Talk:Ocean's Twelve

message: The 'Running gags/Continuity' section is silly, unimportant, irrelevant, and doesn't even make sense.
Sounds just right for this movie :) 76.2.155.167 (talk) 05:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Running Silly

message: The reception section is overly negative. The section is 301 words long, with only 67 of them being non-negative - that's means roughly 78% of the section is dedicated to negative reactions. Even then, the "positive/neutral" comments are played down with fairly negative intros, as if they were aberrations - thus calling the POV into question. Removing one or two of the negative comments and replacing them with positive reactions would help to balance this section. According to popular sources, the movie received something in the range of 50-60% favorable reviews (Rotten tomatoes: Critics 55%) therefore the reception section should be fairly balanced in reflecting both negative and positive reactions.--65.244.150.2 19:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Reception"- Overly Negative/POV

message: We are currently saying that O12 will take more $5m. Is this a US-only figure? Seems kind of small for all global box office still to come - isn't released in the UK til this weekend for example. Pcb21| Pete 21:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Box office gross

message: I think the plot summary could be a good deal longer. I read this page looking for help understanding the movie, and it didn't help at all. Arbiter125 03:02, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I think this is too much for an encyclopedia article.  This level of detail is best left to a fansite, not Wikipedia.  Not only is there too much information, we also have way more screenshots than are necessary for this film.  I propose that we eliminate the synopsis section and instead beef up the "Plot Summary" section. — EagleOne\Talk 20:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I admire the time it took to put together, I also feel that the synopsis is too long.  However, to compensate some, the plot outline could be expanded some if other editors felt it was necessary.  Furthermore, something should be done about the article layout.  With the exception of the lead, the entire article has a spoiler warning, which is too much.  I think if some minor changes were made, this could be fixed so people who haven't seen the movie could still read various part of the article (like the soundtrack section and possible part of the trivia section ) without worrying about the plot being spoiled for them.  The  tag would be used for this. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently expanded the plot summary section and deleted the extended synopsis.  I've also rearranged/renamed things to match the format of the Ocean's 11 article. — EagleOne\Talk 20:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot summary/synopsis

message: Just out of curiosity, is it really possible to do what the guy did during the laser scene with the capoiera? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.67.167 (talk • contribs) 
: I'm gonna answer that with another question: Is such a secuity system as that portrayed in the capoeira scene possible/extant? 68.123.46.208 05:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's possible but would be utterly ridiculous. A tight grid of lasers which cannot be crossed would be much more simple and secure. Also, real lasers are invisible. Only their point of contact can be seen (like a laser pointer, you only see the dot on the wall). Mcr29 00:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added info to the article on the legal download location of "Thé à la menthe", as it is a sought after track from the film Early Q 15:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not relevant to the film and is unencyclopedic. Just64helpin 20:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Laser tripwire scene

message: Unless there's a specific reason the translation of the Dutch police officer is included in the additional notes, I'm removing it, seeing as it is subtitled in the DVD version.JohnnyRush10 02:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Notes - Translation 

message: I'm not going to doubt it yet, but can someone tell me where in the movie that happens?JohnnyRush10 00:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  East Egg reference 

message: I'd say Rusty's car getting bombed was rather violent... albeit rather benignly. Is there a better way to phrase the lede so that it doesn't say there was no violence in the film, as technically there was? 71.146.5.233 22:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violence 

message: Can someone explain how Frank's pedicures works as metafilm?  Is this something about Bernie Mac I don't know?  It's not on his Wikipedia page.   ~~thisglimpse
:It's certainly not a metafilm and I've removed references to that concept from the article - it's unsourced and incorrect as well as being far too much in detail.  violet/riga (t) 16:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metafilm?  

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Why does something about ratings need to be in the second paragraph? Wouldn't that be better served for... plot? Production, perhaps? I dunno, but something more useful than ratings is certainly needed. NuclearWarfare 00:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Paragraph 

message: :Image:Oceans12Poster2.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 21:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Oceans12Poster2.jpg

message: The other two Ocean films (11 & 13)  have a "Cons described" section  and I think this article should have one as well.  The cons are briefly mentioned by name in the "Running Gags" section but I think this should be expanded.  If anyone knows how those cons are named, someone should add that. Itsmeiam (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cons described

message: *The Wiz Of Show Biz
*Oceans of Faxes and E-Mails
:For use with this article.--J.D. (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Headlines

message: It was bought in 1979 for $2.2 million by the Forbes Magazine Collection .....The 1897 egg was valued at between $18 and $24 million. Is this wrong, or did Forbes get a pretty decent deal on it. Are the dates wrong? Prices switched? Supposed to be 2.2 Billion?? Tydamann (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's $2.2 million, even with the dollar inflation, Forbes did get a very good deal if he sold the egg to Vekselberg for 10 times the original price. $2.2 billion would be very unrealistic, considering the Forbes family's net value and the number of billionaires in 1979. Admiral Norton (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Value Of Egg?

message: FYI Ikip (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rusty_Ryan_(2nd_nomination)]] Brad Pitt character in film 

message: Here's the track listings for the OST. There was a track wrongly reported in the list of the article and I removed it. --Nemopedia (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: OST

message: So we have:
*La Marque at Fandango and Rotten Tomatoes
*LeMarque at IMDb (yes, yes, IMDb is unreliable and all...)
*The article currently says LeMarc without any attribution, though I found it at TV Guide
*The role is uncredited in the film itself, so no help there.
Suggestions? My inclination would be to go with the first one, if only because I found two sources that are(?) reliable utilizing it. DonIago (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot find anything out there which is helpful, so I have brought this to the film WikiProject, and I hope one of them can help. - GalatzTalk 23:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the script itself? This says "LeMarc". That seems as close to official as possible. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd call that case closed unless anyone has other concerns. Thanks Erik! DonIago (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I looked around online the other day, after the recent changes, and found 3 or 4 different spellings.  But, if that's the script, then we have our answer. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 03:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  La Marque/LeMarque/LeMarc