Talk:The Bank Job

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gale Benson[edit]

You haven't mentioned Gale Benson. She was killed by Micheal X because he thought she was a spy. Pretty horribly too. She was the actual reason due to which he was hanged to death later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.102.32.98 (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Historicity[edit]

So... Anyone have any information on the bank robbery that the film supposedly depicts? Or is it the truth that it will really be revealed for the first time? I find that hard to beleive, given the in time that it takes to make a film, there are undoubtedly be some information leaked....

Anyway, it's good to see Jason Statham being typecast into his usual role again, hope it turns out better than In The Name of The King... Fultron89 (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)>[reply]

This is the only article I've read connecting it to the real robbery.New Yorker Article - - - There's almost nothing to be found on the internet that deals with historical fact (or otherwise), as opposed to the film plot and the allegations it makes. However, since no-one seems to be calling 'hoax', this doesn't seem to be an idle conspiracy theory. After an exhaustive internet search, the most informative/authoritative sources I could find were a few connected press articles in the Chicago reader, the Daily Telegraph and the Observer. http://blogs.chicagoreader.com/film/tag/Conspiracy%20Theories/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/02/15/bfbankjob15.xml http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=515138&in_page_id=1770 But they're scarce on detail, and so many questions still unanswered. For one, was there really a purge of Scotland Yard officers following the affair, and how did this impact the institution? CPH.

I've added a Historicity section, based on what I could determine. I'd still like to know the answer to questions such as whether there really was a purge of officers. John M Baker (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the word "Historicity" absolutely necessary? Is there not a simple English way of expressing the same thing? Sure it is the kind of word that looks impressive in an academic essay but it seems like an overly complicated and inaccessible choice of wording for the wide audience Wikipedia enjoys. -- Horkana (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to change it, if you think of something better. John M Baker (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, why does such a huge bank robbery not have a Wikipedia article? --Erroneuz1 (talk) 06:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:conspiracy theory...it's not even a conspiracy theory, it's just a fictional film & it's highly effective advertising campaign. The 'based on real events' is that it's based on the Baker Street Robbery, but there being any photos, MI5 involvement, Michael X, D-notice...is all fiction. Papers go along with it because it makes a better story. It's a weakness of wiki taking newspapers as RS, when they ain't even close. The real robbery was just a robbery. 92.15.56.160 (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Alleged Princess[edit]

I saw the movie on March 8 in the United States, and it clearly referred repeatedly to Princess Margaret. However, people who have seen it in the United Kingdom seem to think that the princess is not named. Were two different versions released? Is there any way of confirming the details of this and, if so, which versions were released where? John M Baker (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi john....i dont know how to use this site so i will reply here......the british version does not mention princess magrarets name at all. i would like to see the us version... there is a biography of a living british gangster that came out in early 2000 and it mentions that he met princess margaret at a "gangsters" party. maybe the british goverment have edited the film????? element of truth maybe??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.199 (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Korean living in Korea. The name "Princess Margaret" was repeatedly mentioned in the film. I thought this name is a pseudonym and reached here while searching for the real princess. --Queenmillennia (talk) 07:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I recall, the version I saw on cable in the US did mention Princess Margaret. – ukexpat (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. version does directly reference Princess Margaret.--74.235.63.50 (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: there is a scene in which Lord Mountbatten confirms it is Princess Margaret; I think he refers to her as being "randy." 173.72.136.143 (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Errors[edit]

I see this section has been put back in. It is trivial and completely UNSOURCED. Robertcornell68 (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2008(UTC) So I removed it. Robertcornell68 (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia/blooper sections are common for movies on Wikipedia. Unsourced facts can be dealt with in other ways that cutting them out--this just cuts down on the information in the article and makes it less informative. I consolidated a blooper from the plot section and other ones from history into a trivia section. If you disagree let's discuss this before getting into a revert-war. Tvh2k (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "So... Anyone have any information on the bank robbery that the film supposedly depicts?" Yes. I lost everything I had of any real value in "the bank robbery" and can attest to it being a very professional job, just like the Great Train Robbery that preceded it, and not unlike the Brinksmat job some years later. The idea that this audacious crime was actually orchestrated by MI5 to protect Princess Margaret from being revealed as sex maniac is sheer fantasy, her "reputation" was already well established and well known by the 1970's and if there had been incriminating evidence in a safe box at Lloyds Bank, MI5 could have walked in, flashed the necessary ID. and opened any or all of the boxes and removed the so called evidence. I find it rather offensive that this movie seeks to make us look like idiotic fools who would rather believe the evil government is to blame, than to point the finger where it belongs, at the criminals who continually prey on innocent victims, yet are the heros of big Hollywood. Of course, the issuance of the "D-Notice" is taken as some sort of signal that the evil government is manipulating things, rather than preventing the press from alerting the criminals from what steps are being taken to apprehend them. Believe what you will, the was a crime committed by very well organized criminals, and that's really all there is to say. It wasn't the first time (Great Train Robbery) nor was it the last. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapaparazzo (talk • contribs) 06:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

plot?[edit]

