![]() | This page was
proposed for deletion by
Allen4names (
talk ·
contribs) on 24 November 2009. It was contested by Killervogel5 ( talk · contribs) on 2009-11-24 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
the opening paragraph says the origin of the story line has been shifted from vietnam to the middle east. the second paragraph says they were accused of robbing a bank in hanoi. is that hanoi,iraq or hanoi,afghanistan? that second paragraph is lifted directly from the a-team series page. why not fix it? i would, but everytime i edit something on wiki, some edit-nazi changes it back to it's original form, no matter how wrong it may be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.143.189 ( talk) 14:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
This film may become notable but it has not been released yet. Do not confuse potential with fact. -- allen四 names 04:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
"The A-Team," which stars Liam Neeson, Bradley Cooper and Jessica Biel, cost Fox and its partner Dune Entertainment $110 million, though tax credits brought the final budget to around $100 million.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/06/karate-kid-and-ateam-duking-it-out-in-battle-of-the-80s.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.87.228.118 ( talk) 21:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Intro was tagged as too short. Tag was removed. I restored it. Last I checked the intro included notes about the film makers and cast; a very short paragraph giving a brief story overview (don't assume readers know anything about the story even if it is a based on a television series); a quick note about what the critics thought (mixed). The latter paragraph/sentence about the critics could later include a second clause commenting on box office performance (existing sources in the article are already enough to say it underperformed studio expectations, but it might still do well on DVD).
Please help revert any
vandalism to the intro, there seem to be several editors who just don't get it. --
Horkana (
talk)
01:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Via his official fansite (22 June 2010). Mostly positive. Maybe someone knows how to distill something for the "Comments by original cast" section in the article.
I am too close to the A-TEAM TV series to consider myself objective or to write a proper critique, so I ask you to take into consideration that I loved working on the show, and no matter how heartbreaking I found working on it at times, I am indebted to Stephen Cannell and Frank Lupo who both gave me a life changing opportunity. The Film ,THE A-TEAM , is about twenty light years away from the series. Over and over again I heard from a variety of sources, that the movie would be "gritty" ,"real", "not corny", "big" ,"violent" , and "people would get killed "
It appears that these descriptors were accurate and had the intended effect on THE A-TEAM. The film pays homage to the series while it eschews its essential working premise: a band of capable military brothers for hire determined to save underdog and usually poor civilians from scum. But wait! The point is... this is not the TV series. It's a well shot wave of action, with hilarity, modest sex, violence and well played bad guys that you want to see tied up with shrink rap. Brian Bloom, co-writer and central villain clearly got to pen his own lines. Interesting! Check out that car scene! The team characters are sufficiently different and, with so many roles reversed from the original, one could say they are not really derivative, save for their names.
The exception is the brilliant Sharlto Copley as Murdock. He is faithful to the original, but at the same time is big screen twisted and right at home with the new team. I saw the film with a packed house and the audience applauded, laughed and were all smiles as they filed out of the theater. The only major criticism that I will let slip is the decision by such a creative team not to use Mike Post's great music theme....one of the absolute best..to jump start the film.....The audience would have screamed in delight.
Dwight
— 95.89.24.139 ( talk) 15:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
the train station falsely called frankfurt central station is actually the cologne central station. the cologne cathedral is clearly visible. compare to the german article of the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.188.14 ( talk) 18:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
If you simply state the facts "The Frankfurt Station scenes were filmed in Cologne" and provide citations to back it up then it would be relevant to include information about such location shoots under the Production section. You will need citations.
WP:IMPROVE. It was wrong delete before asking for citations or trying to clean up and move information to a more appropriate section as WP:TRIVIA clearly explains editors should do. The text does need citations and after marking Citation needed it might have later been acceptable to delete it if references were not provided instead of Original Research but rushing to delete does not help improve Wikipedia or encourage editors to try harder. -- Horkana ( talk) 16:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
What the...? I just corrected blatant inaccuracies such as mixing up German with Norwegian, Frankfurt with Cologne, the German US embassy being in Frankfurt and so on, even with correct citing. And you just delete it with a simple "trivia" note. There are TONS of other movie pages on Wikipedia which list even smaller inaccuracies. Do you guys have ANY idea how frustrating this is? I added this so that viewers wouldn't get a wrong picture of Germany. Apart from that, this info is already part of the German Wikipedia article (and the German wikipedia editors aren't exactly known for approving trivia either), so why won't you approve it? 188.104.9.171 ( talk) 15:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for sticking at it, that location information is a good addition. It's a shame editors weren't better able to help you cleanup the content and fit it in the most appropriate way. I've done a little to reinforce the citations, since IMDB is a weak source but there should be no doubt that filming took place in Vancouver.
