Talk:The Departed/Archive 1

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

Mark Wahlberg's Character

Shouldn't Mark Wahlberg be listed as a supporting character? While his character was important, he doesn't fall into the same category as Costello, Costigan, and Sullivan. There are also characters such as Queenan and Madden that are more important than Dignum. It's also important to note that Mark Wahlberg was nominated for an Academy Award as a Supporting Actor, not a Lead Actor. I don't know how to change the page since it involves a table, so I didn't edit the article at all. If anyone how to move Mark Wahlberg from the Lead Actor Table to the Supporting Actor Table under the Cast section, it would be much appprectiated. Cycleboy78 01:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to add on to what I said, I don't think Mark Wahlberg should be listed as a lead actor in the intro either. Cycleboy78 01:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. IrishGuy talk 01:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
ThankyouCycleboy78 01:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem. :) IrishGuy talk 02:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A bit of interesting trivia that I can't add myself

Jack Nicholson was allowed to improvise many of his scenes in order to keep the fearful presence of his character fresh. One example is when he pulls a gun on Billy Costigan - Leonardo DiCaprio's surprised reaction is genuine.

Directly copy/pasted from IMDB. Classy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.71.154.183 (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

I deleted a bit trivia put in the summary, with bad formatting and source IMDB, BTW --189.156.135.212 15:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Homosexual Characters?

Many fans of “The Departed” believe that William Monahan’s script hints that Colin (Damon) was a closeted homosexual and Costello (Nicholson) may have been sexually involved with him. Here are some reasons:

1.) Very early in the film, Colin repeatedly calls a group of firefighters “Homo’s” after a game of rugby. Long after the game ends, while drinking a beer with his friend on a bench, it appears to be weighing on Colin’s mind. He than snaps and says, “Those firefighters are a bunch of homo’s.” This may indicate that Colin is insecure with his sexuality.

2.) The morning after Colin and Madolyn’s first sexual experience, while in the kitchen, Madolyn asks Colin if he wants to talk about last night? He avoids the subject and runs off. This may hint that Colin wasn’t able to “get it up” the night before.

3.) Towards the end when Billy tells Colin he wants his identity back during a phone conversation, Billy calls Colin a “two faced faggot,” which seems to really anger Colin.

4.) A conversation between Costello and his girlfriend seems to hint that Costello was having same sex relations, possibly with Colin. While sitting on his couch, Costello says, “sweetheart you’re giving me a hard on” to which his girlfriend replies, “Are you sure it’s me or all that talk about whiffing and crawling up asses…” Costello abruptly interrupts her with “you watch your fucking mouth!” She replies with “Let me straighten you out.”

5.) During the showdown scene, before Colin kills Costello, Colin asks if he gave him up to the FBI? Costello replies, “I’d never give you up, you’re like a…” Colin interrupts with “…a son? Like a son? Is that what this is about?” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.8.171 (talk • contribs)

Hello there mate! I would like to remind you to sign your posts. As interesting as it can be, words such as "It may" "it hints towards" and "seems to" are not enough to put such claims in the page, specially if there has been no word about that from Monahan himself.
1.- It is rather common (altough definitely not right) to call things or people that piss you off "gay"
2.- Well, I actually tought the same thing on this one.
3.- If someone calls you 'faggot' you get mad. Furthermore if you know he has evidence that can ruin your life and career, you get even angrier. No big mistery.
4- That's just Gwen messing with Frank, as she does in pretty much all of her scenes.
5.- Said scene might actually hint towards Costello being sterile and somewhat frustrated by it rather than any kind of homosexual relation.
These are my toughts. Vicius 03:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Vicius. Cops call firemen homos because as a rule cops don't like firemen. There's no deeper meaning to it. --CliffC 05:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Every time I watch this film, it strengthens my belief that Sullivan is a homosexual. It's really too bad there are no sources to cite, so it could be mentioned in the article. 134.29.6.7 (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong plot summary

The current plot summary says: "Years pass and Sullivan (Matt Damon) is in training for the Massachusetts State Police. His classmates include Barrigan (James Badge Dale), Brown (Anthony Anderson) and Billy Costigan (Leonardo Dicaprio)."

While the film does some clever editing, they are in fact never shown as classmates... Matt Damon andJames Badge Dale characters are indeed class mates, and Anthony Anderson and Leonardo Dicaprio are classmates as well, but not all the 4 of them. Also in the film Matt asks Antonhy's character where does he know Leo's char from, and he tells him he was his classmate.

What Website is this?

The long digressions into analysing the so-called "themes" of the movie, including a completely ludicrous examination of the colour purple and the fact that it is created by mixing blue and red --- it's complete crap. Totally not cited, not factual, and nowhere encyclopedic. This isn't meant to read like a first-year university essay, it's an objective reportation of facts. I move for the immediate deletion of all the uncited and flagrantly subjective content.

I totally agree. I was reading through that entire section, and by the time I got to the colors, I was shaking my head. I also vote for deleting it, as whoever wrote that seems to have made that entire section up themselves. --ARSmith 23:35, 21 February 2007
Well, that's the good thing about a Wiki... things are determined by consensus. I too think the color section was absurd, so I just went ahead and removed it. I trust this addresses your concerns. – Lantoka (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The whole article needs work it's awful as of now. The whole thing is rife with OR and unsourced personal summary/interpretation. Quadzilla99 21:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Removed

I removed this bit of trivia:

Martin Sheen's character, Queenan, mentions that his son went to Notre Dame. This is a reference to his role as Notre Dame alumnus, President Bartlet, on NBC's The West Wing.

Because without a citation to back this up, I find it extremely unlikely that this was made as a reference to Sheens other work. Scorsese is not the type of director who would do such things, in my opinion. If, however, a source exists to backup this claim, simply put it back and cite it. -- Ubergenius 17:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Uber.--MonkBirdDuke 02:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Did it occur to anyone that maybe Queenan's son goes to Notre Dame because... drum roll please... Notre Dame's Irish Catholic and so is Queenan's family?

this bit of the trivia:

Martin Sheen's character is credited on IMDb as "Oliver Queenan" however in the scene where Costello and Queenan share screen time, he refers to him as "Charlie". This may have to do with Nicholson being allowed to improvise on set. Oliver Queenan may be a reference to DC superhero Green Arrow whose secret identity is Oliver Queen.

"Charlie" Is a Irish slang Meaning a Fool.

I took out this trivia:

The adult theater where Frank Costello met Sullivan to give him the envelope containing information regarding the 'Rat', seems very similiar to the adult theater from Scorsese's earlier film Taxi Driver.

As it was already mentioned in the "Homages" section, with a better explanation at that. 72.71.130.21 05:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

When confronted in the warehouse by Costello's crew, Queenan is asked, "where's your boy?" and his reponse is, "studying law at Notre Dame." That is where the reference to his son at Notre Dame comes from. 76.188.207.100 00:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Berney Montavon

Plot Needs Work

Sadly, I cannot do this now (while I wish I could be a more dedicated wiki-worker, I also have a full-time job I must attend to right now), but the plot really needs work. What exists now is much more of a broad synopsis or a script for an advertisement than a plot description. It needs to be expanded to fit the plot descriptions of other wiki pages of other movies. I will do this as much as I can, but help would be appreciated. -- Ubergenius 13:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I also feel the plot is unacceptably short. Most new articles, espescially those about movies have been this way for quite some time now.


