Talk:The Departed/Archive 3

Plot is already over the maximum limit of WP:FILMPLOT

The word count of the Plot as of now [1] is already 706 words, which is over the 400–700 words set by WP:FILMPLOT. Do not add any more text to the Plot. If necessary, I recommend having this article semi- or full-protected, because it has been undergoing drive-by useless changes and additions on a near-daily basis for the past 1.5 years, and curating it has become a complete hassle. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

As can be seen on my talk page, I brought the word count to 698. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 07:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I hope you don't count piped words. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 07:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted to the version, which has 698 words, and still sufficiently explains Sullivan's background. The issue has been resolved between me and Binksternet on my talk page. By the way, Softlavender, your diff here actually has MORE words than mine. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 22:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Middle ground

I suggest we stop right here. This has 699 words and pretty much meets everyone's preferences in the middle. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Familes are always rising and falling in america

anyone reckon the Hawthorne quote with Dignam's unimpressed retort is a little inside joke at the fact that Mark Wahlberg is distantly related to Nathaniel Hawthorne? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.217.174.252 (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

If you can provide a reliable source for this claim, be our guest. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 03:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Why do we have two items cited to a 2015 Barack Obama podcast?

Why do we have two items cited to a 2015 podcast interview of Barack Obama by Marc Maron, neither of whom had anything whatsoever to do with the film?

50% of the 90 million dollar budget went to actor salaries. Former Boston Police Department detective Tom Duffy was a technical consultant on the film.

References

Nothing on the description of the podcast says the least thing about the film, or films period. I'm not about to listen to the one-hour interview. I'm going to probably remove this until such time as someone can adequately substantiate it. Softlavender (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

If you're not going to bother looking at the provided source, don't touch the material. I am reinstating this until you can actually say "I've listened and found nothing". The adding editor provided the WP:BURDEN. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 00:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The adding editor did not provide WP:Burden; no quotations are provided and neither participant in the interview was even remotely involved in the film (so even if something was claimed therein it would still be extremely suspect and if we still chose to include it would have to be mentioned in Wikipedia as "according to ______"). If you can find substantiation of the two claims in the interview, and post the precise quotations and who said them and at what time-points in the interview, that might hold some weight, but this random incongruous citation doesn't.

The editor seems to have simply input the wrong citation. The info comes from Mental Floss, and is unsubstantiated there, and Mental Floss is not a reliable source. The information about Tom Duffy is verifiable via other sources, but the percent of the budget spent on actor's salaries was complete conjecture apparently spun originally by this: [2]. I'm therefore going to cite the Tom Duffy part with a reliable source, and remove the blatant unverifiable conjecture about actors' salaries. Softlavender (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

And who's to say that Mental Floss is not reliable? Nothing in the Wikipedia article suggests that, naturally based on all the sources provided there. On the contrary, there are positive citations from reputable publishers, as well as several awards. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 00:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is another source from IFC. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 00:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned before it's all just conjecture spawned originally from this [3] (December 13, 2014) and then repeated as an internet rumor on Mental Floss (April 18, 2015) and IFC (May 18, 2015). Neither accurate or reliable. Softlavender (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Please provide some sort of proof for your claim regarding the origin of the statements. "Because of the date" is not an answer. I'd also like at least one cited example of lack of reliability for both Mental Floss and IFC. So far, this is barely a hair above WP:IDONTLIKEIT. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 03:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If you believe any of those sources are WP:RS for this particular claim, you are welcome to run it by WP:RSN. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Why me? You're the one disputing sources that have already been determined as reliable. Why do I have to prove that 2+2=4? Seems like you have to prove that it isn't. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 07:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The rat

The final moment of the film is a rat scurrying across the window. There is an interview with Scorsese where he elaborates on the importance of that rat. The interview is cited in this article. Therefore, it should be the final sentence of the plot description as well. EauZenCashHaveIt(I'm All Ears) 00:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You fail here in making a satisfactoty argument to keep your revision to the Plot. It is not allegorical (part of the storyline) but merely an amusing aside (a ​remark or ​story in speech or ​text that is not ​part of the ​main ​subject) and it is correctly positioned. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 09:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The main subject is "find the rat". As I said, everything is sourced. This doesn't have to be exclusive to one section of the article. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 12:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You are mistaken.
Does not belong to the Plot section.
If—and that is a very big "if"—a second mention is required, the only other place where it could go, is to close the Lead. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 09:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It's the last thing that happens in the film - in the plot. I am not sure why you are so keen on keeping this out. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 12:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

They are not the same thing. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 13:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

TV series

The producer announced it, and per WP:CRYSTAL, we can and should include such info within an existing article - the policy specifically deals with creation of new articles. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 09:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Not so. That is "rubbish". — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  11:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad we're dealing with this like mature adults. Either argue respectably or don't meddle at all. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 21:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Roy Lee didn't "announce" anything. At the D.I.C.E. Summit, he was having a conversation with Steve Weintraub (who works for Collider.com), and happened to mention an idea he had about making Infernal Affairs into a TV series. Nothing official about that. There's no sign-on, no studio, no network, no IMDB page. Just another entertainment-industry idea floating around, like billions of other ideas that never come to fruition. We don't mention those on Wikipedia, just like we don't mention all the "sequel" rumors about this or any other film. We only mention productions that are actually in production -- or at the very least in development with a studio or network (even that is borderline on Wikipedia, as they often end up coming to naught). Softlavender (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Departed. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/1967980,roepers-best-films-of-the-year-010110.article

