. There's still nothing wrong with the way I would have edited it, but if you are determined to revert my future edits on this no matter what then I accept it as a matter of consensus. In future, saying "you're wrong" instead of explaining what the problem is and giving reasons for what you want might risk the perception of a personal attack. Good night. Kire1975 (talk) 11:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kire1975: Thanks for understanding. I have to point it out were the first one that wrote the word "wrong" saying: "I'm right and you're wrong", but I didn't even notice it before. By the way I hope I didn't offend you in any mean, as you didn't offend me. Good night to you too (even if here in Italy is almost afternoon lol). --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 11:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Mazewaxie:: You were and are still wrong. Those aren't the names of the film festivals, but I can accept it. You're also wrong about it being almost afternoon there, unless Italians consider 2pm noon. LMAO! Kire1975 (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Kire1975: So if you say that I'm wrong is fine but when I say it it's a personal attack? Those aren't the full names, but we can omit "film festival" for each one of them, so it's fine. And yes, in Italy we consider afternoon to start at 2pm, so I certainly am not wrong about this. I tried being polite and I apologized to you multiple times, but ok, keep it going. I wish you a good night. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 12:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
If afternoon starts at 2 pm, why can't we have a cappuccino past 11:30-12 until 2? LOL. Jokes aside, after looking at both options, I personally think "at the" flows better in terms of what we are talking about—the festivals. Kire1975 said "...they think it's more appropriate to refer to the festival itself when the language actually uses the place name." If that were the case the article would be called The Hamptons International Film Festival. The festival itself seems more appropriate in the context of the sentence. The bulleted list also looks awkward, prose was fine. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 03:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@Vaselineeeeeeee: Thanks for your input. I'm going to revert it to the prose then. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 08:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Just found out that Guillermo del Toro wrote a review of the film. Should we mention it in the article? --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 17:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure, why not? He's an established director who's critical opinion would be taken seriously. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 17:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok. If no one will add it, I will do it later. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 17:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Pablo Helman, not Robert Legato, was the visual effects supervisor on this film.
  I believe this is incorrect in the Production -> Post-Production section of the post.
Gregm36432 (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I fixed it. Thanks. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 10:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Irishman (2018 film). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 15:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Since the film had a theatrical release, despite being limited, the film is distributed by STX Entertainment, therefore, as the date is reflected by the theatrical release date in the infobox, shouldn't STX Entertainment should be listed as distributor, not Netflix? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Good question. Honestly I don't know. Could you please post the source that confirms that? --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
It was in the article [2] that STX has the distribution rights, and seeing this film was released theatrically first, it only seems right that the date and distributor of that is stated in the box. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I could be wrong but that seems to refer to the international rights, and it was before Netflix joined the project. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 14:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, exactly my point. It was first in every regard, hence should be listed in the box, not Netflix. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I found this: "Netflix has acquired the rights once held by Paramount in North America and STX Entertainment in the rest of the world (for which the latter had paid $50m in 2016)". So it wasn't involved in the project and it is not the distributor. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 14:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that changes that STX still distributed the film first. Not sure if those against MoS, but maybe in the box list it was distributed by STX for its theatrical release, and state Netflix for global streaming rights, thus also having the November 1 and November 27 date listed per the two distributors. Because right now, the box can give the idea that Netflix distributed the film on November 1.Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes it does. Netflix acquired the rights from STX Entertainment in 2016, way before the movie started filming, so that automatically means that STX was not involved in the project, so it didn't distribute the film, because they sold the rights. I don't know if I explained myself correctly, I am sorry. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 15:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Also STX Entertainment only had the international rights, so it shouldn't be featured anyway because only the distributor in the nation (United States) in which the film was produced goes in the infobox. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 15:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
So because Netflix acquired the rights early on, they're the ones who also distributed the film theatrically? Seems strange. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Roma had a similar situation, and was distributed by Netflix in the US. Same will happen with Marriage Story. Netflix has the rights, so it only makes sense that they are the ones distributing the film (at least in the US, but other countries don't matter infobox-wise). I might be wrong, but that's how things usually work. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 15:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
For reference, this is Roma's page on Box Office Mojo. As you can see, is distributed by Netflix. The Irishman isn't in the Box Office Mojo database yet, but on The Numbers, it says that Netflix is distributing the film, both theatrically and on streaming. I hope this clarifies things, and I wish you a nice day :) --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 15:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