The plot is also incorrect. After the police announce that the man dumped in the marsh was an undercover police detective, Costello DOES take the bait.

I like having a detailed plot summary, but this summary makes the plot sound even more complicated than it is. Here's an example of how unrelated things are weaved together in an incoherent way: "When it becomes obvious that tip-offs are going in both directions, Costigan panics; Sullivan, who has just moved into his condo with Madolyn, asks Costello for the social security data of his crew in order to search for cops in police records. At the same time, Costigan discovers that Costello is an informant for the FBI around the time he has sex with Madolyn."

I rewrote the plot section, which was pretty good for the first few paragraphs but then became too sloppy towards the end. This should suffice for now, since I've seen the film three times. Nqnpipnr 13:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


You're all wrong; as it stands right now, the plot is WAAAAY too long, violating Wikipedia standards and potentially various copyright laws. The plot should be broad and a quick read, it absolutely should NOT be a detailed description of everything that happened in the movie. I'm sure it will be edited way down once the excitement about the movie dies down.

What?

Is this really necessary? (From Trivia)

Intended or not, the title "Departed" begins with prefix 'de' and ends with suffix 'ed', which signals symmetry of the word. When the middle word 'part' is flipped, it shows the word 'trap', arguably one of the themes of the movie.

I mean, you could speculate on meanings of words in artistic productions like movies and paintings, but unless you have material to backup those speculations, couldn't this be construed as original research?

I'll remove it in a day or so if no one responds with an argument for it to stay. -- Ubergenius 15:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thedeparted.net has been linked on this wiki page since August (moderator approved it). Thedeparted.net is a fansite filled with valuable content. Why was this site removed suddenly? Please advise.

Hello, Mushroom told me to post my proposal with regard to thedeparted.net remaining as an external link on The Departed wiki page. thedeparted.net has been linked since August 2006. The site consists of movie photos, clips, and info related to the Martin Scorsese film, the Departed. There is also an active message board with threads relating to the film. Please allow this link to remain at wiki. Thank you.

Rotten Tomatoes

The article says it is the highest rated movie of 2006 on RottenTomatoes. "The Queen" (2006) has 98% and is in wide release. Other movies such as Wordplay and Little Miss Sunshine have higher ratings.RT Top Movies of 2006. An Inconvenient Truth and Darwin's Nightmare have the same rating.--Fmaack 05:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


Boston and Greater Boston

The article said, Both Matt Damon and Mark Wahlberg are returning to their hometown of Boston, Massachusetts in this film. But actually Damon and Wahlberg are not born in Boston per se; Damon in Cambridge and Wahlberg in Dorchester. (The latter didn't include in Greater Boston, but Wahlberg might have lived in Boston anyway.) Better list them as from Greater Boston but I am not sure what to do... Samuel Curtis 03:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Dorchester is part of Boston proper, its just one of the neighborhoods. Most people from Greater Boston generally identify themselves as being "from Boston", so it is not a stretch to say both of these guys are returning to their hometown. Hiberniantears 13:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Those guys try to make it sound like they're from Southey, but they're really from the suburbs.


In response to the above statement: You're an idiot if you're also referring to Wahlberg as being from the suburbs. Dorchester is directly next to South Boston and is part of the city of Boston itself. Dorchester is far from the suburbs, slick. Why don't you come on down here and check it out.

Plus, Dorchester is no picnic. I'm not from there, but I know through various news reports and direct interaction with friends who have lived there that it is a rough part of Boston, and you made it sound like he was living in the smooth suburbs. Furthermore, being from Boston, people definately identify Cambridge as part of Boston, whether it really is or isnt'. -- Ubergenius 13:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Dorchester is a huge area, probably the biggest neighborhood in Boston. There are sketchy parts, but it's not exactly Hell's Kitchen or Harlem. Get over yourself. MonkBirdDuke 08:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
no, but neither is southey
It's Southie, not Southey. Dorchester can occasionally be okay but it does contain some of the worst areas in Boston (Blue Hill Ave. anyone?) and is certainly not a suburb. If that's a suburb then everything else would have to be too, i.e. Roxbury, Charlestown, Somerville or JP. Most of Boston has been gentrified at this point anyway --even parts of "Southey" so arguing about it is kind of pointless.

Just want to point out that in the Boston section there is a claim that the building roof that Martin Sheen's character is thrown from is in the North End. This is incorrect. Although I can't vouch for the roof the building shown is in the Fort Port Channel area of Boston. In the movie they refer to it as Washington Street "Wash" but it's the alley off Farnsworth Street. I work in the area and walked by the film crew quite often while they were filming. But even if you go by the address in the movie Washington Street runs through the Back Bay and South End. Perhaps this should be fixed?

Poster

The WB has released a poster for The Departed. I would try to add it myself, but I'm afraid I'll mess up or do something Wiki-illegal. lol But someone who is good at such things should add it. Gunslinger 02:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's done. --Erik 02:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It reminds me a lot of that film about the two Cantonese guys, one was a cop the other a Triad.

It's a remake, genius. MonkBirdDuke 07:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The name of the film you are thinking of is Infernal Affairs directed by Andy Lau. I've added this to the article, if you will permit, so you can check out the references yourself. abdullahazzam

The Infernal Affairs was not directed by Andy Lau, he was one of the two lead actors in the film. 14 October 2006

"Penis"

"The Departed is set in the penis of South Boston..." Is this some usage of "penis" that I am unaware of? What is this describing? Disclaimer: I'm not familiar with Boston. Fishyfred 04:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeah, "Penis" is an official district in South Boston. What are you, retarded? MonkBirdDuke 07:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Be civil, MonkBirdDuke.--Cúchullain t/c 06:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
So what is 'Penis' here? Charles.2345 00:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
It was vandalism. CPitt76 02:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Penis is similar to "panhandle." That's why you so often hear people talking about being from the "penis" of Texas, the "penis" of Florida. etc. "Ballsack," however, is not a geographic term and can almost always be considered vandalism. StrangeAttractor 07:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

hahahahahahahahahahha, oh my god i've never laughed so hard

rofl, that was hilarious. DurotarLord 22:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats real mature

"Queenan"

