Talk:Casino (1995 film)

message: Stub? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.98.151 (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial message

message: Removed:
:Although it is set in the 20th century, Casino is at heart an epic Western movie with strong noir undercurrents.
Frankly, this is absurd.  It is perhaps well-intentioned and thoughtful, but even if so, and I'm wrong about its absurdity, its still too POV in here.  You can't call this an epic Western without taking a circuitous route of interpretation.
:Perhaps calling it an epic Western outright is POV, but to say that calling it an epic Western is "absurd" just betrays a lack of understanding of the genre:
:Epic Westerns draw from the Norse Saga technique. They tend to be long, sweeping, and complex, with often-shifting alliances. Characters are more deeply drawn than cheap  shoot 'em up Westerns, sometimes acting as forces for good, sometime evil. Men are often caught in situations not of their own choosing, and must surmount fantastic difficulties. A common technique is someone who never wants to resort to violence, but is forced into it due to circumstances beyond his control.
:Casino is certainly a Western; you have to be pretty myopic to miss this. It has all the elements of classic Western: the open range, the desert, endless possibilities which are thwarted by allegiances and greed, outlaws, renegades, guns, violence, murder, women, prostitutes, lawlessness, the fateful approach of "civilization". Like I said, you have to be pretty myopic to miss this much. In fact, I think Scorcese even mentions that it's an epic Western in the DVD. (I'll check...if he really does, this would be sufficient to include it with a reference.) And it's certainly an epic, spanning a lengthy time interval, involving numerous characters, complicated moral ambiguities, interconnected relationships, and certainly with a sweeping and overarching epic sensibility. You have to be pretty myopic to miss that it's an epic as well. It's an epic Western in the same way that Lawrence of Arabia and 2001 are epic Westerns, (although not set in typically Western time and place). Please note, "Western" does not just mean "mid 1800s, gunfights and saloons". "Western", like "epic", is a state of mind, and Casino inhabits the state of mind of both genres. So, I believe with some descriptive support and maybe some references to the DVD and explanation and a toning down of the POV should be enough to reinstate the claim. (The noir undercurrents are pretty obvious, too.) Revolver 18:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the article Western (genre): One of the results of genre studies is that some have argued that "Westerns" need not take place in the American West or even in the 19th Century, as the codes can be found in other types of movie. Hud, starring Paul Newman, and Akira Kurosawa's Shichinin no samurai (The Seven Samurai), are possible examples of these. Likewise, it has been pointed out that films set in the old American West, may not necessarily be considered "Westerns." Certainly, the "codes" of the epic Western are found in Casino. Revolver 18:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't able to find a Scorsese quote using "epic Western", but in the DVD commentary he describes it as a story about the "West" and the "frontier". And the editor (I believe) all but says it's a Western: "Marty always wanted to do a Western, but he never would feel comfortable filming, you know, horses and cowboys." (paraphrase) Revolver 06:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Epic Western

message: Although the paragraphs removed on 17:15 20 January 2006 by James084 may be extraneous and not germaine to the film itself, it seems to be germaine to the topic. I found the information to be useful as it provided an insight to real life behind the story of the film. I would like to see it reinstated in an epilogue or linked if it is addressed elsewhere. Thoughts? Accurizer 14:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Story behind the story?

message: My favourite part was where they were talking on the phone in what seemed like perfectly normal English but the subtitles showed that they were actually talking about something completely different. That would be interesting to see in the article if anyone knows. Mithridates 12:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language in Casino 

message: What dis it exactly mean, "The Bosses had had enough of Nicky"? Was it because of his reckless criminal  activities Rothstein warned him about, or did they just simply want to replace him with a better candidate?
:Yeah, Nicky was bringing the casino too much attention from the cops...and if you know what's good for you, you'll stop asking such questions, otherwise we'll have to whack you too. Capishe? Clarityfiend 18:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah! Hahahahahaha!! That's really funny!! But I'm really no harm. I just want to know about a movie, that's all. Anyway, you don't know who I am and where I live. Jienum 22:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was for several reasons.  It was not necessarily because of his reckless criminal activities; that in and of itself wouldn't have done it, since he was a made man. Rather it was a combination of things; because some of his activities were unsanctioned by the bosses, like the attempted hit on Rosenthal's character, Sam "Ace" Rothstein, even though Rothstein wasn't a made guy, he was very valuable to them, and they couldn't allow to continue to Nicky Santoro take things like that into his own hands.  They probably suspected that he was a loose cannon with delusions of grandeur of taking over the mob itself, thinking he may try to take out Aiuppa's character, Remo Gaggi, to head the Chicago mob himself, which if you remember when he threatened the banker in Sam's house, he told Sam that was his plan to "take over".  Then, on top of that, he was sleeping with an associate's wife, which was a violation of the rules.  In real life, there was speculation as well, which may hold plenty of truth, that Tony Spilotro's (character: Nicky Santoro) younger brother Michael had done some really bad things, and stepped on plenty of toes that the mob needed to take Michael out, but knew if they did, then Tony would retaliate, so they had to get rid of him too. ChÿnaDragön 22:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Had Enough 