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Filming location and budget

The vast majority of this movie and the vast majority of its budget was shot/spent in New York, not Massachusetts. Only seven percent of the budget was spent in Boston. This is a fact backed up by reliable sources. Depauldem (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Depauldem: and @Gareth Griffith-Jones:, I see where you two may have a bit of a disagreement forming about the production efforts behind The Departed. I would offer this as an acceptable edit with appropriate citations:

The film got the official greenlight from Warners in early 2005, and began shooting in the spring of 2005. While set in Boston, for budgetary and logistical reasons certain scenes, interiors in particular, were shot at locations and sets in New York City. The Boston Globe reported that only 7 percent of the movie was filmed in Boston, which upset star Matt Damon, as reported by the Boston Herald.

RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 07:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Registry Key, I could go with that. Thanks, — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  11:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Awesome. I just updated it per the above. Depauldem (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, I've been off-wiki for the weekend. The problem with "only seven percent of the budget" is that the word "only" is prejudicial and POV, especially since we have nothing to compare it to -- the percent of the budget spent in New York is not noted. Seven percent of this movie's budget is $6.3 million, far far more than the amount spent by Mystic River ($4 million), which was touted as a good spend in the same article. So the whole thing is cooked up (the reason the so-called "percent" of the budget was lower is that The Departed had massive outlays for cast and crew that Mystic River did not -- with Nicholson, Damon, DiCaprio, Wahlberg, Baldwin, et al., the vast majority of its budget went to star salaries, and cast and crew). So unless we know the percent of the budget spent in New York, there's no cause to use the percent at all, much less the word "only". Films are routinely shot in locations other than where they are set -- this is a norm and not unusual. (Especially when the film reflects events that occured many decades earlier.) I suggest the following, which covers everything of importance:

The film got the official greenlight from Warners in early 2005, and began shooting in the spring of 2005. Although some of the film was shot on location in Boston, for budgetary and logistical reasons certain scenes, interiors in particular, were shot in locations and sets in New York City, which had tax incentives for filmmakers that Boston at the time did not.

References

-- Softlavender (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, Softlavender. I prefer this version and have carried out the revision accordingly. — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  07:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

This is just nonsense. Stating where seven percent of the budget was spent is NOT POV. It's just a fact supported by multiple reliable sources. I am putting it back in, as it helps make crystal clear that this film was overwhelmingly a New York based production. I will remove the word "only". Depauldem (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

We don't post percents of budgets in Wikipedia articles on films unless there is a compelling reason to and a definitive source that lists the complete budget, not just the budget for one sector. As explained above "7%" is misleading and out of context unless there is information on how much of the budget was spent in New York. We also don't post various actor's opinions on the various aspects of production in Wikipedia articles -- production decisions are a matter for the director or producer to opine on. And as mentioned above, films are routinely shot in locations other than where they are set -- this is the norm, not unusual, and is adequately explained in the Wikipedia article by noting the tax incentives at the time, which is the only relevant piece of information here. Softlavender (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I asked before, and I will ask again: where is there any policy of not posting percentages of budgets and where they are spent? There is no such rule. The complete budget, as sourced, is $90 million. And point to a rule that excludes opinions of the actors. In any event, we don't need a compelling reason. The information is relevant, on topic and backed up by reliable sources. Stop deleting them. Depauldem (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

As I've mentioned twice, the percent of the budget spent in Boston is meaningless without the percent of the budget spent in New York, which was possibly even less. The opinion of one of many stars on a matter of production is trivia and unnecessary detail. All of the important details are in the Wikipedia article. Softlavender (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I removed the opinion of Damon, even though I think it's more then relevant. The percent of the budget spent in MA is not meaningless. Even if we don't know what was spent elswhere (and we do, per the source I just added), we know the percent of the budget and the exact amount spent in MA. Again, all of this is supported by RS. You are not the arbiter of what gets to stay or go on this page. Both Gareth and RegistryKey were fine with leaving in both the percentage and the opinion of Damon. The lone opposition is you. Depauldem (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

See Gareth's latest comment above. There is no need to post the percent of the budget since we don't know the percent of anything else in the budget. It's good that you found a source that 90% of the film was shot in New York -- that can stay, but The percent of budget is trivia and unnecessary, especially since it's out of context in the absense of other budget percentages. Softlavender (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC); edited 05:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Gareth's last comment was just to say OK to you. It's not clear if he feels strongly one way or the other, condidering he endorsed both versions of the edits. Registry suggested the prior language including ther percentage. Now that I also included the actual amount spent, I suppose you can remove the 6 percent language. Depauldem (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Neither the amount spent or the percent are appropriate, for reasons I have repeated several times above. Softlavender (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Neither the amount spent or the percent are inappropriate. They are on point and backed up by RS. Do you have an actual Wikipedia policy (and please point to it) that backs up removing how much was spent by a movie in a certain location?? Fact: $6 million was spent by the production in MA, and this represents 6 percent of its budget. Do you dispute this? Depauldem (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