The link from Germany to Norway is poorly explained but I take to just be they got out of Germany and were leaving Europe through Norway not Germany. --
Horkana (
talk)
16:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Somebody please inform whichever editor keeps vandalizing the Box Office paragraph that "it might do well on DVD" is not a fact and cannot be cited. Budget stats have already been detailed in the article, so do not need to be repeated here as they are largely irrelevant. In my amendment(s) I have included only facts from other sources and have cited them, as appropriate. I understand that you are obviously a fan of this film, but you do not need to repeatedly let us know. Please do not allow your prejudices to influence your editing. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral source of information. Junkie007 ( talk) 02:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
In the scene were they steal the AC-130 it is stated that it is US Army, Hannibal says that is why he joined the army (Army Rangers) the best and brightest, the flight control says that "they have also stolen property from the US Army" however when the plane is destroyed a piece of wreckage has "97 Marine..." obviously some reference number and Marine is obviously A US Marine Corp plane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.20.30 ( talk) 02:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm disappointed by the lack of critical thinking and pedantic actions by editors who have a
prejudice against blogs instead of properly considering the source. It is very simplistic to dismiss sources simply because the author has not gone out and bought a domain name to hide their content behind, or you don't like the software they use to publish their content. Dismissing content with prejudice because it was
published using Wordpress is just like dismissing it for being published using Drupal, or any of the big
CMS used on bigger sites. It would be wiser to actually take a look at the credibility of the author, too look at the other articles he has written, look at the photographs his stories are backed by and not simply dismiss the content out of hand. He is clearly not just another random uninformed blogger, no one is even disputing his statements about the van, or other production details but deleting the information because of prejudice against the source. This is the same kind of attitude that would dismiss everything ever published by the tabloids because they lack credibility on hard news (but the are obvious an adequate source for non-contentious celebrity happenings and events like who's gotten married).
I would be surprised the content is not simply a reprint of work that is being done for a film magazine or news publication, but it is not yet clear if that is the case. Hopefully the content can be restored when it becomes clearer to people this is a good source. --
Horkana (
talk)
12:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
This article is far from Featured Article status and as such is subject to ongoing work and improvement. The article will need additional sections such as "Home media" as just one example of more work that will be needed. There are many citations which should have extra details filled in. There are many citations which would benefit from being backed up using services such as WebCite.org.
It is counter productive to remove all spaces from citations as User:Xeworlebi has repeatedly done. There are matters of personal preference which can be discussed but his changes to the indentation of the Infobox are particularly unusual and out of keeping with Template:Infobox film. It makes it much more difficult for editors to check the details are correct and to see if more details should be added when all spaces are removed from citations. It makes it too easy for vandals to hide junk in citations.
Editors can argue for a personal preference when it comes to line breaks. However unless the article has reached Featured Article status or another high level of quality it needs ongoing work and removing line breaks makes it more difficult for other editors to clearly see mistakes in the source and improve the article. I do not mind line breaks being removed when the article has reached a very high quality level. -- Horkana ( talk) 16:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Stripping indentation and making fixes in the same edit makes it extremely difficult to see which changes have been made. I will continue to do my best to incorporate fixes, as I have already tried to do such as the error in the edit to the producers list but as I said it is very difficult to see and compare your edits. I see you prefer to use "first" and "last" so I have consistently replaced all the instances of "author" in the article. -- Horkana ( talk) 17:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
You reverted my changes and created errors. You re-added a duplicate link to a digitalspy article.
Empty parameters should be filled not removed, MTV articles for example are always dated. It would at least show
good faith if you fixed these mistakes, especially since by removing the spaces you make it much more inconvenient for others to edit the article.
Line breaks between each critic makes things clearer but ideally such breaks would not be necessary and the critical response section would examine the film not on a critic by critic basis but instead based on writing, cinematography, and other aspects, something a few of the very good Featured Articles do. --
Horkana (
talk)
17:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, we have two opposing points of view about line breaks and spaces in citations. I must say that there is no harm in such spaces, I have not seen any problems where they brake(sic) the page. It appears that some of User:Xeworlebis edits have damaged the page by removing such spaces. It is especially important in infoboxes to let other editors see what is going on. I suggest that User:Xeworlebi focusses upon content rather than unnecessary space and line break trimming. Jezhotwells ( talk) 17:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I gave several hours for Xeworlebi to fix the breakages he caused and fill in empty parameters. Rather than waiting any longer reverted his changes so I can make these and further fixes myself. I have explained above why this is fair. I will attempt to incorporate any good changes he wishes to make. I hope it will not be necessary to request a WP:3RR block. -- Horkana ( talk) 21:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
"The reception from the cast of the original series, The A-Team, too, was mixed."
