This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
[1]
== Clean-up by
CaJust did a MAJOR clean-up, mostly cleaning up very bad formattingStrike-through textlton ==
The result looks like this.
-- Calton 09:23, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I propose changing the second paragraph to read the following (including information about the first filmed version which seems perfectly reasonable to me):
Sam Spade was played by Ricardo Cortez in the extremely popular 1931 pre-code version of the The Maltese Falcon (1931 film). It was such a success that Warner Brothers attempted to re-release the film in 1936, but was denied approval by the Production Code Office due to the film's "lewd" content. The Warner Brothers decided to make a light comedy version of the story in 1936 which was called Satan Met a Lady and starred Warren William playing the central character who was renamed Ted Shane. In 1941, the Warner Brothers remade the 1931 version using the script of the 1931. The director ( John Huston) updated the language and those parts which by that time were considered too lewd. Sam Spade is most closely associated with the actor Humphrey Bogart, who played the character in the 1941 version of The Maltese Falcon. This is partly due to the fact that the 1931 version was virtually forgoten because for decades, unedited copies could not be legally shown in the United States. Additionally, the film has not been made available by the copyright owners. Despite a number of perceived flaws and misteps - Bogart failed to dye his hair to the characteristic blonde called for by the novel, was considered to be too small and dark for the role, with the wrong facial structure, and was even slighted for not being enough of a lecher - he turned out not only to have succeeded, but in fact to have created the archetypal private detective, one which has influenced " film noir" characters ever since. 24.6.23.248 12:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The statements about Bogart such as "Bogart is more closely associated with Sam Spade than any other actor" were left intact.. in case you didn't notice. That is known in the rhetoric biz as "a half-truth": intact, yes, but BURIED in the middle of the graf. Call up your high-school English teacher and ask him or her about "topic sentences" sometime. -- Calton | Talk 00:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/seller/feedback.html/002-2191770-9579233?ie=UTF8&asin=B00009RTCP&pageNumber=3&marketplaceSeller=1&seller=A2G2XU8VN3HB4O 24.6.23.248 05:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/seller/feedback.html/002-2191770-9579233?ie=UTF8&asin=B00009RTCP&pageNumber=19&marketplaceSeller=1&seller=A2G2XU8VN3HB4O Sounds pretty clear to me that this is a bootlegger. 24.6.23.248 05:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you trying to provide a master class in rhetorical fallacies? This latest batch is what's known as the " strawman argument": make up phony argument for your opponent and argue against that.
Like this: The fact that sites like amazon.com and ebay.com are full of bootlegs is known to everyone except you. Since I no way, shape, or form even HINTED at claiming that Amazon and eBay don't sell bootlegs -- and did not even MENTION eBay -- this is a phony statement from top to bottom. You, in effect, lying by implication in attributing this nonsense to me, since what i actually asked for was proof that THIS ONE SPECIFIC MOVIE'S COPYRIGHT HOLDERS WERE KEEPING IT OFF THE MARKET. You are making the claim, YOU have to prove it directly.
What's even better is that one of your bits of misdirection disguised as evidence even hints at the opposite: "Tho the seller will argue the fact, the movie was taped off tv, chanell 9". Which means, of course, it was being broadcast on "chanell 9", implicitly putting the kibosh on your claim that it was being hidden away.
Sounds pretty clear to me that this is a bootlegger. Probably true. Also, completely 100% irrelevant to the actual issue of whether this specific movie is being withheld and/or has been withheld from the market, or even its copyright status generally.
So, once again, you need:
And that's just the TIP of the iceberg here, one single bit of the myriad of claims, assertions, POV, minority-opinion claimed as majority, excuses, and rationalizations you've offered up without the slightest shred of a shadow of whisp of backup. Until you make the slightest nod in actually backing up what you say, you're getting nowhere.
This is really ridiculous
...is that any story, film, or tv show worthy enough to go on wikipedia, would be worthy enough to have individual pages for the characters within it. Therefore, I think this page should remain.
Keep therefore... :p
Iamandrewrice 14:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I changed "Anthology" to "Collection". An anthology is a collection of works by different authors; a collection is by one author, so describing a book of stories by Hammett as an anthology is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.87.76 ( talk) 18:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The opening paragraphs of this article don't make a bit of sense. It says Spade was in three novels by Hammet, then a sentence later that he was only in one. I don't even know what it means, or which is right, so I can't fix it.
The second paragraphs contains reference to a "nameless book" which has a title.
Can someone who actually has read Hammet's stuff and knows what they're talking about fix it so this article isn't nonsensical? 155.135.55.231 ( talk) 21:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I find this article, honestly, very lacking. The Maltese Falcon was named the 56th best English language novel (according to its article) and the lead character of that novel should have a much better article, in my opinion. I will be adding to it as soon as I have time, likely later today. I am reading The Maltese Falcon right now, so I'll add descriptions of him from that. Jeancey ( talk) 15:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
[1]
== Clean-up by
CaJust did a MAJOR clean-up, mostly cleaning up very bad formattingStrike-through textlton ==
The result looks like this.
