Talk:The Untouchables (film)

message: The film's synopsis originally carried a parenthetical note about the difference between Nitti's ulitmate fate and his fate in the movie.  I removed it because having that note in alone leaves the impression that the article is saying that rest of the movie is essentially historically accurate, which is far from the truth.  Capone, Nitti and Ness were real people, of course, but there is almost nothing depicted in the specific events of the movie that actually happened.
Rather than pick out that one thing to provide a side note about, perhaps a full "reality vs. the movie" section of the article would be in order. Mwelch 22:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I guess I will write up a new plot of the film with fewer than 900 words, as according to the MOS of WikiProject Films.--Kylohk 10:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It is done now, the synopsis has no more than 650 words. A lot of excessive stuff has been removed.--Kylohk 11:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Synopsis

message: I don't mean to sound critical of the author, but the article's synopsis is more like a report of the sequence of events as portrayed in the movie. To avoid spoiling a book or movie the point is to be as brief but informative of the general subject matter as possible. Anynobody 12:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I guess I will write up a new plot of the film with fewer than 900 words, as according to the MOS of WikiProject Films.--Kylohk 10:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It is done now, the synopsis has no more than 650 words. A lot of excessive stuff has been removed.--Kylohk 11:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2007 continuation

message: I wasn't sure if this would qualify as a minor edit, so I thought I'd point it out. The links in the Trivia section referring to the film "The Battleship Potemkin" led to the article on the actual battleship. I have changed the links to direct to the film's article, as I assume they were meant to. Rex Dart 00:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Potemkin links

message: :Image:UntouchablesThe.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:UntouchablesThe.jpg

message: According to the text:
Antoine Fuqua was originally attached to direct in 2004,[2] but DePalma took over the reins a year later.[3] Shooting was set to begin in June 2007,[4] but was delayed to October. Gerard Butler signed on to star in May 2007,[5] and Nicolas Cage was negotiated with to play Al Capone, but left due to scheduling difficulties.[6] In a November 2007 interview, De Palma said that if he could not cast the lead role and begin production within the next month that he may move on to other projects; De Palma stated that he needed to be shooting during the winter to recreate the St. Valentine's Day Massacre.[7]
I think you meant 1984 and 1987?
`````````  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.139.182 (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he didn't mean 1984 and 1987.  The text above refers to the supposed upcoming prequel to this movie.ArcAngel (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007??? 

message: :Image:The untouchables group.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) 02:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:The untouchables group.jpg

message: Due to it being a dramatization, the writers no doubt took some liberties with actual quotes. I'm going to add the link under synopsis unless anyone objects. Hutch1970 (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Quotations from the film via WikiQuote 

message: This sentence is difficult to make sense of:
"According to Brian De Palma, Robert De Niro and Bob Hoskins were the prime candidates for the role of Al Capone, and Hoskins, for his brief collaboration after De Niro declined but before he changes his mind, was sent a $500.000 cheque by De Palma"
Can someone who knows what it is trying to say please clean it up? It needs to be split into separate sentences or better punctuated. Also, is the cheque five hundred dollars or five hundred thousand dollars? The use of a point suggests the former, but quoting three decimals suggests the latter. Which is it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.151.203 (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production 

message: I noticed that someone wanted to write a better plot. I would like suggest to that person to delete the current one and write the new one in the same edit - otherwise, the page goes some time almost devoid of a plot, which, I'm pretty sure, is what many visitors to the page intend to read. At least if you delete and re-write the plot in the same edit, we can still read the current one until yours is in place. Grieferhate (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Advice

message: *CAPONE'S CHICAGO STIRS AGAIN FOR THE UNTOUCHABLES
*At the Movies - May 29, 1987
*BOTTLED IN BOND, HE'S VINTAGE CONNERY
:to use with this article--J.D. (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Headlines

message: I suggest that the cast table be removed as unnecessary and inaccurate.  The characters and events in the movie have been so fictionalized and dramatized they have little resemblance to the historical people.  The only characters who even have the same names are Ness and Capone, some of the others are composites, or essentially created out of whole cloth.  So, as I said, the table is unnecessary and inaccurate. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 17:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast 

message: This article is currently in the categories Films set in the 1920s and Films set in the 1930s, but the article itself never says when it is set.  As the film telescopes events drastically and largely fictionalizes said events, it is hard to say what year this is with any certainty.  My guess, though, would be that this is set around 1930-31, and the events dramatized happen in a short amount of time.  My point being, it does not belong in both categories.  Anyone have any thoughts on this? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 17:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time period