The reference with Dirk Benedict supposedly criticising the film is actually him saying he expects it to be bad, not him having seen it saying it actually was bad. Shouldn't this be mentioned cos it's kinda an important point? 92.25.194.200 ( talk) 14:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
In the scene where they're about to break Murdoch out of the asylum, the movie starts and I happened to notice that one of the names credited is " Reginald Barclay", possibly referring to Schultz's Trek character? Was I imagining it or did anyone else notice this? - mattbuck ( Talk) 10:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
There are 2 airport customs agents inspecting BA and Murdock. They are credited (on IMDB) as Dutch Customs agents. There are however no waterplane airports or mountains like were shown in the scene like that in The Netherlands.
These agents also stamp their passports. Isn´t that only done when you enter a country instead of leaving it? Robin.lemstra ( talk) 14:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Movie-censorship.com's terms of use say this, "Our Service may, from time to time publish rumors and conjecture in addition to accurately reported information. Information presented on our Service may contain errors or inaccuracies, and we make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy, correctness or reliability of the content of our Service. We have no responsibility for the accuracy, correctness or reliability of any information contained on any website to which we may link or from which we may quote." (Italics mine.) It is not a reliable source. I was also calling it linkspam because in 2009, this website was included across multiple film articles. Ckatz brought to my attention a resurgence of this linkspam, being used as references instead, with new "sections" citing this website. That's why I removed it. If we want to discuss the film's cuts, we can surely find a reliable source if the content is noteworthy. Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
There was one scene when the bad guys were in the car and they were watching a tv of the air strike, he said "It's just like watching Call of Duty" Is that worth mentioning in the article under some pop-culture thing or not? Govvy ( talk) 14:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
This film did not follow the original series at all, in refrence to the spirit of the series. In the original series, they were mercenaries, soldiers of fortunes. They were former soldiers who now work for money. In the film, they ridicule that position. The only thing they have in common is the names of the characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.21.47.186 ( talk) 05:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe the (level 2 heading and) section title "Canceled sequel" is incorrect. There was nothing canceled, was there? That would mean there was something other than people expressing interest. -- 82.136.210.153 ( talk) 19:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The A-Team (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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page was
proposed for deletion by
Allen4names (
talk ·
contribs) on 24 November 2009. It was contested by Killervogel5 ( talk · contribs) on 2009-11-24 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
the opening paragraph says the origin of the story line has been shifted from vietnam to the middle east. the second paragraph says they were accused of robbing a bank in hanoi. is that hanoi,iraq or hanoi,afghanistan? that second paragraph is lifted directly from the a-team series page. why not fix it? i would, but everytime i edit something on wiki, some edit-nazi changes it back to it's original form, no matter how wrong it may be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.143.189 ( talk) 14:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
This film may become notable but it has not been released yet. Do not confuse potential with fact. -- allen四 names 04:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
"The A-Team," which stars Liam Neeson, Bradley Cooper and Jessica Biel, cost Fox and its partner Dune Entertainment $110 million, though tax credits brought the final budget to around $100 million.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/06/karate-kid-and-ateam-duking-it-out-in-battle-of-the-80s.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.87.228.118 ( talk) 21:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Intro was tagged as too short. Tag was removed. I restored it. Last I checked the intro included notes about the film makers and cast; a very short paragraph giving a brief story overview (don't assume readers know anything about the story even if it is a based on a television series); a quick note about what the critics thought (mixed). The latter paragraph/sentence about the critics could later include a second clause commenting on box office performance (existing sources in the article are already enough to say it underperformed studio expectations, but it might still do well on DVD).
Please help revert any
vandalism to the intro, there seem to be several editors who just don't get it. --
Horkana (
talk)
01:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Via his official fansite (22 June 2010). Mostly positive. Maybe someone knows how to distill something for the "Comments by original cast" section in the article.
I am too close to the A-TEAM TV series to consider myself objective or to write a proper critique, so I ask you to take into consideration that I loved working on the show, and no matter how heartbreaking I found working on it at times, I am indebted to Stephen Cannell and Frank Lupo who both gave me a life changing opportunity. The Film ,THE A-TEAM , is about twenty light years away from the series. Over and over again I heard from a variety of sources, that the movie would be "gritty" ,"real", "not corny", "big" ,"violent" , and "people would get killed "
It appears that these descriptors were accurate and had the intended effect on THE A-TEAM. The film pays homage to the series while it eschews its essential working premise: a band of capable military brothers for hire determined to save underdog and usually poor civilians from scum. But wait! The point is... this is not the TV series. It's a well shot wave of action, with hilarity, modest sex, violence and well played bad guys that you want to see tied up with shrink rap. Brian Bloom, co-writer and central villain clearly got to pen his own lines. Interesting! Check out that car scene! The team characters are sufficiently different and, with so many roles reversed from the original, one could say they are not really derivative, save for their names.
