This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Sting article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The plot summary is incomplete, and reads more like a long promotional blurb instead. - Matt 08:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOR cover the reasons for the deletion of this unencylopaedic information. Can anyone really defend quoting an entire joke from the movie verbatim here? This isn't a fansite, it's an encyclopedia. The second para is original research. And the heading 'Trivia' is against WP policy, so I'm changing that to "Other production information". Michael Dorosh Talk 00:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I am about to change the word "speakeasy" to in the section The Set-Up to "tavern". "Speakeasy" usually refers to an illegal tavern operating during prohibition. The Wikipedia article (although clearly in need of work) describes it this way. In 1936, prohibition was long gone. Although one may argue that the term could still be applied to an unlicensed establishment operating after the end of prohibition, there is no clear indication in the film that this description applies to the business depicted. It is unambiguously a tavern, but only possibly (probably not) a speakeasy.
Comments please. Steven J. Anderson 00:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Reference is made that not having previously met Hooker, Lonnegan is unaware "at first" that Hooker and Kelly are the same person. In fact, Lonnegan is NEVER aware they are the same person, first or later. I removed that phrase.
Also, Hooker and Gondorff are described as exiting the alley way "with the large sum of money left by Lonnegan." In the film, Gondorff asks Hooker if he's not going to stick around for his "share," to which Hooker replies, "Nah, I'd only blow it." I took this to mean that the two con artists, in leaving together, plan to start from scratch, leaving the loot for the remainder of the company. Correct me if I'm wrong here. ElizabethD22 03:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Stingredfordnewman.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 11:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a little known fact that "Hooker" was also an alias. His "natural" name was Roy Hobbs, and after this sting, he resumed his former career, as a baseball player and led the New York Knights to a pennant. You could look it up! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The current plot sum up shows 4 parts whereas I'm currently watching the movie, part 4: The Wire, which plot is roughly the second half of current summed up part 3: (maybe that is because of some version cuts, although I strongly doubt it..)
Also, I believe it is inappropriate to express the part number (part 1 ,part 2, part 3...) as they are not displayed in the movie. Staarkali ( talk) 14:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I have watched it all and there is definitively 6 parts (with The Shut-Outas part 5). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staarkali ( talk • contribs) 14:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The production section is pathetic. Surely, something has been written about the making of this important film, yes? --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 18:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Regarding recent changes to the plot section by Ferrierd, there is no reason to change the wording to reveal that FBI agent Polk is actually a con man named Hickey. This is revealed at the end of the plot summary, just as it is in the film. We need not make a point of saying "He's a con man" when describing Hooker's first meeting with Polk. That just seems silly and unnecessary. Anyone have any thoughts on this? --- The Old Jacobite The '45 01:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
possibly add to Popular References section? Barry.carter ( talk) 04:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Look. If people disagree with removal of a trivia section, fine. BUT READ THE DAMNED REASON FIRST !
Un-removing a removal just because you feel someone was "rude" is not intelligent. And the first reversion of my removal was ignorant. The editor DID NOT EVEN LOOK at the cause. He just claimed there was "no explanation" (which was untrue) and put the section back, without even bothering to find out why. Or think about "was this edit positive or negative ?"
If this is all going to be a club for stupid little yuppies to pat each other on the back about, then the whole place is useless.
Twelve year olds should not be allowed to edit wikipedia :( 116.231.75.71 ( talk) 06:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I see that in the intro, it is asserted that the film was inspired by Maurer's book (and the specific historical figures he wrote about). There's no citation for this; and later on in the article, it is explained that, according to the screenplay author (even subsequent to Universal's settlement with Maurer), Maurer's plagiarism claims were unfounded. It isn't clear from the article that Maurer's influence on the book was necessarily of primary importance, even in a nonplagiaristic way. Is there indisputable evidence that it was? If there is no indisputable evidence that the screenplay was inspired by Maurer's book (and his specific subject matter) in particular, perhaps the assertion in the intro should be removed. Jcejhay ( talk) 13:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Was the trick ending in The Sting, where the original audience would briefly believe both protagonists to have perished amid gunfire, deliberately conceived as an "Oh no, not again!" moment for audiences who remembered the ending of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid--with the happy ending then unveiled so as to "make up for" the sad ending of the earlier film? I imagine it had this effect, and it's hard to imagine it wasn't intentional. If anyone has evidence of this phenomenon among audiences, or its intentional staging with that in mind, perhaps it deserves mention. Jcejhay ( talk) 13:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Coming back to this a couple of years later, I've found a source that supports the point--but I'm not sure the source is up to Wikipedia standards. Details below. Any opinions as to whether this source is reputable enough for our purposes? To be clear, it's not the content I'm questioning now, but the source qua source.
