Talk:Glengarry Glen Ross (film)

message: Howdy, i will be your reviewer for this article.
*The list of songs in the soundtrack section needs to either be in context, with an introduction and some production information, or removed completely. (WP:EMBED)
*The awards section has to be merged with the reception section or completely separated from it, that's if there is enough 3-level heading-worthy material.
*The plot section has a couple of problems, like jargon (the corporate office ("downtown") (??)) and point of view (delivers a long, disjointed but compelling monologue to a meek. PS:what does he say?).
*I got completely lost in the Production section, the screenplay comes and goes, and producers and actors...it needs a major copy-edit for the sake of coherency (merge some phrases, remove a couple of repetitions, etc).
*The references are not great, if you want to take it up a notch i'd suggest checking out the DVD's extra features.
If i didn't make myself clear in any point, ask me, (oh, oh, oh) ask me. I'll take another look in 7 days.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 17:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've failed the article. If you disagree with this review feel free to ask for a reassessment.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 16:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: :Tokofsky sued to strip Zupnik of his producer’s credit and share of the producer’s fee.[7] Zupnik claimed that he personally put up $2 million of the film’s budget and countersued, claiming that Tokofsky was fired for embezzlement.[7]
This line is dying for some resolution.  What happened to the lawsuits?  Who won each one?  Or, more likely, how long was it before each suit was settled out of court?  Tempshill (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawsuit 

message: If this is from a source, it needs proper attribution. If this from an editor, it does not belong. Daniel Case (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed.--J.D. (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV statement 

message: Describing the characters as "real estate agents" does no justice to the characters or to authentic real estate agents.  This shop is a boiler room and they are selling swamp land in Florida.  These men are cons.  
The play/film is also based on David Mamet's real life experiences early in his career.
64.231.66.157 (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reader Response 

message: :this section needs to be properly sourced before it can be a part of the article. Otherwise, it will never pass to the next level.--J.D. (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the Simpsons character into the 'Reception' section as I think it is worthy of inclusion but enough to justify a whole section to itself.--EchetusXe 23:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: References in pop culture

message: I propose that Coffee's for closers be merged into Glengarry Glen Ross (film). A separate article is unnecessary. A section within the destination article would best serve visitors. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: This film was released several weeks before Reservoir Dogs, with critics like John Hartl comparing the two films.  This article needs to discuss the relationship between the two films, if any.  From Hartl's article:
Because of its all-male cast, gutter language and black-comedy touches, "Reservoir Dogs" has also been compared to James Foley's film of David Mamet's play, "Glengarry Glen Ross." At first, Tarantino wasn't sure what to make of the comparisons, but a Toronto festival official came up with an explanation that satisfies him. "He told me that `Glengarry' is a stylized theatrical piece that Foley shoots like an action movie, whereas `Reservoir Dogs' is an action movie with elements of theater. It's really a big talkfest."
Please add this to the to do list. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reservoir Dogs  

message: I'm confused. The start of this thread says "The information has not been merged." I merged it into this article at 11:43, 19 June 2012 in this edit.
I just now restored "Coffee is for closers" part. It was removed at 19:46, 23 July 2012 in this edit with the somewhat misleading edit summary "Reverted to revision 503708721 by Hmainsbot1: Rm redundant copy."
It started out as a separate article, but was merged here at 11:43, 19 June 2012 per: Talk:Glengarry Glen Ross (film)#Merger proposal.
It was restored at Coffee is for closers by an IP at 14:58, 21 November 2012‎ in this edit. I believe that IP was User:Valoem. 
Was the merge discussion not left open long enough.? Consensus seemed to be there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the discussion above, there is no need for that one phrase to have its own subsection.  One paragraph in the production section would be sufficient. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it exists nowhere. Please restore whatever part of it to whichever section you like. Thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Coffee is for closers - merger revert 

message: Re: Newsweek magazine's Jack Kroll praised Alec Baldwin's performance: "Baldwin is sleekly sinister in the role of Blake, a troubleshooter called in to shake up the salesmen. He shakes them up, all right, but this character (not in the original play) also shakes up the movie's toned balance with his sheer noise and scatological fury."  
 