The exception is the brilliant Sharlto Copley as Murdock. He is faithful to the original, but at the same time is big screen twisted and right at home with the new team. I saw the film with a packed house and the audience applauded, laughed and were all smiles as they filed out of the theater. The only major criticism that I will let slip is the decision by such a creative team not to use Mike Post's great music theme....one of the absolute best..to jump start the film.....The audience would have screamed in delight.
Dwight
— 95.89.24.139 ( talk) 15:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
the train station falsely called frankfurt central station is actually the cologne central station. the cologne cathedral is clearly visible. compare to the german article of the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.188.14 ( talk) 18:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
If you simply state the facts "The Frankfurt Station scenes were filmed in Cologne" and provide citations to back it up then it would be relevant to include information about such location shoots under the Production section. You will need citations.
WP:IMPROVE. It was wrong delete before asking for citations or trying to clean up and move information to a more appropriate section as WP:TRIVIA clearly explains editors should do. The text does need citations and after marking Citation needed it might have later been acceptable to delete it if references were not provided instead of Original Research but rushing to delete does not help improve Wikipedia or encourage editors to try harder. -- Horkana ( talk) 16:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
What the...? I just corrected blatant inaccuracies such as mixing up German with Norwegian, Frankfurt with Cologne, the German US embassy being in Frankfurt and so on, even with correct citing. And you just delete it with a simple "trivia" note. There are TONS of other movie pages on Wikipedia which list even smaller inaccuracies. Do you guys have ANY idea how frustrating this is? I added this so that viewers wouldn't get a wrong picture of Germany. Apart from that, this info is already part of the German Wikipedia article (and the German wikipedia editors aren't exactly known for approving trivia either), so why won't you approve it? 188.104.9.171 ( talk) 15:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for sticking at it, that location information is a good addition. It's a shame editors weren't better able to help you cleanup the content and fit it in the most appropriate way. I've done a little to reinforce the citations, since IMDB is a weak source but there should be no doubt that filming took place in Vancouver.
The link from Germany to Norway is poorly explained but I take to just be they got out of Germany and were leaving Europe through Norway not Germany. --
Horkana (
talk)
16:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Somebody please inform whichever editor keeps vandalizing the Box Office paragraph that "it might do well on DVD" is not a fact and cannot be cited. Budget stats have already been detailed in the article, so do not need to be repeated here as they are largely irrelevant. In my amendment(s) I have included only facts from other sources and have cited them, as appropriate. I understand that you are obviously a fan of this film, but you do not need to repeatedly let us know. Please do not allow your prejudices to influence your editing. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral source of information. Junkie007 ( talk) 02:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
In the scene were they steal the AC-130 it is stated that it is US Army, Hannibal says that is why he joined the army (Army Rangers) the best and brightest, the flight control says that "they have also stolen property from the US Army" however when the plane is destroyed a piece of wreckage has "97 Marine..." obviously some reference number and Marine is obviously A US Marine Corp plane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.20.30 ( talk) 02:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm disappointed by the lack of critical thinking and pedantic actions by editors who have a
prejudice against blogs instead of properly considering the source. It is very simplistic to dismiss sources simply because the author has not gone out and bought a domain name to hide their content behind, or you don't like the software they use to publish their content. Dismissing content with prejudice because it was
published using Wordpress is just like dismissing it for being published using Drupal, or any of the big
CMS used on bigger sites. It would be wiser to actually take a look at the credibility of the author, too look at the other articles he has written, look at the photographs his stories are backed by and not simply dismiss the content out of hand. He is clearly not just another random uninformed blogger, no one is even disputing his statements about the van, or other production details but deleting the information because of prejudice against the source. This is the same kind of attitude that would dismiss everything ever published by the tabloids because they lack credibility on hard news (but the are obvious an adequate source for non-contentious celebrity happenings and events like who's gotten married).
I would be surprised the content is not simply a reprint of work that is being done for a film magazine or news publication, but it is not yet clear if that is the case. Hopefully the content can be restored when it becomes clearer to people this is a good source. --
Horkana (
talk)
12:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
This article is far from Featured Article status and as such is subject to ongoing work and improvement. The article will need additional sections such as "Home media" as just one example of more work that will be needed. There are many citations which should have extra details filled in. There are many citations which would benefit from being backed up using services such as WebCite.org.