In certain scenes in the police offices, such as after Sheen's character's death, I noticed a cardboard file box on which was writted in black marker Cuineain or Cuinan. I believe that this is the name of Queenan's character, although I can't find any support for this online. Did anyone else notice this? Mang 06:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that Cuinan is the correct spelling of Queenan, or that Cuinan is his first name? Either way, no. It's Oliver Queenan. CPitt76 01:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Cuineain/Cuinan is probably the original Irish Gaelic spelling of the name, while Queenan is the anglicized version. I'm not positive, as I've never run across the name, but I do know that a name spelled that way in Irish would be pronounced, more or less, the same as "Queenan". Mukake 23:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, much like the name Ciarnan is pronounced like Keernan. But I haven't seen any reference to Queenan with that spelling (for the movie) that we can add to the article. CPitt76 00:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
When I saw the movie, I noticed the name (spelled with a C) written on the side of a white cardboard box. If anyone who is going to see this movie soon also notices it, please respond. I'll guess that whoever was taking care of props wasn't talking to whoever was in charge of characters' names.Mang 07:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I remember the scene you're talking about because I just saw it again. The box clearly says "Queenan Homicide." MonkBirdDuke 08:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Seen it twice now. Great movie. In the scene where Damon and Wahlberg stand outside Queenan's office and Wahlberg makes a comment about "there's no promotion in it for you" (about 2/3rd of the way through the movie), you can clearly see Queenan's name on the name plate. I'm positive it's spelled Queenan. -- andrewd18
And in the cast list at the end of the fim, its Queenan. And in the official website. -- Beardo 06:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

edit help

there's a line right above external links at the bottom of trivia that says "holy jesus christ above this is a good movie." but when i went to edit it out i couldn't find it. What's the deal? if anyone knows how to fix this sort of them please do so (it was a good movie but that's not the sort of thing that needs to be in its entry) also please tell me what I'm doing wrong/why i can't find it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coffeetable (talk • contribs) 02:23, 8 October 2006.

That particular line was added and then removed within 30 minutes. It sounds like it was removed during the time you were reading the page before you went to edit it. --Mrwojo 22:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

DeNiro

Sites such as IMDB suggest that DeNiro was slated to play Queenan, NOT Costello.

DeNiro couldn't have played Queenan because can't really pass for an Irishman. Just look at what a lame Irishman he was in "GoodFellas".
The dumbest statements are always unsigned. I would hardly call anything about his performance in Goodfellas "lame". But the biggest hole in your argument is that DeNiro IS Irish. He has an Italian last name because his father's half-Italian, but he's more Irish than Italian. Cris Varengo 21:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

DeNiro isn't more Irish. His father is full-blooded Italian. He's half.

And where do you get your information from other than the fact that you seem to think you know everything when you clearly don't? I check my facts before i say things, which is why I'm not afraid to sign my statements. One mistake I did make was saying he is more Irish than Italian when in fact he is equally both, as his mother is neither (she is of French, Dutch, and German ancestry). But his father is NOT full-blooded Italian, he is half Irish, which you could easily look up right here on Wikipedia under both Robert De Niro and Robert De Niro, Sr., as well as IMDb's biography of De Niro and any number of other books and websites. Cris Varengo 19:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Reactions

"Andrew Lau, the co-director of the original movie...prefers the original. He is one of the few people to think this. IMDb, rottentomatoes and almost every other movie site prefers "The Departed" to "Infernal Affairs"."

Isn't it pretty obvious that the director of the original film would prefer his own version to the remake? I don't think his opinion should be compared with the critics and moviegoers'. MrBlondNYC 05:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

At the end of the reactions section it mentions Lau by his last name only. It's ambiguous to whether or not the comment should be attributed to Andy Lau or Andrew Lau...both affliated with the film and mentioned in the section, but not the same person. Whoever added it, please clarify. --MonkBirdDuke 02:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


Not exactly. Just because someone has worked on a film, it doesn't mean that they talk praisingly about it. Edward Norton was locked into a multi-picture deal with Paramount a few years ago, and to meet his end of the contract, he unwillingly appeared in The Italian Job remake. He didn't have much good to say about the film during press conferences and interviews.

Also, that was a POV edit from an anonymous vandal. He added his personal commentary to the original statement.

--Madchester 01:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This statement, added recently to the Reactions section:

However, responses from Asian audience especially those who watched Infernal Affairs before are generally negative. Some thinks the movie fails to adapt the story to conform to American culture completely.

... carried a footnote to an internet website in which some individual poster reviewed the movie. Being a self-published source, it is not a proper fact citation, so I removed the footnote and replaced it with citation needed. If no reliable source can be found to back up the statement, it should be removed. Larry Dunn 19:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Plot

How about a longer, more detailed plot synopsis. This film isn’t simple, with its many twists and deceptions by characters. The plot entry on X-Men 3's wiki page is TWICE as long! Absence 18:18, 12 October 2006

Differences from Original

I added a section highlighting some of the differences in the Departed from the previous film. I also restructured the page a little so it's easier to read. Anyone have any other suggestions?


Um... there are spoilers in this section too. Shouldn't the spoiler alert be extended??

Random

Just wanted to poke in one last comment to remark on how realistic the violence in this film was! I was quite surprised! Blood spatter was dead on, and not exaggerated beyond reality...


I finnd it necessary to talk about Matt Damon's ED problem. A lot of people I noticed assumed that he was gay or that he just had some intimacy problems. Truthfully I think that it had something to do with him being molested as a child by Priests. Not only was he shown as an alter boy in the beginning of the movie, Jack Nicholsan's character also chews out those Priests in the restaurant and obviously he would have some harsh feelings towards them if they molested a guy he was close to.Gimmokely 23:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

General copyediting and some stylistic revisions

I did some general copyediting to improve grammar and style, and after some attempts to edit it, removed the "reactions" section, which doesn't actually have much to say and is not encyclopedic. Those quotes might have more relevance on the actor's wikipedia pages, if even there. I also removed the online review references (Rotten Tomatoes, etc.) because these are only relevant for the moment (to the extent they are relevant even now).Larry Dunn 20:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Differences between film and Infernal Affairs

Is this section really necessary? It seems more a thing for the fans of Infernal Affairs. In the meantime, I pared it down a little and tried to improve the language a bit, but why is it relevant? It doesn't say anything about this movie. Larry Dunn 20:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought such a section might be helpful in fleshing out the article. If you don't believe so, then go ahead and trash it. You've already cut out about half the information. --MonkBirdDuke 01:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to denigrate your work, I'm just not sure that comparing a movie to other movies is really strictly topical. I know it's a remake, but still, it's kind of like comparing the Godfather to Goodfellas on the Goodfellas page.
For now, though, why don't I wait to see if anyone else weighs in before taking it out.Larry Dunn 02:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Uh...the Godfather and the Goodfellas weren't the same story. That's a nonsensical comparison.--MonkBirdDuke 07:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Goodfellas wasn't a remake of Godfather. What does that mean? But I am pissed the hell off that no freaking SPOILER warning is put in that section. Thanks for telling us who dies and the surprise twists! MrBlondNYC 21:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I did say "I know it's a remake." But the fact is, despite that, these are two separate movies -- two separate articles. Is it encyclopedic to write about a movie by comparing it to another movie (even if it is a remake?)
For a good example, look at the page for Cape Fear (1991 film), the remake of the classic movie. That's even more of a straight remake than The Departed is, but there's no comparison to the original movie, and with good reason. All you need to know is that it's a remake. What is the point of discussing the differences? Does it tell you anything about The Departed as a movie? Not really.Larry Dunn 02:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, trash it, if you will. MonkBirdDuke 02:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Apparently I'm not allowed to edit articles by removing content. When I do it, it's "vandalism" or "bad faith editing." It's got me totally confused, frankly.Larry Dunn 02:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it's good to have such a section. The two movies are at least 80% the same in terms of the plot and the characters. For remakes, or movies made from novels, often there are pieces of information left out from the original version. Wouldn't the fans of "The Departed" want to know more about the original film?
As an example: The Ring (2002 film) also has a section that describes the diff between itself and the japanese version z3u2 02:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
If fans of the The Departed want to know more about the original movie, they can visit its article. Comparing two movies in one of their articles really doesn't tell you anything about the movie in and of itself. Despite the fact that one is a remake of the other, at the end of the day they are two separate movies, each standing alone.Larry Dunn 03:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not think people can know the differences simply by viewing Infernal Affairs, other than the obvious differences in characters' names, location, and culture background. I think it's good to show the key differences between a remake and original. Knowing what's added/deleted, would certainly help fans to understand more about this film.
If people do not agree on keeping this section, I still think there's a few interesting points that can be moved to "The trivia" instead of removing them entirely. For example, Morse Code was used in Infernal Affairs, where in The Departed Dicaprio used cellphone text messages to communicate with Queenan z3u2 03:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
If there's a difference between the two movies that you cannot tell by looking at the Departed and Infernal Affairs articles, my suggestion would be that it's not a difference that particularly matters. Again, the question is, why are these differences relevant to the Departed page? Equally, why is the Reactions section at all relevant? Two people involved with the Infernal Affairs project weigh in on The Departed -- why does it matter?
Well, why is the article relevant at all then if you're going to remove all the information from it?
These comparions seem POV to me as fans of the original will want to highlight that original on the page of the remake. The Cape Fear (1991 film) page handles the remake status of that movie in a much more measured manner -- to my reading this page isn't very encyclopedic.
By the way, welome to wikipedia -- I just noticed that these comments are the very first thing you've posted. :-> Larry Dunn 12:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Many articles contain comparisons between the original source and the recent film adaptation. For example:

etc.

However, the section could be better integrated into the flow of the article. A simple point-by-point comparison would violate WP:NOT namely, its provision on indiscriminate information. --Madchester 04:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Of those articles, only the Magnificent Seven page has a section on camparison, and it is written more as a comparison and less as a complaint. The other pages have only minor references to some differences.
And consider that the comparison page dominates the article (along with the trivia section) -- it's longer than the plot section. Again, this seems to suggest a POV bias -- the Departed page at this point is all about how it's not Infernal Affairs. Not very encyclopedic. The Magnificent Seven comparison is more appropriate there because the article is very in-depth.Larry Dunn 12:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you are right that some of the differences shown are not really relevant to the film. However there are still few key differences that, in my opinion, are encyclopedic and are not POV. One notable difference is the combined character of "Dr. Lee Sum Yee" and "Mary" from Infernal Affairs I into "Madolyn" in The Departed.
Information not relevent to The Departed, includes "In The Departed, two people, Queenan and Dignam, knew of Costigan's identity the entire film. In the original, Wong Chi Shing's was only character knew who he was (the only other person who knew of his identity was deceased shortly after the movie started)."
I do not think every points currently displayed are all relevant, but I do think the section "The difference between the two movies" is impportant and encyclopedic
z3u2 06:09, 16 October 2006 [UTC]
I don't recall whether the major film encyclopedias have such sections. Anyone know? I might drop by a local book store and page through some of the top movie encyclopedias.Larry Dunn 13:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I came by the page specifically looking to see if it had a section about the differences between The Departed and Infernal Affairs. Is that a measure of relevance? Intelligence3 03:32, 16 October 2006 [UTC]

I think it's definitely a relevant question. IMO there's definitely a place for that kind of discussion, like a fan page for Departed or Infernal Affairs. There are lots of things I look up on the internet that I would not check an encyclopedia for, because the information I'm looking for is not encyclopedic.Larry Dunn 13:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, seems like we have different understandings of "encyclopedic" (and, likely, differing interpretations of What Wikipedia is not). That seems to come up around here from time to time. :) Intelligence3 15:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
surely this section is of some value. just put it to a vote. Chensiyuan 15:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Personally when I was reading through the article for the first time I found the entire section to be rather annoying because it wasnt really about The Departed as much as it was about Infernal Affairs. Maybe their should be a stub section for the differences between the two rather than just placing it in one of the articles and just link to it from both articles. That way it doesnt disrupt the article but it is still available to those who are looking for the information. I do agree with Larry Dunn though I think it is really irellevant to the entire article and does not flow with the article either.--LocalBandAid02 13:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Arguably it could have a place on this page once the article is long enough to support it, but as it is, it's the tail wagging the dog. Again, I don't think it was "vandalism" or "bad faith" at all for me to remove the Reactions section, as another user averred when he reverted my deletion, for much the same reason -- even more so, as what is the point of a section in this article on what two people in the original HK production think about this movie? As you say, the article is basically hijacked by Infernal Affairs by having such a prominent "differences" section, as well as the "Reactions" section. This gives the appearance that the page for The Departed is run by fans of the HK series, which I'm not saying is true, that's just the appearance. The comment at the top of this discussion page really does sum up what's happening here, IMO.Larry Dunn 14:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

IMDB Rating below the film image

Is this really a good place to put the rating? Below the film image, above the "Directed by...Produced by..." section? z3u2 03:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

no one thinks it's wierd to put the rating at that section? I think it should be removed because
1. that section should contain facts (actors, producers, release dates, directors etc)
2. why use rottontomato's rating but not any other websites rating? to be fair it should either be A. post as many scores from different websites or B. no ratings posted at all.
3. this is wikipedia, not movie review website. In my opinion such ratings(avg score from one single website) should not be included.
Z3u2 01:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

character played by Vera Farmiga

Both Sammi Cheng in Infernal Affairs I and Carina Lau in Infernal Affairs II called Mary, however, they are different roles.

Vera Farmiga's character in TB is only combination of Kelly Chen and Sammi Cheng's characters in IA. 198.155.145.86 03:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Frank Costello in Trivia section

I think this parallel between the gangster Frank Costello and the character should be removed... on the grounds that the real-person, gangster Frank Costello's real name was "Francesco"...and the character in the film's name is "Francis." He is referred to this way by both Captain Queenan and a priest in a restaurant. I think this probably removes any suspicion that there is a link between the two.--MonkBirdDuke 08:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

and mr. french
Couldn't Francis just be a shortened form of Francesco???--E tac 17:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposing a split for "Differences between The Departed and Infernal Affairs"