User:CodexJustin, please do not repeatedly add images to the plot section. These images are unrelated to the movie and per WP:FILMNFI: "Since a film article's "Plot" section contains descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source (the film) and not information found in reliable sources regarding the film, the section is not considered critical commentary or discussion of film. Thus, non-free images need to belong in other sections in which they can be supported by critical commentary." Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 18:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Most Wikipedia articles preparing for a peer nomination will use images throughout the article. The two images which I have added are already in use in other Wikipedia articles at this time without any note of policy vio. One is at the bio article for Pesci, and the other is at the article for Hoffa. This article about this film will need images to help it attain peer review status eventually. Most peer review articles use images both in the plot section and throughout the article to illustrate the prose and article sections. The images are useful and should be added into the article, both for Hoffa, and for Pesci, since these images are already in use by Wikipedia articles. CodexJustin (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
So put it in the body then. There is no policy that says images are needed in plot sections of films to be GA or peer reviewed. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 18:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@RandomBroderburg:, @CodexJustin: I'm going to paste what RandomBroderburg wrote in an edit summary, which makes a lot of sense:
"This is directly implied by the film. We hear the priest give Sheeran absolution "I absolve you of your sins, Frank." This absolution is the final part of the broader Catholic sacrament of penance. In order for a priest to give someone absolution, they must have first confessed their sins and expressed contrition. This is the first part of Catholic sacramental practice, and it is directly implied by the rite of absolution. (Scorsese, who has a Catholic background, definitely knows this.)"
Therefore, using the words "implying" here is not wrong since it is known, and shown in the links, that for one to be absolved, one must have expressed contrition. The question is, is that additional info necessary, or can the same point be made by simply stating the priest gives him absolution? It doesn't really matter to me. This though, "The absolution has no effect on his family, however, and Sheeran remains socially isolated from his family during the holidays" makes no sense. I mean, CodexJustin did think that absolution and communion (Eucharist) were the same thing when they are completely different. All that's needed for that is the last sentence: "As the priest leaves Sheeran alone in his room for the Christmas holidays, Sheeran asks him to leave the door open a little." that precedes "He tries to make peace with his alienated daughters, but Peggy (suspecting her father had a hand in Hoffa's disappearance) severs all contact with him." I'm not sure if the info in brackets here is really necessary though. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
There is the requirement in the Catholic tradition that there be contrition and sincerity on the part of the sinner, which appears completely absent in Sheeran. Also all of the reliable sources are concentrating on the solitary nature of Sheeran in his isolation at the end of his life of crime. WP:NOR does not allow editor "opinion", "inference", or "implying" of meaning in the absence of reliable sources. All of the reliable sources state that his is isolated at the start of the film in the nursing home, and at the end of the film in the nursing home. This should be the version used in the plot summary since there are reliable sources for it. CodexJustin (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Saying it appears absent in Sheeran is also an implication. Since that is a requirement by the church, then it can be implied without bias that contrition happened, or else the priest would not give absolution. So since we already know it's implied, does it really need to be spelled out in the plot, though? Probably not. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 17:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I think your most recent edit of the plot is fair. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 17:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Maybe the info from the Charles Brandt's book can help? These three paragraphs are from the "Prologue- "Russ & Frank"" and "Conclusion- Stories That Could Not Be Told Before" : "In 1999 Sheeran's daughters arranged a private audience for their aging and physically disabled father with Monsignor Heldusor of St. Dorothy's Church in Philadelphia. Sheeran met with the monsignor, who granted Sheeran absolution for his sins so that he could be buried in a Catholic cemetery. Frank said to me: "I believe there is something after we die. If I got a shot at it, I don't want to lose that shot. I don't want to close the door."" (page 3)
and "The following day, a week or so before he lost his strength and stamina, Frank Sheeran asked me to pray with him, to say the Lord's Prayer and the Hail Mary with him, which we did together." (page 5)
and "Anyway, this was a book about Frank and everything about Frank at all times was about Frank's desire to repent and his journey of redemption. Confession needs someone to confess to. And I was blessed to be in the right place at the right time and to have this son of a seminarian all to myself." (page 364).
I think this is important information and provides insight into Frank Sheeran, the real life and film version, and the film itself. These quotes are from the 2018 Expanded Paperback Edition of Charles Brandt's I Heard You Paint Houses, published by Steerforth Press, ISBN 978-1-58642-238-7 , it's paperback, red colored frontcover and back, and the words "SOON TO BE A NETFLIX FILM Directed by Martin Scorsese NETFLIX" are encircled on the front.--PeaceShield5 (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Because the cinema is adapting to the streaming market, we should consider a streaming rating chart next to the box office. There should even be a "rating" tag in the infobox as it would count as notable quantifiable information. The Irishman just got a viewing record on Netflix according to Rotten Tomatoes and must have its own section. --Mendoza399 (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't have Netflix, and the film didn't play at any of the theaters near me. I also don't want to risk watching a bootleg version on a website and getting a virus or something on my computer in the process. Is there going to be a Blu-ray and/or DVD release of "The Irishman"  any time soon? Any information? 2601:340:4203:9420:99CE:DB39:A7F6:D9A5 (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Visit dvdreleasedates.com to find out each movie's scheduled DVD or Blue-Ray release date. (Not sure if I wrote the site correctly or not) Aminabzz (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The plot isn't complete.
the killing of Sally Bugs by Frank Sheeran isn't mentioned there. Aminabzz (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Sally Bugs' death is not important enough to be included in the 700 word max plot, and Sheeran wasn't killed. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Irishman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Lizzy150 (talk · contribs) 11:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I'll be reviewing this article which you've nominated for GA. So far, it's looking good and all the editors have done a great job! Just Lizzy(talk) 11:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
General feedback