This is very obviously the opposite of praise. Clearly reviews were not unanimously favorable as the the article currently implies. TheScotch (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmm ... not sure that it "is very obviously the opposite of praise." Surely more an evaluation.How do you know he is not in favour of the performance of Baldwin as the sales trainer?A job that I happen to know a great deal about. – Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 05:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Because he says that performance "also shakes up the movie's toned balance". If the word obvious means anything at all, this is obviously deprecation, and deprecation is obviously the opposite of praise. TheScotch (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: While the Kroll review does identify weaknesses (as he sees them), esp. in comparison with the stage play, it does seem on the whole favorable, with the summary: Still, "Glengarry" is a compelling look at one of the closed-out items in the catalog of American dreams. On the other hand, the Baldwin quote's "praise" is, at best, heavily adulterated--perhaps change to "...Kroll observed of Alec Baldwin's performance..." ? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good compromise, Hobbes Goodyearhave made the revision, "Kroll observed of Alec Baldwin's performance, ..."Gareth Griffith-JonesThe WelshBuzzard07:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: Great inclusion and titbit. The only problem I have with it is the way it's linked to 'Death of a Salesman'; when I first saw this I thought (rather stupidly) that there was a whole article about this anecdote. I'd say that Death of a Salesman is a well-known enough cultural reference that people don't need the link and the connection between the two is shallow at best; they didn't use the reference because of similarities of plot – it was simply because a vague overlap in tone and the fact they both feature salesmen. If a link has to remain, I'd suggest putting something like '(a reference to the Arthur Miller play)' and use that as the hyperlink text. Just my two cents.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.92.194 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've too often seen hyperlinks in quotes that were never there in the original, and they disrupt the impact of the quote. Maybe there should be a footnote with the hyperlink. Not so sure about plonking a reference to the Arthur Miller play in there — would it clutter things?--A bit iffy (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "Death of a Fuckin' Salesman"

message: The latest edits to this article had nothing wrong with them, yet they were reverted repeatedly by one editor.  No effort toward discussion has been started by the editor reverting the changes back, so I am opening this thread to get a discussion going.  Gareth Griffith-Jones: please begin the discussion by explaining what you found so completely wrong with these edits that you had to revert four times.  Your edit summaries gave no discernible reasoning that would lead either of us to understand why the edits we made were damaging to the article. Winkelvi (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is quite obvious that you followed Gareth here in order to revert his edits.  You then encouraged the anonymous editor to continue his edits without any edit summary or discussion.  How were your edits anything other than deliberate disruption? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 23:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

text: The Mamet play is "acclaimed," so I believe the adjective is justified. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Acclaimed" is broad and vague. A source for that would likely be someone's opinion. (Kinda like saying "Joe Blow is an acclaimed actor": vague, hard to source and easy to dispute. OTOH, "Joe Blow is an Academy Award winning actor" is specific, easily sourced and hard to dispute.) - SummerPhD (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant party of the sentence reads "his acclaimed 1984 Pulitzer Prize- and Tony-winning play", so, perhaps acclaimed isn't necessary after all. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 03:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In that context, "acclaimed" would seem, IMO, to be redundant peacockery. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We should wait to hear from other editors, but I would have no problem with it being removed. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 03:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Now that we've established that all involved editors feel that the other editors done them wrong, would you care to discuss the disputed content? - SummerPhD (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether "acclaimed" is or is not included ... "Well. Frankly, I could not give a damn".What infuriates me is the feigned innocence that this is the issue in hand.It is not.Winkelvi is attempting to sweep in this editing under the cover of the removal in the opening sentence of the so-called peacocky  not "peacockery"  adjective.This unpleasantness is actually about his poor revision to which I have hyperlinked here (in this post).I thank you, SummerPhD, for your input here.Sincerely,Gareth Griffith-JonesThe WelshBuzzard10:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Acclaimed should not be restored, as I said above, but I also agree with Gareth that Winkelvi's changes to the lede should not be restored either.  Frankly, that was terrible writing. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 10:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "It's peacockery, it's not backed up by a reference"  What is even more absurd is the removal of an adjective about the stageplay, not this article, and a play that is both 1984 Pulitzer Prize and Tony-winning. Surely, that is sufficiently referenced for Wikipedia, isn't it?Gareth Griffith-JonesThe WelshBuzzard11:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

