Talk:Léon: The Professional

message: What is it?
: Pulling the pin (resembling a ring) off a hand grenade and putting the explosive to good use.
::Yes. True. Pretty Evil and surpising for those who is unfamiliar with it...
:::Prior to blowing up the guy in the apartment Reno interupts the man's rantings and says "Hey! Hey! Ever heard of the ring trick?" Once you hear that, the use of the grenade and the revealing "That's the ring trick." to Mathilda suddenly makes a lot more sense, it's just that Reno's hard to hear over the shooting. D Boland 22:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's true. Sorry for adding that bit without some explanation. --Reverieuk 23:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guy asked me if I wanted to see a ring trick, and I told him I was busy and show me tomorrow... that was yesterday :|
-G
The problem being, pulling the pin (or ring) of a grenade don't do a damn thing, in and of itself. The pin is only there to keep the arming lever from flying off and arming the grenade, something that most movie audiences (and directors, possibly) don't seem to get.--172.190.211.93 (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

text: True enough, though one can milk the grenade, then toss it after a delay count to prevent a return to sender.06:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Ring Trick" 

message: As the response post was removed, i'm noting sources for this film being an action film: Here's a book on action films and their scripts that goes heavy into detail why Leon should be considered an action film here which calls it an "action thriller". The Washington Post here refers to it as a "pretty awesome action movie". In Susan Hayward's study of the career of Luc Besson she notes how his films Nikita and Leon are both similar to the american action film. (see here). Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Tom, the current source describes it predominantly as a thriller and it's kind of a mouthful to put every little bit of a genre in the lead. If we could go through some sources and find the most commonly described item as the genre, then I think we could maybe find a better item for the lead. Until then, let's keep it with the Allmovie source. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Action film 

message: I moved the page to "Léon: The Professional" because that is the title in the USA, Aus, New Zealand and Canada. The only English-speaking country without that title is UK ("Leon"). Therefore, it is unquestionably the consensus title in English-speaking countries, and as per the guidelines, that's what the English Wikipedia title should be. The page was moved back to "Léon (film)" so that it could be discussed. I don't see why it needs to be discussed when it's so clear-cut, but go on: discuss. Film Fan (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that that only applies to "foreign-language films," whereas Leon is a French film in English, and "Leon" is the lead character's name, rather than a foreign language title that needs "translating." Nick Cooper (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true, Nick. The most-used title in English-speaking countries is the title that should be used for ALL articles on Wikipedia. This is outlined clearly in the guidelines. Film Fan (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice to see that you are now denying my above objection even occured, apparently because you believe, "there IS no reason to object." Nick Cooper (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason to object.Film Fan (talk) 10:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because you personally think that, doesn't make it so. You should also stop posting under a name other than the one of your actual account. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's not what I think. It's what I know to be true because I've read the revelant Wikipedia guidelines. And you don't know what you're talking about. Film Fan (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant guidelines are Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films), which do not support your claim. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Those guidelines DO support my claim. Film Fan (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

text: The release title of the film in North America was "The Professional." The release title in Europe and the rest of the world was "Leon." I knew this was going to happen the first time I saw the DVD cover that said "Leon: the Professional" as a way of showeing it contained both cuts. There are no prints of this film bearing the title "Leon the Professional."207.221.248.253 (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving the page to "Léon: The Professional" 

message: After several threads above and a requested page move that finished with the move to the current title which includes the colon we are now being told that this article should not use said colon. The article just looks sloppy with the article title using the colon and the rest of the article removing it and using a small t. In an attempt to gain a new consensus I have opened the thread. As I see it we have these choices. MarnetteD | Talk 16:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of the MoS for film are you using to oppose the move? That same MoS was used to justify the move of Renoir's film to its French title. MarnetteD | Talk 19:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No...I'm presenting a guideline and sources which is significantly more than what you have done. Betty Logan (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Film Fan, considering the fact that in the discussions above from last June you insisted that you new better than the other editors what the "Mos film" guidelines were AND that you argued for the page being moved to its current title what has changed? Also can you provide a WP:RS to justify moving it this title? MarnetteD | Talk 19:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC

message: The article for Renoir's Grand Illusion was moved back to its French title and the same arguments could be used here.
*I am inclined to support this per MOS Film Title. But I can understand the arguments against it, MarnetteD | Talk 16:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of the MoS for film are you using to oppose the move? That same MoS was used to justify the move of Renoir's film to its French title. MarnetteD | Talk 19:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Move the page back to ''Léon''

message: Most of the sources that I find that use something other than Léon use the colon in the title.
*IF we don't move it back to Léon I support leaving the colon in as most of the sources I have found use it. MarnetteD | Talk 16:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep the article at ''Léon: The Professional''

message: I haven't found a source that uses this title but there may be some out there.
*Support Colon not needed. Superfluous punctuation should be avoided. Not a two-part title. Film Fan 17:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No...I'm presenting a guideline and sources which is significantly more than what you have done. Betty Logan (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Film Fan, considering the fact that in the discussions above from last June you insisted that you new better than the other editors what the "Mos film" guidelines were AND that you argued for the page being moved to its current title what has changed? Also can you provide a WP:RS to justify moving it this title? MarnetteD | Talk 19:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Move the article to ''Léon the Professional''

message: The reception the film received needs a specific statement. Saying it is a "cult classic" in the lead (which means nothing, cult for who? does it have rocky horror-esque screenings? that needs clarification.) Positive reviews, is a mis-match as the film received tons of mixed reviews on it's release. The Metacritic one is biased to having reviews long after the fact. We need to expand it as more of a initial reception and later reception section to actually see how this thing was received. Right now, it's misleading and peacocky. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree using the broad WP:POV terms that are trying to be inserted tell a reader little. MarnetteD|Talk 20:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, maybe it's a cult film... among the fraternity of moviegoers who are loyal fans of it? Suggesting that we need to identify a specific section of society and what they do to celebrate the film is utter idiocy, and total WP:OWN, "don't-edit-my-article" garbage. Even more idiotic than removing a fully cited summary of the film's critical reception because you just don't like it. 5.69.1.148 (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You should read WP:NPA. If all you are going to do is attack other editors there is little reason for them to respond to you. MarnetteD|Talk 21:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What constitutes a "personal attack" is your entirely subjective opinion. I was being perfectly civil, as far as I can tell, even in the face of rampant agenda-driving. Sorry if you live on the sensitive side. 5.69.1.148 (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

text: I just have two issues: Can you tell me how the film is a cult classic? What makes it one? Is there individual information about it and it's cult following? That would make a decent addition. Saying in the lead that it has received good reviews isn't accurate because we don't have an accurate read of what the majority of critics feels. We have reception from metacritic which is a mixture of modern and initial reception and we have rotten tomatoes which is even worse. Luc Besson is a big well known film maker, there should be better information out there other than a book about New York to be cited. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree that "cult classic" should not be used. And completely agree that the IP comment was a personal attack. Freikorp (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would use it if it had more context, since it doesn't, I would not at this moment. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Reception

message: My edit was not original research. I merely restored what has been consensus for the past seven+ years.
This long-standing version was recently changed by 2A02:560:53AF:A500:2DA1:2734:6165:2AAD. who wrote "Nowhere is it clear that Leon is Italian. He is more likely southern French or Corsican. Which Italian is called Léon with Accent aigu?"
My Edit Summary was merely meant to point this editor's attention to the film's opening sequence which makes the protagonist's origin abundantly clear.
Here is a freely accessible link to the opening scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0YLmvaCTrM
At 0:02, there is a colorful banner reading "Welcome to Little Italy" spanning the entire width of the street. NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH, JUST ONSCREEN CONTENT.
At 0:05, the camera focuses on an awning which reads: "Supreme Macaroni Co. Guido's Restaurant". NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH, JUST ONSCREEN CONTENT.
At 0:21, the owner says in Italian: "Allora, come stai? And he addresses Léon by the Italian version of his name ("Leone"). NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH, JUST PLAIN DIALOG.
At 0:24, Léon responds in Italian: "Bene". NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH, JUST PLAIN DIALOG.
All "Plot" sections on Wikipedia are based on what the screens show and what the characters say. Without this, no "Plot" section could ever be written.
This has nothing to do with Original Research. RonaldPlate (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It is original research. Nowhere in the film is Leon explicitly called Italian nor do you have any references saying so. Speaking Italian doesn't make one Italian. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rejection of claim of "Original Research"