I feel the plot section is way too long in comparison to most other movie articles in wikipedia and it seems more like a summary of almost every scene in the movie rather then a plot outline. Does it really need to be included for instance that a police officer comes to the shop because of the vibrations?

please shorten it a bit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.53.88.129 (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Lennon[edit]

Isnt the white goy that michael x is photographed with meant to be John Lennon? After all, he looks like him, and the real John Lennon once bailed Michael x. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.112.239 (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over a decade later: I have just watched the DVD, and in the end credits it said that John Lennon was played by Alan Swoffer. 147.92.69.198 (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Mick Jagger[edit]

Perhaps there should be a mention of his cameo appearance as the bank safe deposit box guard.RMcPhee (talk) 11:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over a decade later: I have just watched the DVD. In the end credits there is no mention of who played the safe deposit box guard (the part was not a speaking part). If Mick Jagger did play a cameo then it would have been mentioned; it wasn't. 147.92.69.198 (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Release Date[edit]

It is written: The premiere was held in London on 18 February 2008, and the film was released in the UK on 28 February 2008. This disagrees with the Infobox, which says: February 29, 2008. Concerning the premiere date in London, it also disagrees with the IMDb (25 February). Which one is correct? Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where Is The Other Movie???[edit]

There are actually two movies. The current article pertains to the one that was released in 2008(IMDb link:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0200465). Another one was released in 2007(IMDb link:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0928372). I suggest that this movie topic be disambiguated into two parts; one for the 2007 movie, and the other for the 2008 one.

REF to include: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/02/15/bfbankjob15.xml

At the moment there is no article on the 2007 movie. Until there is, no need to disambiguate the title of this one. – ukexpat (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Johnson track[edit]

Anthony Johnson's "Gunshot" is playing at a party scene in the film, despite not being recorded until a decade after the film is set and being in a very different style to the reggae that was around in 1971. It seemed out of place when I watched the film, and this seems a bizarre mistake to make. IMDB doesn't list this track as part of the soundtrack, and I can't find a reliable source that actually states that it's in the soundtrack - anyone know why? --Michig (talk) 09:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot vs reality & advertising[edit]

The films' promotion intentionally stretched the 'based on a true story' thing with careful phrasing & reporters eager to allow the misunderstanding for a much more sensational interview far past the point of lies. I've tried to improve the 'historical background' section, sources that are dodgy quotes from people advertising the film should not be used, I forget the exact policy wording but RS do not include either primary sources or advertising for disputed information. If a source implies that a fictional plot point is in any was based in reality, it's, by demonstration, not a RS. 80.42.27.57 (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis[edit]

I tagged the "Historical background" section for synthesis, as parts of it seem to be original research performed by Wikipedia editors to guess which aspects of the film were based on reality and what inspired them. In particular, the Lord Lambton section seems like it's complete guesswork and is based on news articles from the 1990s, years before the film was released. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Budget[edit]

The budget is listed in the box at the top as $30M and in the Box Office section as $20M. Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.9.7 (talk) 02:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I never noticed that. I removed the $20M figure, as it was unsourced. The citation that followed it did not have a budget listed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC) edit: I guess I should have clicked on the source in the infobox before thinking this was resolved, as it turns out that the budget in the infobox was wrong; the source says $20M, not $30M. An IP editor changed it in this edit. Well, I really fixed it this time. I guess someone could put the $20M figure back in the box office section if they wanted. I don't think it's absolutely necessary to say what the budget was when it's already in the infobox. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Lambton[edit]

Moved here because it's not actually relevant. Nevertheless there might be a home for it somewhere.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Bank Job. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gross factual inaccuracy in the lead[edit]

The opening of this article confuses fiction & fact, the whole d-notice&royal&mi5 thing was made up for the film. Dubious phrasing & being intentionally unclear wrt starting to talk about 'based on a true story' then blurring into sensationalist fiction was a staple of the films advertising, but that shouldn't be on wikipedia. 92.3.155.60 (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Bank_Job&oldid=1205699465"