-- Calton 09:23, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I propose changing the second paragraph to read the following (including information about the first filmed version which seems perfectly reasonable to me):
Sam Spade was played by Ricardo Cortez in the extremely popular 1931 pre-code version of the The Maltese Falcon (1931 film). It was such a success that Warner Brothers attempted to re-release the film in 1936, but was denied approval by the Production Code Office due to the film's "lewd" content. The Warner Brothers decided to make a light comedy version of the story in 1936 which was called Satan Met a Lady and starred Warren William playing the central character who was renamed Ted Shane. In 1941, the Warner Brothers remade the 1931 version using the script of the 1931. The director ( John Huston) updated the language and those parts which by that time were considered too lewd. Sam Spade is most closely associated with the actor Humphrey Bogart, who played the character in the 1941 version of The Maltese Falcon. This is partly due to the fact that the 1931 version was virtually forgoten because for decades, unedited copies could not be legally shown in the United States. Additionally, the film has not been made available by the copyright owners. Despite a number of perceived flaws and misteps - Bogart failed to dye his hair to the characteristic blonde called for by the novel, was considered to be too small and dark for the role, with the wrong facial structure, and was even slighted for not being enough of a lecher - he turned out not only to have succeeded, but in fact to have created the archetypal private detective, one which has influenced " film noir" characters ever since. 24.6.23.248 12:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The statements about Bogart such as "Bogart is more closely associated with Sam Spade than any other actor" were left intact.. in case you didn't notice. That is known in the rhetoric biz as "a half-truth": intact, yes, but BURIED in the middle of the graf. Call up your high-school English teacher and ask him or her about "topic sentences" sometime. -- Calton | Talk 00:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/seller/feedback.html/002-2191770-9579233?ie=UTF8&asin=B00009RTCP&pageNumber=3&marketplaceSeller=1&seller=A2G2XU8VN3HB4O 24.6.23.248 05:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/seller/feedback.html/002-2191770-9579233?ie=UTF8&asin=B00009RTCP&pageNumber=19&marketplaceSeller=1&seller=A2G2XU8VN3HB4O Sounds pretty clear to me that this is a bootlegger. 24.6.23.248 05:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you trying to provide a master class in rhetorical fallacies? This latest batch is what's known as the " strawman argument": make up phony argument for your opponent and argue against that.
Like this: The fact that sites like amazon.com and ebay.com are full of bootlegs is known to everyone except you. Since I no way, shape, or form even HINTED at claiming that Amazon and eBay don't sell bootlegs -- and did not even MENTION eBay -- this is a phony statement from top to bottom. You, in effect, lying by implication in attributing this nonsense to me, since what i actually asked for was proof that THIS ONE SPECIFIC MOVIE'S COPYRIGHT HOLDERS WERE KEEPING IT OFF THE MARKET. You are making the claim, YOU have to prove it directly.
What's even better is that one of your bits of misdirection disguised as evidence even hints at the opposite: "Tho the seller will argue the fact, the movie was taped off tv, chanell 9". Which means, of course, it was being broadcast on "chanell 9", implicitly putting the kibosh on your claim that it was being hidden away.
Sounds pretty clear to me that this is a bootlegger. Probably true. Also, completely 100% irrelevant to the actual issue of whether this specific movie is being withheld and/or has been withheld from the market, or even its copyright status generally.
So, once again, you need:
And that's just the TIP of the iceberg here, one single bit of the myriad of claims, assertions, POV, minority-opinion claimed as majority, excuses, and rationalizations you've offered up without the slightest shred of a shadow of whisp of backup. Until you make the slightest nod in actually backing up what you say, you're getting nowhere.
This is really ridiculous
...is that any story, film, or tv show worthy enough to go on wikipedia, would be worthy enough to have individual pages for the characters within it. Therefore, I think this page should remain.
Keep therefore... :p
Iamandrewrice 14:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I changed "Anthology" to "Collection". An anthology is a collection of works by different authors; a collection is by one author, so describing a book of stories by Hammett as an anthology is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.87.76 ( talk) 18:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The opening paragraphs of this article don't make a bit of sense. It says Spade was in three novels by Hammet, then a sentence later that he was only in one. I don't even know what it means, or which is right, so I can't fix it.
The second paragraphs contains reference to a "nameless book" which has a title.
Can someone who actually has read Hammet's stuff and knows what they're talking about fix it so this article isn't nonsensical? 155.135.55.231 ( talk) 21:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I find this article, honestly, very lacking. The Maltese Falcon was named the 56th best English language novel (according to its article) and the lead character of that novel should have a much better article, in my opinion. I will be adding to it as soon as I have time, likely later today. I am reading The Maltese Falcon right now, so I'll add descriptions of him from that. Jeancey ( talk) 15:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)