"And audiences in 1973 would have been especially uncertain of this ending, since George Roy Hill had just made Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid in 1969 with actors Paul Newman and Robert Redford and—huge spoiler alert—Butch Cassidy ends with the likely deaths of both men. It's safe to say that an early '70s movie-goer would have anticipated the worst and then been overjoyed when Johnny's eyes pop open in the end and they realized that the whole thing was just part of the plan." https://www.shmoop.com/study-guides/movie/the-sting/analysis Jcejhay ( talk) 12:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't go so far as to say Joplin's music is "featured" in The Public Enemy. There's just one scene where an unseen pianist very slowly plays his or her way through Maple Leaf Rag, very much as one would do while still learning to play it. Pithecanthropus4152 ( talk) 04:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
"The film is noted for its anachronistic use of ragtime, particularly the melody "The Entertainer" by Scott Joplin"
No. Joplin died in 1917, this film is set in 1936, so it's not an anachronism. See anachronism. Renard Migrant ( talk) 14:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
A music expert has informed me that your information about the performance of "The Entertainer" by Marvin Hamslisch on the Top Forty charts may be wrong. "The Entertainer" went to #3 on Billboard. Your information about "The Entertainer" reaching #1 on the Australian Kent Report may be wrong also. Eligius ( talk) 07:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Sting article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The plot summary is incomplete, and reads more like a long promotional blurb instead. - Matt 08:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOR cover the reasons for the deletion of this unencylopaedic information. Can anyone really defend quoting an entire joke from the movie verbatim here? This isn't a fansite, it's an encyclopedia. The second para is original research. And the heading 'Trivia' is against WP policy, so I'm changing that to "Other production information". Michael Dorosh Talk 00:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I am about to change the word "speakeasy" to in the section The Set-Up to "tavern". "Speakeasy" usually refers to an illegal tavern operating during prohibition. The Wikipedia article (although clearly in need of work) describes it this way. In 1936, prohibition was long gone. Although one may argue that the term could still be applied to an unlicensed establishment operating after the end of prohibition, there is no clear indication in the film that this description applies to the business depicted. It is unambiguously a tavern, but only possibly (probably not) a speakeasy.
Comments please. Steven J. Anderson 00:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Reference is made that not having previously met Hooker, Lonnegan is unaware "at first" that Hooker and Kelly are the same person. In fact, Lonnegan is NEVER aware they are the same person, first or later. I removed that phrase.
Also, Hooker and Gondorff are described as exiting the alley way "with the large sum of money left by Lonnegan." In the film, Gondorff asks Hooker if he's not going to stick around for his "share," to which Hooker replies, "Nah, I'd only blow it." I took this to mean that the two con artists, in leaving together, plan to start from scratch, leaving the loot for the remainder of the company. Correct me if I'm wrong here. ElizabethD22 03:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:Stingredfordnewman.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 11:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a little known fact that "Hooker" was also an alias. His "natural" name was Roy Hobbs, and after this sting, he resumed his former career, as a baseball player and led the New York Knights to a pennant. You could look it up! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The current plot sum up shows 4 parts whereas I'm currently watching the movie, part 4: The Wire, which plot is roughly the second half of current summed up part 3: (maybe that is because of some version cuts, although I strongly doubt it..)