text: No need to *shout*, and I read it before your emboldening ... No, I don't follow you now. You will have to be more specific. To whom and which content are you referring?Thanks.Gareth Griffith-JonesThe WelshBuzzard14:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit at 10:40, 26 March 2013 is a perfect example of what I am asking you NOT to do. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are now demonstrating a complete lack of either having read the editing history carefully or grasping the whole point of my post ... the changed content is the subject, not the argument about "acclaimed".Well done!Gareth Griffith-JonesThe WelshBuzzard15:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Very briefly and directly: What do you wish to add/remove/change and what sources support that? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article edit history shows that I have not recently attempted to add or remove any new content. All the changes that I have made since this revision on February 9 have been to restore the article to its more than satisfactory state; indeed as you have done so too hereSincerely,Gareth Griffith-JonesThe WelshBuzzard09:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "More than satisfactory state"?  This is in conflict with the very nature of Wikipedia.  It is meant to continually evolve.  Articles are not meant to be considered finished and never needing editing. Winkelvi (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Will you both PLEASE stop? These two edits amount to "I was just trying to fix what he messed up." and "You don't know what you are talking about." If there is nothing that you would like to add/remove/change, you are done here; time to move along. If there is something you wish to add/remove/change, state what it is and what sources support that change. Discuss content (rather than who did what to whom). - 14:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ... and I was replying courteously to SummerPhd.Maybe for the first time, I thoroughly endorse Winkelvi's observations immediately above. My patience has been tested too with the holier than thou attitude, which at the same time offers nothing constructive –  – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 21:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New edits by two editors reverted and changed back 

message: "Zannis Luncheonette", in the film (shown here: http://i.imgur.com/BpH3V5p.png), is a model of the diner in Edward Hoppers 1942 painting, "Nighthawks". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nighthawks#mediaviewer/File:Nighthawks_by_Edward_Hopper_1942.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nighthawks  165.120.235.87 (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Night Hawks" cafe 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Glengarry Glen Ross (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150128132331/http://www.jmmsweb.org/issues/volume5/number2/pp77-96 to http://www.jmmsweb.org/issues/volume5/number2/pp77-96
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The introduction says the film is set in New York City. Is there any reason to believe this is actually true? The source link only states that that the film was shot in NYC, but nothing about the film's fictional setting.  In the film, Moss says, "I'm going to Wisconsin." This would suggest Chicago as a likelier setting, though there may be no reason to assume the movie takes place in any particular place.
:Yeah, there's no basis for saying it's set in NYC.  The source provided only says it was filmed there.  I've changed the wording to reflect this. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The New York Times review cited in the article says the "real estate salesmen [are] on the North Side of Chicago". Note that David Mamet is from Chicago. --50.53.37.43 (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Set in New York City" 

message: I'm referring to this edit on 8 November 2019 by 69.126.201.204, who clearly has no idea how to concisely summarize the plot of a film in a manner that is in compliance with the Wikipedia Manual of Style and the WP:FILM guidelines. It looks like some editors have tried to clean up and shorten that poorly written plot summary, but the result is still not as concise and clear as it was before. I propose reverting the plot section back to the much better version prior to 8 November 2019. Any objections? --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: @ , none atall. Go ahead! Cheers!Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  @ , I have just carried out your request.Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looks like the article has been badly vandalized, need to rollback the Plot section to the better-written prior version