Article is reasonably well written. There's a few copyedits and word changes that I'll make myself later.
Appears to be sufficient sources. References 38, 53, 73 have not been formatted correctly though.
 Done. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Stable - yes
Illustrated - yes
Neutral / Broad - mostly yes, as long as proposed changes below are met
I'm going to jump straight to the following sections..
Production design

This paragraph is pretty much just two quotes from Variety, so perhaps just write it in your own words? For example: "Filming last 108 days, in 117 different locations and up to 160 actors..." - and then just add the source at the end.
Same goes for the second quote by the producer. You should also write [Assistant Director] and [Director of Photography] next to AD and DP.
Perhaps merge this section with the costume design section, as they're quite short?
 Done. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Costume design

As mentioned, try to merge this section with the above, or even with the Filming section, because "250 characters and 6,500 extras" isn't really related about costume design.
 Done. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Filming

"A posture coach was brought on set to offer tips" - perhaps rephrase that to: "A posture coach was hired to instruct De Niro..."
The last paragraph - I'd be inclined to remove this part: "Ben Sherlock, writing for Screen Rant, reports that" - and just dive straight into the facts. "Scorsese envisioned the film as having an "old-fashioned" look."
 Done. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Editing

This is also another short section, try merging it.
"Bill Desowitz, writing for IndieWire, stated that..." - this sentence just praises the editing without offering much substance. I'd remove that.
Partially done. I think the last part "...slamming the titles in front of the audience (describing how various mob characters die) was a way of showing that being part of the Mafia is not a good idea" merits inclusion giving how often this happened throughout the film. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Visual effects

"Nicholas Rapold, writing for Film Comment, gave the de-aging CGI approach used in the filming a mixed assessment.." - this is a review of the visual effects and shouldn't be here
"was further made evident during the award season" - try to avoid talking about awards here
The quote ""Once again technology caught up.." - you might be able to put that in your own words
 Done. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Financing and budget

Do you think this section should be higher up in the Production section, eg. below Development?
 Done. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Industry response

I'd be tempted to merge this with the critical response section
 Done. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick turnaround - here's my final comments:
Writing section

"Chip Fleischer, the publisher of the book, wrote a detailed reply" - does that mean Fleischer defended/upheld his book? I'm not sure if "detailed reply" gives us that info. In fact, that whole sentence might need to be split just to make it easier to uderstand.
 Done. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Filming

"accomplished by using "a series of lookup tables" for each scene" - what is a series of lookup tables?
 Done. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Just Lizzy(talk) 11:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Great, I've made a couple of edits just to avoid repetition in the filming section. I've done a little reshuffle in the critical response section, and reduced the amount of over-linking to wiki articles. If you have any objections, then feel free to let me know. Otherwise we're good to go! Thanks for your work. Just Lizzy(talk) 14:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Both in the introduction of the article and in the reception section it is stated that "The performances of Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, and Joe Pesci garnered critical acclaim."
Although it is easily verifiable that Pesci and Pacino did receive praise for their roles (see the number of nominations between them), it seems like De Niro is also included out of inertia, maybe because he's the main character, or maybe because he's De Niro.
That statement seems generic. De Niro didn't receive the number of nominations of the other two actors (if any) and the Reception section doesn't justify such a degree of praise either (only one review, the Vulture one: "He also praised the performances of De Niro and Pacino.") Actually, his infamous grocer scene is mentioned in the same section by the Film Comment reviwer. 
I made the corresponding modification but it was reverted claiming that it was a "bad faith" change.
If the necessary references are not provided, I will leave only the Pesci and Pacino names. Machete kills (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

No other R-rated movie has a budget like this, and I think this is noteworthy, what do you think? Mattgelo (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be notable if it could be sourced. The Matrix Resurrections may have had a higher budget at $190 million. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m confused. Could someone explain how this is his first collaboration with Joe Pesci? Goodfellas has existed for 34 years 81.100.136.95 (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't say that. It says that it's the first collaboration between Pacino and Pesci.CRBoyer 17:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)