Talk:Snatch (film)

message: Was Snatch the first movie to feature that stylized character intro in the trailer?  Music plays while the film's characters are introed.  The image freezes on each one and it usually blends into a black and white photo or artwork based on a photo of the character.  It was parodied for the trailers of films like Herbie Fully Loaded, Disney's Chicken Little, Lucky Number Slevin, and probably others.  I'm just guessing Snatch was the first film to feature that syle, but it easily could have been mimicking another earlier film.
:Sam Peckinpah did that numerous times before in his films, most notably The Wild Bunch. Count Ringworm 14:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Hello. Whilst looking this article I noticed that it has the running times down as different for the USA release and the UK release (UK:104 min / USA:102 min is the exact text). I was wondering, is this due to certain scenes being cut? If so, which scenes were cut, and should it be mentioned in the article? Or at least there should be a minor mention to the reasons why the running times are different. --Dreaded Walrus 18:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the US version has had some dialogue re-recorded to remove some of the British slang and to annunciate words that would be hard to understand due to the thick accents, presumably this is what causes the time difference. Also credit length for different regions could cause the runtime to change (remember the runtime is really just approximated, as some films that say are 104 minutes are only like 98). Anyways, there isn't any real changes mentioned on the IMDB Alt. Versions page and apart from the US. TV edit, I've never noticed many differences. :: ehmjay 17:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Running Time? 

message: The film's title in the infobox was
"scarface snatch ak47" ,
I have no idea what the hell this was but I changed it to "Snatch."
84.1.193.2 08:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title in infobox 

message: The trivia section states that "A painting hanging over Turkish's safe looks very much like Coat of arms of Moscow". It looks like the painting is an icon (or a copy of an icon) depicting Saint George. See this for an example. --JohnRubin 13:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Do we have any evidence that this is true?  Last I saw, Avi was flying to England, but whether he actually gets the diamond is anyone's guess.  After all, last time he flew to England, it did not result in him getting the diamond. superlusertc 2007 July 29, 03:56 (UTC)
Well if the last scene we see is to be believed, Turkish is offering to sell the diamond to Doug the Head. Doug the Head was working with Avi in getting the diamond from Frankie in the first place, so unless Doug plans to sell the diamond behind Avi's back [which is certainly possible], it can be assumed he called Avi after the meeting with Turkish.ROG 19 14:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avi "Gets the diamond" 

message: For what reason does this movie in particular have such a section? It is interesting and all, but... --Frenkmelk talk 04:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eventual fate of each character inclusion 

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 01:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: :Image:Variousartistssnatch-stealin'stonesandbreakin'bones.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 20:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Variousartistssnatch-stealin'stonesandbreakin'bones.jpg

message: It is now 8th December and Mike Reid died 29th July 2007. It's about time this wiki page was updated. Is it not possible for wiki entries to link to other pages to update automatically?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Reid_%28entertainer%29
79.65.196.46 (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - I assume you're talking about the table in this article that lists whether people are dead or alive under the heading "Fate of each character"? The table refers to the characters in the film (Guy Ritchie's films are sometimes notorious for their high body count), so although Mike Reid is deceased, the character he plays, Doug the Head, is alive at the end of the film, which is why it says "Alive" beside his name.--Kateshortforbob 01:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mike Reid RIP 

message: :Image:Snatch Movie Poster.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) 05:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rationale added to image article. Johnmc (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Snatch Movie Poster.jpg

message: The section comparing this film to 'Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels' seems entirely original research. Also, the 'fate of each' character seems entirely irrelevant. Lots42 (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock and Stock 

message: Other sources state that a cut of "Hava Negila" by John Murphy appears in this film. Is this true?68.111.71.197 (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hava Negila?

message: Are there different versions at Track 8 (of the 23 tracks edition)?
Track 8 is credited sometimes as "Hava Negila", e.g. MusicBrainz (with a length of ca. 1:52) and sometimes with "Kosha Nostra Theme", e.g. [https://coverartarchive.org/release/184ad287-2b9b-342b-b262-49af18bbc51d/19858752564.jpg Cover for this MBID!). This seems to be an error for this MusicBrainz entry.
However, there are also covers with "Hava Negila" (e.g. ). Please note the same barcode.
IMHO the "Kosha Nostra Theme" is also longer, ca. 2:19.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.149.174.139 (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Track 8: "Hava Negila" vs. "Kosha Nostra Theme". 

message: The section devotes a relatively small amount of words to mentioning the movie's success (mostly in the box office; the only mention it has of critical success is "the film received mostly positive reviews") but then goes through a (relatively) detailed list of the negative criticisms that have been raised against the film.  If the film really did get "mostly positive" reviews," shouldn't there be mention of them as well?  If the article is going to describe what people didn't like about the film, it should also describe what people liked about it—especially if more reviewers liked things than didn't like things.  Giving it nothing but two unsourced and vague positive statements ("has developed a devoted cult following" and "received mostly positive reviews") but then citing at least four negative reviews  is pretty unbalanced.  Once I have some time I will look for some other reviews to cite to even things out, but in the meantime anyone else is welcome to add things, too. —Politizer talk/contribs 15:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After a visit to rottentomatoes I found out, that half the reviewers, which gave this flick a bad rap, where unable to follow the plot. Seems to me, articles on wiki should confine to the box office results, dvd sales, etc. and forget about the so called "critics" …  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.93.205 (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight in [[Snatch (film)#Reaction|Reaction]] section 

message: Well his wikipedia page and IMDB page do not show this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Ford_(actor)
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0285495/
Where did the information come from that he is apparently dead?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.74.234 (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, you're dim, the character is deceased, not the actors. That's why it says 'Eventual Fate of Characters' idiot! 84.64.250.111 (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alan Ford deceased?

message: is edit-warring over the spelling of "jeweler", insisting that the British spelling is "jeweller" (double l). While the article should certainly use British English throughout, since this is a British film, this is the first I've ever heard of the word "jeweler" being spelled differently between British and American English (I'm American, btw). Merriam-Webster spells it "jeweler" (a search for "jeweller" redirects to "jeweler"). I'm not opposed to changing it if someone can give evidence of a British variation to the spelling, but I'm inclined to dismiss the IP outright due to his insulting edit summaries ( ). Anyone with a better attitude care to comment? --IllaZilla (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: I vaguely remember hearing that this movie was given a different title in some markets because of possible sexual double-entendre in the title "Snatch," just to avoid offending part of the moviegoing public, but when I look for reference to that online I can't find any. Does anyone know anything about this? Guyovski (talk) 01:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative titles 

message: Why does the article take pains to tell us twice that this film isn't a sequel to Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels? Are there other film articles that go out of their way to tell us that their subjects aren't sequels of other films to which they aren't sequels? Largoplazo (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Six weeks later, with no response, I've removed the unhelpful observations from the article. If the title of the film were "Lock, Stock, and Three Smoking Barrels", then I'd see a reason to clarify that it isn't a sequel to the previous film, if indeed it weren't, but that isn't the situation here. Largoplazo (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, didn't see your original post.  I agree with your removal. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-sequel