message: This article should have an abbreviated synopsis prior in the article to the much more detailed one we have now.  It's way too long to be a functional summary for someone wanting the gest of the movie.  Compare with other movie articles in wikipedia.Loodog 18:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  synopsis 

message: Why do the bosses refer to Sam Rothstein as "The Jew"? Was Frank Rosenthal a Jewish man, or were they using the word as an insult? Jienum 20:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Frank Rosenthal article, he wasn't ethnically Jewish, but was adopted by a Jewish couple. Clarityfiend 18:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes he was Jewish-as were most of the gangsters who initially founded the Strip. 68.224.206.168 (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rosenthal the Jew? 

message: The movie is set in Nevada.  Aside from being filmed in Holywood (like most US movies), what does this have to do with California?JeffStickney 03:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject California? Are you kidding? 

message: In the "cast" section, it's stated that Artie Piscano's character, played by Vinny Vella, was based on Nick Civella, who at the time (in real life), was the Kansas City crime boss.  However, in the "Fact vs. Fiction" section above, it's stated that Piscano's character was based on Carl DeLuna, Nick Civella's son-in-law, with which I concur is who Piscano's character is REALLY based on.  This is a contradiction directly in the Wiki article that I'm surprised no one else has spotted yet, but clearly needs to be corrrected. Reasons why I believe Piscano's character was based on DeLuna and NOT Civella:
1 - A search of DeLuna's home produced records of Las Vegas trip expenses after a search warrant was executed in 1979, whereas Civella kept no such records, or if he did, they were never found.
2 - As boss of KC, Civella would probably not have been complaining to anyone at home about his expenses, since he was receiving the majority of the KC skim money, which was a substantial amount totalling between $40-80,000 split three ways among Chicago, Milwaukee, and Kansas City.  DeLuna, however as underboss, wasn't receiving but a portion of his father-in-law's and uncle's take. If Civella was going to complain to anyone, it would have likely been Joey Aiuppa's character, Remo Gaggi, since Chicago received a bigger portion of the skim money than either KC or Milwaukee.
3 - Civella would certainly NOT have been complaining to his mother and/or an uncle about expenses, since both were dead at the time. Nick Civella would have been about 67 years old at the time, which would have made his mother and/or an uncle approximately 15-22 years older, and it is not known if Nick Civella even had any other relations involved with the KC mafia at all.
4 - DeLuna and both Civella brothers were indicted for casino skimming, along with in the late 70's and early 80's.  However, Nick Civella was not arrested for this, since he was in prison at the time, and even though he was released in 1983, he died before the trials had begun.
Since I have not read the book, I can't say if the book names actual names, or character names, or how they even talk about Civella/DeLuna.  Does anyone else have an opinion if Artie Piscano is supposed to be based on DeLuna or Civella, or a combination of the two?  If the argument is made to where it IS indeed Civella on which Piscano's character is based, (which I doubt), then the "Fact vs. Fiction" section needs to be updated to reflect different facts: Civella was not actually convicted of skimming the casinos in the 70's or 80's, although he was originally named in the indictment, but died before they could prosecute him in 1983.  Civella was already serving a four-year prison sentence on bribery charges when arrests were made due to FBI wire-taps where DeLuna was overheard discussing Nevado casino skimming operations with Carl "Cork" Civella (Nick's brother), but due to health reasons, Nick Civella was released to his family on March 1, 1983 and died less than two weeks later, on March 12th.  DeLuna was convicted, however; along with his uncle and Nick's brother, Carl Civella and Charles D. Moretina (another KC mobster), in July, 1983.
I'll wait a week or two to see if anyone can make a good case as to why the "cast" section should stay the same, and the Fact/Fiction section should be changed with regards to the Civella/DeLuna issue I've posted or vice versa, and if no responses or arguments changed at that time, I'll change it, if someone else doesn't do it for me first. :) ChÿnaDragön 22:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'CAST' and 'Differences between Fact and Fiction Sections' Inaccuracies 

message: Does anyone know who plays "Armstrong" the oldish guy. Sam Rothstein, when he tries to catch the cheaters, picks up the phone and asks for "Armstrong and Friday at pit two"  and then Armstrong comes. He is the guy who uses the cattle-prod against the signaller.
Does anyone know what his name is or who he is?
Regards
Dep. Garcia  ( Talk  + | Help Desk | Complaints )  13:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character 

message: :Image:Casino soundtrack cover.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 21:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Casino soundtrack cover.jpg