Also, I believe it is inappropriate to express the part number (part 1 ,part 2, part 3...) as they are not displayed in the movie. Staarkali ( talk) 14:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I have watched it all and there is definitively 6 parts (with The Shut-Outas part 5). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staarkali ( talk • contribs) 14:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The production section is pathetic. Surely, something has been written about the making of this important film, yes? --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 18:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Regarding recent changes to the plot section by Ferrierd, there is no reason to change the wording to reveal that FBI agent Polk is actually a con man named Hickey. This is revealed at the end of the plot summary, just as it is in the film. We need not make a point of saying "He's a con man" when describing Hooker's first meeting with Polk. That just seems silly and unnecessary. Anyone have any thoughts on this? --- The Old Jacobite The '45 01:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
possibly add to Popular References section? Barry.carter ( talk) 04:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Look. If people disagree with removal of a trivia section, fine. BUT READ THE DAMNED REASON FIRST !
Un-removing a removal just because you feel someone was "rude" is not intelligent. And the first reversion of my removal was ignorant. The editor DID NOT EVEN LOOK at the cause. He just claimed there was "no explanation" (which was untrue) and put the section back, without even bothering to find out why. Or think about "was this edit positive or negative ?"
If this is all going to be a club for stupid little yuppies to pat each other on the back about, then the whole place is useless.
Twelve year olds should not be allowed to edit wikipedia :( 116.231.75.71 ( talk) 06:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I see that in the intro, it is asserted that the film was inspired by Maurer's book (and the specific historical figures he wrote about). There's no citation for this; and later on in the article, it is explained that, according to the screenplay author (even subsequent to Universal's settlement with Maurer), Maurer's plagiarism claims were unfounded. It isn't clear from the article that Maurer's influence on the book was necessarily of primary importance, even in a nonplagiaristic way. Is there indisputable evidence that it was? If there is no indisputable evidence that the screenplay was inspired by Maurer's book (and his specific subject matter) in particular, perhaps the assertion in the intro should be removed. Jcejhay ( talk) 13:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Was the trick ending in The Sting, where the original audience would briefly believe both protagonists to have perished amid gunfire, deliberately conceived as an "Oh no, not again!" moment for audiences who remembered the ending of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid--with the happy ending then unveiled so as to "make up for" the sad ending of the earlier film? I imagine it had this effect, and it's hard to imagine it wasn't intentional. If anyone has evidence of this phenomenon among audiences, or its intentional staging with that in mind, perhaps it deserves mention. Jcejhay ( talk) 13:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Coming back to this a couple of years later, I've found a source that supports the point--but I'm not sure the source is up to Wikipedia standards. Details below. Any opinions as to whether this source is reputable enough for our purposes? To be clear, it's not the content I'm questioning now, but the source qua source.
"And audiences in 1973 would have been especially uncertain of this ending, since George Roy Hill had just made Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid in 1969 with actors Paul Newman and Robert Redford and—huge spoiler alert—Butch Cassidy ends with the likely deaths of both men. It's safe to say that an early '70s movie-goer would have anticipated the worst and then been overjoyed when Johnny's eyes pop open in the end and they realized that the whole thing was just part of the plan." https://www.shmoop.com/study-guides/movie/the-sting/analysis Jcejhay ( talk) 12:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't go so far as to say Joplin's music is "featured" in The Public Enemy. There's just one scene where an unseen pianist very slowly plays his or her way through Maple Leaf Rag, very much as one would do while still learning to play it. Pithecanthropus4152 ( talk) 04:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
"The film is noted for its anachronistic use of ragtime, particularly the melody "The Entertainer" by Scott Joplin"
No. Joplin died in 1917, this film is set in 1936, so it's not an anachronism. See anachronism. Renard Migrant ( talk) 14:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
A music expert has informed me that your information about the performance of "The Entertainer" by Marvin Hamslisch on the Top Forty charts may be wrong. "The Entertainer" went to #3 on Billboard. Your information about "The Entertainer" reaching #1 on the Australian Kent Report may be wrong also. Eligius ( talk) 07:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)