It is counter productive to remove all spaces from citations as User:Xeworlebi has repeatedly done. There are matters of personal preference which can be discussed but his changes to the indentation of the Infobox are particularly unusual and out of keeping with Template:Infobox film. It makes it much more difficult for editors to check the details are correct and to see if more details should be added when all spaces are removed from citations. It makes it too easy for vandals to hide junk in citations.
Editors can argue for a personal preference when it comes to line breaks. However unless the article has reached Featured Article status or another high level of quality it needs ongoing work and removing line breaks makes it more difficult for other editors to clearly see mistakes in the source and improve the article. I do not mind line breaks being removed when the article has reached a very high quality level. -- Horkana ( talk) 16:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Stripping indentation and making fixes in the same edit makes it extremely difficult to see which changes have been made. I will continue to do my best to incorporate fixes, as I have already tried to do such as the error in the edit to the producers list but as I said it is very difficult to see and compare your edits. I see you prefer to use "first" and "last" so I have consistently replaced all the instances of "author" in the article. -- Horkana ( talk) 17:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
You reverted my changes and created errors. You re-added a duplicate link to a digitalspy article.
Empty parameters should be filled not removed, MTV articles for example are always dated. It would at least show
good faith if you fixed these mistakes, especially since by removing the spaces you make it much more inconvenient for others to edit the article.
Line breaks between each critic makes things clearer but ideally such breaks would not be necessary and the critical response section would examine the film not on a critic by critic basis but instead based on writing, cinematography, and other aspects, something a few of the very good Featured Articles do. --
Horkana (
talk)
17:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, we have two opposing points of view about line breaks and spaces in citations. I must say that there is no harm in such spaces, I have not seen any problems where they brake(sic) the page. It appears that some of User:Xeworlebis edits have damaged the page by removing such spaces. It is especially important in infoboxes to let other editors see what is going on. I suggest that User:Xeworlebi focusses upon content rather than unnecessary space and line break trimming. Jezhotwells ( talk) 17:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I gave several hours for Xeworlebi to fix the breakages he caused and fill in empty parameters. Rather than waiting any longer reverted his changes so I can make these and further fixes myself. I have explained above why this is fair. I will attempt to incorporate any good changes he wishes to make. I hope it will not be necessary to request a WP:3RR block. -- Horkana ( talk) 21:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
"The reception from the cast of the original series, The A-Team, too, was mixed."
The reference with Dirk Benedict supposedly criticising the film is actually him saying he expects it to be bad, not him having seen it saying it actually was bad. Shouldn't this be mentioned cos it's kinda an important point? 92.25.194.200 ( talk) 14:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
In the scene where they're about to break Murdoch out of the asylum, the movie starts and I happened to notice that one of the names credited is " Reginald Barclay", possibly referring to Schultz's Trek character? Was I imagining it or did anyone else notice this? - mattbuck ( Talk) 10:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
There are 2 airport customs agents inspecting BA and Murdock. They are credited (on IMDB) as Dutch Customs agents. There are however no waterplane airports or mountains like were shown in the scene like that in The Netherlands.
These agents also stamp their passports. Isn´t that only done when you enter a country instead of leaving it? Robin.lemstra ( talk) 14:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Movie-censorship.com's terms of use say this, "Our Service may, from time to time publish rumors and conjecture in addition to accurately reported information. Information presented on our Service may contain errors or inaccuracies, and we make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy, correctness or reliability of the content of our Service. We have no responsibility for the accuracy, correctness or reliability of any information contained on any website to which we may link or from which we may quote." (Italics mine.) It is not a reliable source. I was also calling it linkspam because in 2009, this website was included across multiple film articles. Ckatz brought to my attention a resurgence of this linkspam, being used as references instead, with new "sections" citing this website. That's why I removed it. If we want to discuss the film's cuts, we can surely find a reliable source if the content is noteworthy. Erik ( talk | contribs) 14:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
There was one scene when the bad guys were in the car and they were watching a tv of the air strike, he said "It's just like watching Call of Duty" Is that worth mentioning in the article under some pop-culture thing or not? Govvy ( talk) 14:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
This film did not follow the original series at all, in refrence to the spirit of the series. In the original series, they were mercenaries, soldiers of fortunes. They were former soldiers who now work for money. In the film, they ridicule that position. The only thing they have in common is the names of the characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.21.47.186 ( talk) 05:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe the (level 2 heading and) section title "Canceled sequel" is incorrect. There was nothing canceled, was there? That would mean there was something other than people expressing interest. -- 82.136.210.153 ( talk) 19:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The A-Team (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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)