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 01:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: :Image:Casino 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) 04:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Casino poster.jpg

message: :Image:Casino02.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) 04:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Casino02.jpg

message: :Image:Casino03.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) 04:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Casino03.jpg

message: :Image:Casino04.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) 04:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Casino04.jpg

message: :Image:Casino5.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) 04:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Casino5.jpg

message: I removed the section labeled "Continuity Errors", as I felt is was something that belonged more on IMDB.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdamascus (talk • contribs) 07:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Continuity Errors" Section 

message: Was there a section that said that Scorcese was trying to get Ray Liotta to play the part of either Lester Diamond or Philip Green? If so, was he trying to reunite the "Goodfellas Three", thus further ensuring its continuity? USN1977 (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ray Liotta in Casino 

message: I removed the following as original research.  Unlike the actual released soundtrack, which can be verified, this list is the result of someone sitting down, watching the film, and making a list of every song they heard.  As such, it is inappropriate.  Other than that, it seems really trivial. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 13:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional songs in the film 

message: This article states that Steve Allen and Jayne Meadows have uncredited roles.  In actuality, the credits list Steve Allen and Jayne Meadows as "Himself" and "Herself", respectively.  Therefore, the film properly credits these two individuals.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.52.1 (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncredited Steve Allen/Jayne Meadows Incorrect 

message: *Interview on pbs.org.91.39.121.132 (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  De Niro's character was inspired by the life of Frank "Lefty" Rosenthal 

message: "Extortant" is used in this article. Doesn't appear to be a real word.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.218.106 (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extortant 

message: Probably a no-brainer, but if Nicky Santoro is based on Anthony Spilotro, then shouldn't the cast description state that Dominic was based on Michael? Or was there not enough screen time given to the character to make that association, even if the character was basically meant to be the same guy? Is it wrong claim a character is based on a real life person if said person's exploits, most of them anyway, aren't shown on screen? Just trying to figure out why one brother is based on an actual mafioso while the other one isn't according to the cast listing/description. I was going to edit it, but wanted to make sure it wasn't deliberately left out for some reason.
184.99.169.37 (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dominic Santoro / Michael Spilotro? 

message: If it was their final collaboration, this implies one of them died.2602:30A:C07C:CF80:226:2DFF:FE4C:7DD2 (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Eighth and final collaboration" between Scorsese and Deniro.Which one of them died? 

message: I removed "Chicago" from the plot summary because Chicago is never once mentioned in the movie.  The story is based on the Chicago outfit, but it's not germane to the FICTIONAL story being told, that is merely based on a true story.  True crime buffs can show off their wealth of knowledge all they want to in ensuing sections about filming and the story's basis, but the plot summary should be precisely about what is in the actual movie.  I removed "caporegime" from Nicky's description, too, because it too is never once mentioned in the film. He's only referred to as Ace's old friend, a "made guy", and Remo's "enforcer" from "back home".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:C780:3D0:64A8:740B:D4B0:E0E (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Remo Gaggi is identified as "the Outfit's top boss," in Nicky Santoro's narration about the "Midwestern bosses." That ought to be enough to include Chicago. Tapered (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is merely based on true story...this is a fictional movie 

message: Just restored the "based ons" to the fictional characters. It's documented that the movie is based on actual events and people. Information about this from reliable sources is all over the internet, so a total wipeout of the info is inappropriate. A maintainence box would be more appropriate. Tapered (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting that information in the cast section is inappropriate, as it implies that the characters in the film are faithful depictions of actual people, when all indications are that the characters and events of the film were highly fictionalized.  If there are reliable sources for the historical basis of the characters and events, then a section should be created that would spell out the historical basis and how the film, in both its events and characterizations, diverged from historical fact.  The current situation is, at best, inaccurate, if not simply misleading. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