I believe that section is getting larger and larger because there were too many differences between The Departed and Infernal Affairs trilogy. I was hoping it could have its own spinoff; but I'm afraid that you many would disapprove, leading to removing a split tag. --Gh87 01:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I already said this but I will say this again. I agree I think it needs its own stub or spin off. :-D --LocalBandAid02 14:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Definitely, and the Reactions section should be folded into that new spin-off.Larry Dunn 14:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
There are tons of movies out there (and more to come, it seems) that are either a remake of another movie, or an adaptation of a novel, comic book, etc. Inevitably there will be differences between the original version and the adaptation. Should we make a "differences between [the original] and [the adaptation]" article for every movie that's an adaption of another work? To me, this section, whether as a part of The Departed or as a stand-alone article, seems superfluous. My preference would be to trim it down to just the most significant differences and keep it as a section of The Departed. - Walkiped 17:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Just curious, Walkiped. Have you seen either of these movies? --Gh87 17:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. - Walkiped 17:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, too much of that section. If it becomes the majority of the article then it needs its own home. The purpose of the article is to pay attention to this movie, not the first one. And visa versa. When I look up a movie I want to know about the movie, not apples and oranges. J-Dog 18:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I originally created the "Differences" section, and I think that it's grown out of control. I just meant it to be a quick overview of major plot differences. References to which word is on the envelope is rather inconsequential. I don't think that it's notable enough to warrant it's own article, but some of the smaller points of the section should be taken out so it doesn't dominate the article.--MonkBirdDuke 03:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Oops, I did the "word on envelope" thing because I thought it's well-referenced, but I guess you figured I made a mistake there. Can I take that out? --Gh87 04:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it's not your fault; I'm sure you didn't intend to create a monster. Sometimes principles wither and die in the face of personalities, that's all. You added some cool stuff, then some people made it ridiculous. Now we just need to figure out what deserves to be here and what doesn't. J-Dog 04:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that the Reactions section be moved as well, to the same page as Differences. So I'd like to tag it for splitting. Anyone object? If not, I will tag it.Larry Dunn 17:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Larry, I think the way it is right now is ok. Since the plot section has been expanded it doesn't dominate the article like it used to. It is useful information, but it does not warrant its own article. Do you have any objection with the way it is now? --MonkBirdDuke 07:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Right now, that section doesn't dominate the article anymore. Can I remove the "split" tag? -Gh87 07:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with removing the split tag at this time.--MonkBirdDuke 08:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
agree the same Chensiyuan 10:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It's official: the tag is removed. The end! --Gh87 10:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it official? This all seems to have been done within two or three hours over a weekend. It's great that the article's plot section has been expanded, and it does make the differences section less intrusive on the article's narrative, but IMO it (and especially the Reactions section) don't belong in this article, because comparing the two movies is a different subject.
If it is going to be done at all, it should be pared down, and read more like the comparison in The Magnificent Seven. The differences in this article are pretty minor, really, and only of interest to fans of the HK series. Which leads me back to my original issue -- that this section has the appearance of being the work of fans of the other movie -- so if it belongs anywhere, it belongs there, in Infernal Affairs. Thoughts?Larry Dunn 16:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
You just keep regurgitating the same argument over and over, Larry. It's getting tiresome. --MonkBirdDuke 05:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The section seems to have been removed -- I haven't checked to see who took it out. The Reactions section now has more content which has nothing to do with the remake status, making it read better.Larry Dunn 19:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"some years ago" vs. "some 30 years ago"

The IP address claimed that the film began "some 30 years ago" in the "Plot" section. However, I watched the movie, and there was a scene that said "some years ago". I can't figure out how to deal with this matter myself. (Click here for article's history log) --Gh87 04:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Jack Nicholson says "This ain't reality TV, kid" or something to that effect. That makes me think it was more late 90s than 70s. Or maybe I'm just completely missing something. Any thoughts?Wikivarun 04:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I have a thought. This is supposed to be related to this matter I posted above. Well, you didn't do anything wrong, just to let you know that you should move your "supposed" reply into a new message for avoiding confusion, that's all. As for what you said, I watched the movie, and I think I remember him saying that. --Gh87 05:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
In the beginning, there is a flashback that begins with "Boston, Some Years Ago"...the rest of the movie is present day.--MonkBirdDuke 07:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The movie starts off in the 80s if anybody doubts it in the first scene a mid 80s Grand Marquis can be seen parked in front of the shop and Costello refers to JFK as passed 20 years ago, I don't remember the exact line.
The exact line is, "20 years after an Irishman couldn't get a fucking job, we had the Presidency, may he rest in peace." referring to the treatment of the Irish immigrants 20 years BEFORE Kennedy (1940, 20 years before Kennedy was elected), not referring to 20 years after his passing (1983). - Paco
Also, the comic Costello puts in Colin's bag is a Wolverine comic, which started its run around 1982ish.
The exact comic is Wolverine #11, from early September 1989. This is probably the most accurate gauge of when "Some years ago" is supposed to be, since there are thousands upon thousands of comic books that could have been used in that scene with any date Scorcese wanted. - Paco
I think that's a production error or a subtle joke. The references to bussing, the style of dress and automobiles, and the age of Billy in the present time vs. the remembered time make it clear that "some time ago" is the 1970s. —StrangeAttractor 14:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Alec Baldwin's character mentions the PATRIOT Act while monitoring the microprocessor deal


the beginning of the movie is busing and is in the 70s, the rest is the 90s 24.218.194.184 00:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, it's understandable, there's a lot going on in this movie, and it's hard to notice every detail, but the main action definitely, DEFINITELY, takes place in the present day, not the 90's. First of all, when Leo's character first meets up with his cousin, he's coming back from a funeral, and the card says the guy passed away in September 2006. Secondly, the prevelance and the style of the cell phones is a dead giveaway. From the ring tones, to the color displays, to the size and style, as well as the proliferation, these are clearly present-day cell phones not 90's cell phones (plus not many people used text messaging in the 90's). Also the computers (hello, flat screen monitors, dead giveaway). But the bottom line is that card from the funeral clearly says September 2006. Plus, as someone pointed out above, they mention the Patriot Act, another thing that didn't exist in the 90's. Cris Varengo 17:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The opening scene is in the mid '70s, but it cuts to the late 80s when Costello meets young Sullivan, as shown by the Wolverine comic, which was dated September 1989. Billy's relative's tombstone clearly says he died in Sept 2006, and Costigan's file says he was born around 1980/1984. If this took place in the 90s, Billy would still have been a teenager. Thus it takes place in the 2000s

"OK" vs. "Go ahead"

Check the article's history log and realize that I'm torn between which one is right and which is wrong. I watched the movie but forgot the dialogue. However, someone claimed the IP address vandalizes and reverted it. But I'm confused. --Gh87 06:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The Plot Section

To whoever expanded the plot section....Well done. It needed to be done, but I didn't want to do it. Thanks! --MonkBirdDuke 07:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It is an improvement, but I think it's a bit overly detailed. The blow-by-blow description tends to obscure the important parts of the plot, such as in the paragraph on Billy and Queenan's rooftop meeting. --Mrwojo 18:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with editor above. This section is meant to be a plot summary or synopsis, not a scene-by-scene explanation of the film. The section should really be no longer than 5 or 6 paragraphs. Review some featured film articles for details:

The plot summary from 2-3 weeks ago was fine. An additional paragraph would have sufficed for the section. --Madchester 21:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I've only seen it once, so I could be mistaken, but aside from being to detailed, isn't the current plot summary even wrong on one major point: it says that the guy who figured out Billy was the mole simply died before he had a chance to voice his doubts.
Um, no. It certainly seemed to me that he had plenty of opportunity to tell the other guys that it was Billy. He didn't do it cuz he was a cop too (as indicated by the news reports they all watch when his body was found). That was part of the whole symmetry of the movie. (Or at least so I thought.) While the viewer knows all along about the one rat each in the mob outfit and in the police, we don't know until late in the film that there is a second rat in each among the supporting characters we've been watching. The mob "second rat" at first saves Billy's live by not revealing him, and then the police "second rat" ultimately takes Billy's life.
Or did I totally misinterpret what I saw? 65.88.178.10 03:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm very sure that "that dead guy was NOT another mole from the police" and kind of sure the reason he didn't tell others was because he did not want to see Billy die, because of the relationships they've built. The reason Billy said that the dead guy was the rat, was because that was the only way he would not be suspected. That was how it went in the chinese version, and in 'the departed it looked no different to me.
Z3u2 04:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


