Talk:The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974 film)

message: Why is there no mention of Vincent D'Onofrio or the other hijackers?--Biohazard 10:10, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Older comments

message: I was forced to erase some parts of the page for the original book, because someone thought to be smart and copied facts from the film to the book, that wasn't in the book. The codenames as mr Blue was not in the book, not was the Garber character. I replaced some missing parts with bad english. 
As I wrote, I write very bad english, so someone else may change the text of the book.
*Garber was in the book, but in a very small role, as a subordinate of Lieutenant Prescott, the main Transit Authority officer. He was only in one scene that I recall, informing Prescott of the hijacking.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.242.216 (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The film differs greatly from the book 

message: Surely it's going a bit far to call them 'Terrorists'? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simoragn (talk • contribs) .
:They're not terrorists, only kidnappers for ransom; they don't care about terrorizing anyone, they care about getting the money. Of course, these days, the term "terrorist" has been hugely devalued by the US government and media.
:Atlant 17:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorists? 

message: The books pages has:
"*In real radio communications among the New York City Transit Authority's train crews, a 24 hour clock is used. Technically, this would have made the title train "Pelham 1323"
This is true nowadays, however when the film was made, the 12hr clock was still in use."
-I have removed the relevant comment from here. -- Beardo 06:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  24 hour clock 

message: :Image:Taking of pelham one two three.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) 05:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Taking of pelham one two three.jpg

message: This is from my talk page:
I have taken pains to make sure that no ambiguous articles point to The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974 film), meaning that there is no reason for the hatnote.  WP:NAMB clearly indicates that in the case of an unambiguous title (such as the article in question), a hatnote should not be used.  If I am missing a viable reason why that hatnote should stay that does not violate WP:HAT, please let me know.  Otherwise, without a good reason to keep the hatnote, I will remove it in a couple of days. Rhindle The Red (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite what I said on ANI, I'm reasonably fine with having no hatnote on this article.  The other films and novel are clearly noted in the article text, and a typical user of the encyclopedia is (IMO) unlikely to type in The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974 film) if they are searching for the film...choosing instead The Taking of Pelham 123 or spelling the numbers out.  If as Rhindle says, that there are no direct ambiguous article links to this page, then the hatnote is redundant to the body text.  I just created The Taking of Pelham 123 (film) as a redirect to the dab page, as that is a likely choice for a search target.  It is arguably of more use to have the hatnote when two minutes of reading (less if people look at the TOC) shows the two other films and the novel. Syrthiss (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I'll swap those last two.  It *is* more likely "highly related" and *may be* "legitimate information".  Not the other way around. Rhindle The Red (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of hatnote 

message: It's one two three not one hundred twenty three. Sources such as amazon, imdb, release posters, media and other sources use the break/space between the digits which is how it's said (like counting). Thanks! 74.62.92.20 (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  123 vs 1 2 3 

message: I came here from being interested in guitars. "Pelham Blue" is a well known colour in the guitar community. Apparently it has been an option on some Gibson guitars, since the early 1960's. Guitar makers often used lacquers created for automotive companies, and in this case it seems there were Cadillacs around 1960 in the colour "Pelham Blue".
https://www.guitarnoise.com/community/guitar-players-discussion/in-pelham-blue-what-does-pelham-stands-for/
Question: Is the color-coding of the highjacker's names present in the novel, or was this an invention by the filmmakers?
Maybe it's just a coincidence, but possibly any of the writers involved chose "Blue" deliberately by association with "Pelham". Also I suppose many other subway lines could have been used. Why Pelham in particular? Could be interesting to investigate...
--BjKa (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pelham Blue