text: This is a tough one. I agree that the cast section is not the right place for this for the reasons  mentioned, especially since several of the characters' inspirations are still alive and kicking and probably had something to say about their depctions in the film. However, this is a list of 15 people, and it's going to be clumsy in most other places. I think it would probably be best to include it somewhere in the Production section, and likely trim the less notable people (and obviously properly source each remaining depiction!). I suspect there might be more than one sentence to be said about some of the characterisations, e.g. . Daß Wölf 18:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with TOJ and DW that they do not belong in the cast section. "Based on" is not the same thing as is and, as is usual with films (or other media for that matter) liberties, large and small, are taken with the actual people lives and events. A prose section that is WP:RSed is best. MarnetteD|Talk 20:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Daß and Marnette.  If we cooperate, I'm sure we can work this out.  I particularly like the suggestion that the list of characters be reduced from 15 to a more manageable number.  Many of them are not notable. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 23:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the real-life inspirations for the characters should be discussed somehwere in the article but if they do not have straight real-life counter-parts Wikipedia should not ascribe them as such. TOJ's porposal to create a section about the real-basis for the characters and events in the film seems like a sensible one to me. Betty Logan (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

text: I stand by the edit. Wikipedia readers are intelligent enough to know that "based on" means that the character isn't a perfect replica of the original. The synopsis of the plot in the article body doesn't include several of the "based on" or made up characters, so at the moment, the character listing is a logical place for the "based on" attribution. Only one of the main "based on" characters is alive, and he's 78. The actual persons who inspired the 3 main characters are discussed in the lede. Interestingly, based on the film, I looked up Carl DeLuna/Artie Piscano. He did keep far too detailed records, as depicted in the movie, and it had serious LCN repurcussions, which you can now read about in the properly documented article. Tapered (talk) 06:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: On further reflection, this is not an important enough article, information category to deal with this much petty intellectualism. Tapered (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Character attribution

message: I removed "A problem emerged when they were forced to refer to Chicago as 'back home' and use the words 'adapted from a true story' instead of 'based on a true story,'" from the Development section. That may all be true, but what problem? Why were the makers of a movie "forced" to use "back home"? And why the change from "adapted from" to "based on"? The sentence just raises questions and doesn't provide information. Rush242 (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So, more information can be added from the citation that is provided.  You've given no good reason for its removal. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 04:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

text: I removed it again. I gave a good reason for its removal, there are endless problems in making films and the sentence doesn't make any sense as it stands. For example, if it said "A problem emerged when the City of Chicago filed suit for (x) and as a result of the judge's orders, the producers were forced to refer to Chicago as 'back home' and use the words 'adapted from a true story' instead of 'based on a true story,'". THAT makes sense. A sentence like the original could be used 50 times in the article, e.g., "A problem emerged when they were forced to use exterior shots from a casino in Henderson and remove some of the vintage cars in several scenes", or, "A problem emerged when they were forced to use a different type of film canister on some of the filming days". The fact that further information is available from sources is self-evident, but the articles aren't teasers for the sources.Rush242 (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion is meaningless.  The sentence is sourced and your removal of it is vandalism. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 17:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A problem emerged...." 

message: was reverted without even an explanation, as if it was vandalism or something. That's just rude. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it again - using an edit summary - because the scene is no more notable than any of Nicky's other acts of violence, it's purely opinion that it's a "memorable scene", it makes assumptions and suggests opinions, and the way it's been inserted is against the plot flow.  Additionally all the above add to plot bloat, which is specifically warned about in the hidden comment.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Removal was appropriate. Please see WP:FILMPLOT MarnetteD|Talk 17:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the revert without even an edit sum? 

message: I've removed the following incorrect sentence from the article: 
"As of 2017, Casino holds the record for the most dialogue in a film, with 67,618 spoken words in its screenplay (7-times the amount of the average movie)."
The linked source in the sentence gets its data from the following Github data set:
https://github.com/matthewfdaniels/scripts/
However another user on Github points out that this particular Casino data point is incorrect:
https://github.com/matthewfdaniels/scripts/issues/2
The reason being that the total word count of the Casino script used as the source of the data, including both dialogue and stage directions, is 51,831 words. So it is impossible that the Casino dialogue alone is 67,618 words long. The data is incorrect for that film. AutobioGraphix (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous word count 

message: Why isn't Whip It by Devo listed in the sound track. It's a 1980 release and is heard when the film gets to that year.70.161.8.90 (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whip It 

message: Song #9 for Disk 2 is incorrect. It should be "Those Were the Days" by Cream, not "Toad" 2600:6C51:717F:3404:FD33:1D1F:E6CB:CB1F (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soundtrack