The plot is still too long. Even with the recent edits it doesn't justify the removal of maintenance tags. --Madchester 03:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I checked the plot for spelling and grammar mistakes and reverted back the first sentence. The story begins "some years ago". In the second sentence, it is clarified that "twenty years pass", so no mistake can take place.ILorbb | Talk 13:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
so the plot still has a tag to shorten it is it still needed? I mean whose decision are we waiting on to say 'its ok' how much how many characters need to be removed to be 'ok' is it just a vague observatin by someone saying 'yea that looks right'? --Xiahou 03:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
One of the reasons why the plot summary is much longer than those of the films mentioned above is because the plot is so complex is this particular film. I'm not saying it shouldn't be tightened up, but it is far more complicated to explain the plot of this movie than, say, Blade Runner, or Casablanca. StrangeAttractor 14:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

IMDB rating removed

found a prevoius discussion from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/archive4#Infobox_IMDb_rating removed as it seems appropriate Z3u2 06:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Poster

I believe the poster featured at the top of the page should and currently is the one featuring photos of the stars within letters spelling the title. Most pages, if they have a poster all, have the official domestic poster and this is the official domestic poster. The one showing the three stars standing in a room is a foreign poster. Gunslinger, 14:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Themes

any reference to the contents? frankly, aside from point #1 and #2 everything else, in my opinion, either does not seem to be "a theme" or "not the theme of this movie"

and some points are quite ridiculous (no offense) for example: Costello takes on Billy as a second son. Because the tapes were delivered to Billy at the end, we see that Costello trusted Billy (the mole) more than anyone else. This phrase seems to imply Costello wrote in his death will to give the tapes to Billy. do we know how exactly did Billy obtain the tapes? I don't think it mentioned how in the movie. Billy may have found it on his own. He may have stole it. He may have got it from someone else, etc. Plus he's only been with Costello for a few months, there was no sign of Costello treating Billy as a son. If one wants to say that "Costello pretends to treat his men as a father-to-son relationship in order to gain the trust and loyalty from his men" then i may sort of agree. But saying Costello treats Colin as his first son and Billy as his second son is certainly pushing it. so, i think, unless there's verification, many points should not be there Z3u2 07:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Billy's been in with Costello well more than a year and maybe a few years, it's unclear how long exactly. In the middle of the film where Billy meets with Queenan and Dignam he says that he's been with Costello for a year. As for the tapes Billy tells Sullivan near the end that Costello's attorney gave the tapes to him. Billy didn't even know of their existence until he was contaced by the attorney. Billy goes on to tell Sullivan that Costello apparently trusted him (Billy) more than anyone else.

you r probably right, now that u mention is i remember that part as well. However I still think Saying Costello treated Billy like his son is wierd. Not to mention "did billy see Costello as his father??" I don't think so.
And, as tags suggested, the themes seemed to be just original research, anyone opposing of it being removed?
Z3u2 22:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Then delete it, if positively doesnt have reliable sources, then its gone damn it. Wikipedia is not a place for fancruft, and the popularity of the movie points out that this is going to be one fan ridden page.

I think there should be some sort of reference to the scene involving two of Costello's men "trying to figure out who's a cop" and the scene near the end, right before he is shot where Sullivan is on his way to his apartment. Both scenes show the characters trying to talk to people, or talk to their pets, but generally being ignored. It would seem that this reinforces the fact that Sullivan is on the same level as the two mobsters. tmopkisn tlka

Yeah, while much of the analysis in the "Themes" section was interesting, it didn't seem to be supported - ah, at all - by outside information. Is Wikipedia really the place for essay writing?

"remake" vs "borrow the general plot"

i modified the intro paragraph of "borrow the general plot" to "remake" because... it is a remake, and not just the general plot being incorporated into this movie, but many "scene by scene" or even "frame by frame" from the movie were the exact duplicate.Z3u2 22:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with using the word "remake." Something along the lines of "reimagination" would perhaps be more appropriate. But then again, I wouldn't call West Side Story a remake, either. It's another version of the same story, retold in another setting and culture. Maybe I'm being too picky, but that's just how I feel. Any thoughts? 134.29.6.7 15:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This film & the original

It is my opinion that the wiki should be just about the film "The Departed" and there is no real need to compare it with the original movie at every single step. I think the wiki would do better to remove the excessive references to the original movie and focus on the movie that actually stars Jack Nicholson. amiroby 15:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC) R. Ahmed

We would everything we can to prevent the original film from becoming the main focus of an article by discussions rather than making edits before discussions. But if you mean removing all references to the original film, then you'd be wrong. We'll keep some, such as character/cast comparisons, but we will make sure that the references to the original film does not steal the article's main attention. --Gh87 15:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

pictures in the cast section

theyre kind of off. can someone fix them? i tried to no avail. DrIdiot 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Who did the gangsters beat up?

Shortly after the criminal who was arrested is said to "call his mother and tell her he won't be home for dinner" by Damon and Costello's men burn some appartment in which they counted money, we see some of costello's men beating up some guy (Probably to death) with an iron pipe.

Is it the same criminal who warned them about the raid as Damon instructed him? Why did they beat him, then? 80.178.22.114 10:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not the same person, it was obviously someone higher up than the criminal Damon "interrogated." The sole purpose of this scene was to show the kind of work DiCaprio was doing, and what he had to put up with - just as the scene with the two men, one of which DiCaprio punches, does the same. tmopkisn tlka 08:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

During the elevator scene, the camera focuses on the lights in the sign turning to 4th floor. Because, "4" in Chinese and Japanese rhymes with "death", most buildings in China and Japan don't have a fourth floor, due to Tetraphobia. The 4th floor is thus not in the elevator sign in Infernal Affairs. In The Departed, Colin gives up and asks to be killed when the elevator passes the 4th floor.

"Most buildings in China and Japan?" This is a much-repeated fallacy, in my opinion. Although I can't speak for China, having never been there, I have lived in Japan for several years and NEVER been in a building lacking a fourth floor (but which has a 5th, etc). I live on the fourth floor of an apartment, take classes in the 4th floor of a university faculty building, etc. Hence it rather jumped out at me to see this here.


I didn't remove it however because I don't know about China.

Note, this is common in China, there are even some buildings in Vancouver, Canada that are like that.

Intro of Plot

The introduction of the plot section begins as follows: "The film begins "some time ago" in South Boston...". The film does start this way but it should also be mentioned following this statement that "some time ago" really means sometime in the 1970s as the film begins by making references to the desegregation busing which occurred in Boston during that period.--Jersey Devil 09:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I inserted words to that effect, but some tight-ass wikipedia scumbag deleted it! 172.167.95.110 11:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Fact Check

A couple of questions about facts in the article:


(an earlier scene implied that Sullivan may have been suffering from impotence)

What scene? He looked plenty sexually capable to me. They had several scenes where they were both horny and touching each other, and then they broke off to a post-coital scene. No indication of impotence from what I could tell. Although of course the paternity of the baby could still be in doubt, since the therapist had sex with both Costigan and Sullivan.
It is inferred in the "morning after" scene where Madolyn is peeling a banana and commenting that Sullivan should not be embarassed about the problem he had last night because it is common. Mikey47 09:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

He [Delahunt] dies and is buried by his mob associates.

Is there any evidence that he was buried? I got the impression that they just dumped him.
The crew is sitting around watching the news reports about his body being discovered, and Fitzy is upset that it was found so quickly since it took him a long time to bury the body in "three feet of mud". Mikey47 09:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

After a year, Costello plans to sell stolen missile-guidance microprocessors (which turn out to be fake)

I don't remember anything indicating they're fake. Am I missing something? – Lantoka (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Queenan asked about microprocessors when he and Dignam meet Costello on the wharf, and Costello admits to hearing about "Chinese busted at the border with a box of light sockets or something". Mikey47 09:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Alright, that answers all my questions. I guess I should watch the movie a couple more times. ; ) Thanks for the answers. – Lantoka (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Themes section

Would you guys be opposed to completely removing the themes section? In my opinion, it reeks of WP:OR and over-analysis, and doesn't really have a place in this article. What do you guys think? – Lantoka (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It reads like someone's sophomore psych-class term paper. Worthless.141.154.239.229 15:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Voice Over

Does anyone have any info on voice overs in the film?


why do u want to know? and what.


Catholic

Nothing about catholicism, like for example, that Martin Scorsese, Jack Nicholson, Mark Wahlberg, Martin Sheen, Alec Baldwin are catholic's or lapsed catholic's? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.82.239.94 (talk) 07:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

The Ukrainian actress is also Catholic. By the way what do you mean by lapsed Ctholics. How come I never hear about lapsed muslims?

Graffiti

Someone has put in some Costello/Sullivan slashfic graffiti into the article, particularly the summary of Costello's death and Sullivan's death. 63.229.196.62 06:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I purged a good portion of the slashfic graffiti, but I believe some remains and that the article needs to be restricted from new users for the time being. 63.229.196.62 06:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone just defaced the whole page

Hey, someone just ruined the page and put on a link to a myspace. I just put it back to last version but didnt press submit so it might have been someone else. It's a shame some people do that, though.

Request for edit protection

Someone should really put a protection on this page. There are more than 10 vandalism edits and reverts to this page within a single hour, and sure there are more coming. Q. Lockins 19:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There should be edit protection. I have tried to post on the page more than once but keep getting denied. The following should be added:

It is possible that the 2006 film was an influence on Cho-Seung Hui, the Virgina Tech shooter. The shooter's use of the word "rats" in his diatribe to describe wealthy people is possibly connected to the film's overarching theme of money hungry individuals rising to power in the world today. The movie uses the term "rats" alot. Frank Costello, one of the antagonists in the film, can be quoted as saying "a nation full of rats" early on in the movie, and there are many other references throughout the film to the term. The last scene of the film, is infact a rat crawling across a golden dome (symbolizing money) in the background of the shot. Although the film may well have influnced the thoughts of the V-Tech shooter, it is ignoranct and ridiculus to assume that the film played any part in the decisions made by a very troubled and psychotic individual. One cannot blame artists for the decisions made by psychotic individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.142.39.15 (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That is original research which isn't allowed. That is why it has been reverted. IrishGuy talk 17:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Original research

This whole page reeks of it particularly the entirely unsourced Homage section. Quadzilla99 21:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, the Themes section is rife with it too. What a poor article this is as of now. Quadzilla99 21:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

{{plot}} tag

Is there really a problem with the plot length? This film is pretty complex, and you need a lot of words to cover all the plot twists. The version of the plot from about a week ago was seriously lacking, and that was already over the recommended 900 words. (As it stands now, btw, it's 1500 words). – Lantoka (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The idea of the plot section is to summarize the movie within a paragraph or two - enough to grab the interest of the reader to go out and watch the movie. The plot section shouldn't be used to tell the entire story as if it was a mini novel or a school dissertation. That's really why there's a recommended length. Groink 10:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Well I dunno about you, but I come to Wikipedia movie article synopses after I've watched the movie in question. Oftentimes it is well-organized and detailed, and reading it will link everything together nicely. For this use, "excessive" length would not be a consideration... you'd use as many words as you needed to do this effectively. And in the case of The Departed, it's a lot of words, because it's a long movie with a complicated plot. Just my two cents though. – Lantoka (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's ridiculous. That plot summary is in no way too long. I'll edit it down a little bit and then remove the tag. Vidor 05:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
People keep trying to add details in. If this can be trimmed down to the bare length where someone not having seen the movie has the general idea, that's the best we can really get.--Loodog 15:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

TRIVIA!

I hate to shout but someone either needs to add spoiler tags to the trivia section or remove the bit about Matt Damon's body at the end of the film ASAP. I haven't seen the film and had no idea he died, so thanks whoever added that! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.188.208.240 (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for just telling me that just as I was about to see the movie.--Linkmasta 20:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

See what I mean? (comment about the plot section earlier) The plot section should be read BEFORE watching the movie - NOT to re-iterate the entire story after watching the movie. It is just ridiculous! Groink 03:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. The shorter Plot Summary could be at the top. I finished the movie and came back to wikipedia to find out specifics about the plot I might have missed Liore 14:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Brad Pitt, Oscar Winner?

Brad Pitt is listed as one of the three producers for the film "The Departed". and when a movie wins Best Picture at the Oscars that specific award is given to the producers of said film. so, since "The Departed" won, wouldn't/shouldn't Pitt be listed as an Academy Award winner for producing the film? there's no mention of it on his wikipedia page. i mean this as a legitimate question, b/c i honestly don't know. if any one could help clarify this, it would be helpful. thanks. Calric03 18:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't it just made by his production company? That's not the same thing as producing. 195.188.208.251 10:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"Errors" section

I went ahead and took the liberty of deleting a small section called "Errors". The only thing the section said was that the scene in which Costello gives the young Sullivan a Wolverine comic was wrong, as Wolverine did not appear in a comic until the 1980s. The writer of this section apparently thought that this scene took place during the 1970s, but it did not. I have a special edition of this movie on DVD (from Best Buy, I think) that includes the entire original script for the film in booklet form. According to this booklet, the scene takes place in 1985. This makes sense, considering the movie takes place in modern day, which means that, assuming Damon's character is the same age he is, he would have been about 14 years old in that scene.

Anyway, I went ahead and deleted it, as it appeared to be hastily written and factually wrong, and didn't seem to merit its own subheading anyway. ARSmith 22:48, 12 March 2007

I have to agree. It may be an obvious goof, but it's extraneous and belongs on IMDb. 68.149.27.46 05:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I just watched the film for the first time and was struck by that goof as well. The scene is obviously not in the 1970s, as you can see from the cars outside the shop, but even if it's 1985 that's still way too early for a Wolverine comic book. Wolverine didn't get his own comic book until at least 1987 or 1988. I agree with not having it in the article, since I don't really think Wikipedia is the place for listing film goofs, but it is a glaring mistake. Kafziel Talk 05:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I just removed the goof mention that is still (or was put back) in the trivia section. If it's gonna be in there it needs to be accurate, which anyone who's watched the movie should be able to deduce that what it said about the scene being before 1978 is not correct. Discuss here before adding anymore references to this possible (but I don't think so) goof. --luckymustard 19:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Real life counterpart/Influence by

any references to these names? Do we really need a column where most of it is filled up with N/A?? And with the names already there, who are Noltan Gianjurco and Det. Tom Duffy? I can't find their names on google. Z3u2 20:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

looks like the Real life counterpart/Influence by section keeps on getting changed. People continue to change the names without any references. If no ref comes up after a while, i suggest the column to be removed Z3u2 19:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
i've removed this part. Because 1. the names keeps on getting modified and 2. the characters in The Departed are based on the characters in Infernal_Affairs, it is incorrect to say that they are based on some other people. Z3u2 23:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Except many characters in this movie have real life counterparts that were incorporated into the script, including Whitey Bulger, upon whom Sullivan was based.--Loodog 23:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
James J. Bulger, John Connolly (FBI), it's all in there.--Loodog 23:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Lace Curtain" Irish

It states in the Boston section that "lace curtain" is used by working class Irish to disparage middle class Irish who've forgotten their roots. I've only ever heard this (here in Ireland) used in quite the opposite sense: scornfully by middle class Irish against the working class who hang lace curtains in their windows to disguise their poverty. Given the difference's in DiCaprio's and Wahlberg's characters, this makes sense in context as well. Will someone confirm and change this?

Not exactly scholarly, but urban dictionary says current usage is correct.--Loodog 15:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
In All Souls, Michael Patrick MacDonald (who grew up poor) usese the word to describe suburban Irish-Americans.Thedeparted123 19:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Rolling Stones

when the stones don't want any of there songs on soundtracks why is "let it loose" on the departed soundtrack?

Movie Mistakes

I removed the movie mistakes section as the only 'mistake' concerned a cellphone ringing for a received phone call minutes after it vibrated when a text message was received. This might not be a mistake as many newer cellphones allow its user to ring for an incoming call while vibrating for a message. Black Harry 15:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary overly long?

Plot summary is said as overly long. What about "The Lookout"

Deletion of some trivia

I deleted some trivia that is non-notable, that may be appropriately placed at IMDB or something instead. This list could go on and on, and I just deleted some. Ben Hur does not seem to be the first remake, since I heard somewhere the Mutiny on the Bounty was a remake of something. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 21:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Poor editing

Some wikipedia users are editing the trivia section without justifiable cause. Please, do not accuse a user of copyright violation without any proof. I suggest if someone cares about The Departed wiki entry so much, why not rewrite the summary instead of removing lots of useful hard to come by information about the films trivia. Trivia sections may be "discouraged" however they are not prohibited and many people appreciate the trivia section, even if an individual user does not. Please spend more time contributing information and less time deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathantillett (talk • contribs)

It is simply taken from IMDB. That is a copyright violation. You have been warned repeatedly. Should you revert again you will be blocked. IrishGuy talk 18:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"IMDb in turn does not allow others to use movie summaries or actor biographies without written permission." This is written in the wikipedia entry for IMDB under copyright issues and clearly indicates that only summaries and biographies are not to be copyed. Further more, the trivia section on IMDB merely resembles the trivia section as included by me in the wikipedia page, and is NOT copy and pasted. You are making a snap judgement without any credible reasoning. I did not post any material that was a violation of copyrights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathantillett (talk • contribs) 18:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the vast majority were word for word identical. The others were simply reworded in the most perfunctory way. Stop adding that information. You are violating policy. IrishGuy talk 18:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see a countryman put some order over here mate! Nathan, IrishGuy is right, rewording is not really enough for this, and in this case even violates policy. I would suggest you to read trough IMDB and write your own contributions from scratch. Please be aware, however, that IMDB tends to be wrong in many things, so I advise caution in using them as your source. Cheers!Vicius 03:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible Connection to V-Tech Shooter Cho Seung-Hui

It is possible that the 2006 film was an influence on Cho-Seung Hui, the Virgina Tech shooter. The shooter's use of the word "rats" in his diatribe to describe wealthy people is possibly connected to the film's overarching theme of money hungry individuals rising to power in the world today. The movie uses the term "rats" alot. Frank Costello, one of the antagonists in the film, can be quoted as saying "a nation full of rats" early on in the movie, and there are many other references throughout the film to the term. The last scene of the film, is infact a rat crawling across a golden dome (symbolizing money) in the background of the shot. Although the film may well have influnced the thoughts of the V-Tech shooter, it is ignorant and ridiculus to assume that the film played any part in the decisions made by a very troubled and psychotic individual. One cannot blame artists for the decisions made by psychotic individuals. --Eagletwl 03:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That is original research which isn't allowed. That is why it has been reverted. IrishGuy talk 17:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CostiganvsWahlberg.jpg

Image:CostiganvsWahlberg.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 02:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Joycean References?

I know they refer directly to Joyce at one point, but I noticed Wahlberg's character is named Dignam, also the name of the "departed" character in Ulysses whose funeral is visited in the "Hades" chapter. Also the name was chosen by Joyce, fond of double meanings as in Latin it's an inflected form of the word "dignus" meaning worthy, deserving, meritorious, deserved, suitable, fitting, becoming, proper, and we see the title of the film on a funeral card reading "heaven holds the faithful departed" (my emphasis -- although it should be noted Dignam is one of the only guys who actually lives...). 67.161.53.9 04:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The Last Scene

Following the funeral, Sullivan returns home to find Dignam waiting there, having been tipped off by Madolyn about his connection to Costello.

I don't recall that Dignam's sudden reappearance is explained at all. One could assume Madolyn tipped him off for lack of any other explanation, but it was never established that these two even knew each other. Having Dignam just BE there makes it all the more shocking, IMHO. Cranston Lamont (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed it. IrishGuy talk 21:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Remake vs. Adaptation

I changed the beginning paragraph to say that the film is an adaptation of Infernal Affairs, rather than a remake. If anyone agrees or disagrees with that decision, let's discuss it here. 134.29.6.7 (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's an American remake of Internal Affairs, much like The Ring and The Grudge. Don't you agree? — Enter Movie 16:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sullivan as "career criminal"

The second paragraph of the page has a very brief synopsis that calls Damon's character a "career criminal." I don't think the movie says or shows that that character ever earned a living through crime for any extended period of time. He is a career police officer- he is shown entering that career at the beginning of the film, and he presumably didn't have a career before that. Baldwin references Damon having a "clean record" at one point- so I would guess Damon hadn't been charged with a bunch of crimes or investigated in the past, as would be the case with a career criminal. It would be more accurate to say he had a lifetime association with criminals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.90.247 (talk) 11:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sequel page merged

Article merged: See old talk-page here

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Departed/Archive_1&oldid=1142779805"