They are both (1) out of context given the absence of information of the rest of the budget (including the NYC spend), (2) unnecessary, (3) meaningless in the absence of details on the New York expenditure, (4) excessive detail. Excessive detail on one point in comparison to other production facts in POV, which violates NPOV. Softlavender (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Per the MOS, Damon's thoughts are totally appropriate in the production section, "Thoughts from the cast and crew can be interwoven into this section". And "noteworthy" events (like how much the film actually spent in the location where its set) can be included as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Production Depauldem (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The operative wording there is "such content should be substantive". We've already covered Damon's points in the fact that most of the shoot was in New York rather than Boston. There's no need to devote more space to that, especially when the only reason was the tax incentives, which we've already noted. Again, films are routinely shot in locations other than where they are set – this is entirely normal and does not merit excessive space to it that outweighs the other basic facts of production. Wikipedia is about NPOV -- presenting facts neutrally and with the appropriate amount of text. Overdoing the amount of text on any one point is POV, unnecessary, and unencyclopedic. Softlavender (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

To make it perfectly clear, I have added, "I prefer this version" to my post above ["I have carried out the revision accordingly."] — Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh | Buzzard |  07:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I have dropped including Damon's opinions. I have removed the word "only". Bottom line, we know factually that $6 million of the budget was spent in Massachusetts and that 90% of the film was shot in New York. These are facts, nothing more or less. There is ZERO POV involved here. None. Two simple facts supported by reliable sources that are overwhelmingly relevant to this section. If you really want to argue further, I would be happy to take this to a RFC before any further edits are made. Depauldem (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the point Softlavender is trying to make is that there is no context for the $6 million figure. Is this high or low for a location shoot (after all it is not unusual for films to shoot on a Hollywood soundstage and then having a location shoot for the exteriors)? Is this high or low compared to the New York spend? Much of the budget will probably go on above-the-line talent (I would be surprised if Leo pocketed less than $20 million) so what does this $6 million figure really represent as a percentage of the location spend? Betty Logan (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not opposed to removing the percentage of the spend. As the multiple sources indicate, the $6 million represents 7% of the film's $90 million budget. We can lose the 7% and keep the $6 million. As for the budget of $90 million, sources that Softlavender disputed in a section above reported that roughly half of the budget went to above the line salaries. It seems to me that information should have also stayed in the article. In any event, one of the articles--the Variety article--mentions a budget of $42 million. If the other excluded sources about the amount paid to talent is correct, then the remaining $42 million mentioned in Variety likely represents the below-the-line spend (location spending). Thus, the $6 million would represent 14% of the location spending...but saying so would be OR and not proper. Factually, $6 million is 7% of the total budget. We list location spending amounts in countless articles sometimes with the spend in other locations and often without and totally lacking any context for what that spending is going towards, be it location or star salary. Depauldem (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

There is abundant evidence that roughly half of the film was shot in Boston

• https://books.google.com/books?id=500THs9cCnMC&pg=PA79
• http://www.movie-locations.com/movies/d/Departed.html
• http://boston.curbed.com/maps/a-dozen-boston-spots-where-the-departed-was-filmed
• http://www.themoviedistrict.com/the-departed
• http://www.wwifdb.com/where-was-the-departed-filmed
• http://archive.boston.com/ae/celebrity/articles/2005/07/13/big_doings_on_the_departed_set/
• http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0407887/locations
• http://pro.imdb.com/title/tt0407887/locations

-- Softlavender (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Most of those are not RS or, worse yet, sites with user generated content. Not to mention the fact that listing locations does not mean most of the movie shot there. A film can shoot at 10 locations in one week and spend a month in another single place. Variety, the Boston Herald, the Massachusetts Film Office all note that the vast majority of the film was shot in New York. Leonardo Dicaprio and Matt Damon are also on the record for lamenting the fact "most" of the film shot in New York and not Boston. In a prior comment, you approved of the fact 90% of the film shot in NY. Now you are contradicting yourself. Depauldem (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Lord, even the second link above notes "much" of it was in NY, not Boston. The curbed post notes the same. The wwifdb info is a clone from user generated site IMDB. Depauldem (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

And the NYC film office listed no less than 27 locations just in the City, where the film shot for six entire months. Depauldem (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

No source states that "the vast majority" of the film was shot in New York. None of the links I provided above are user-generated except IMDB. Damon wasn't in the second shoot in Boston so he is mistaken about how much of it was shot there. DiCaprio isn't cited at all. I re-checked that FilmL.A. PDF [4], and it appears grossly inaccurate and unreliable, not listing a single source or citation. Claiming that more than 90% of the film was shot in New York (in other words, all of it) is ludicrous when it was manifestly not the case. (So no, that's an unreliable source and should not stay.) Softlavender (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The FilmLA report lists no less than 37 sources at the end of the report. It is also cited and reported on by multiple reliable sources, including Variety and the LA Times. And Leo said they "should have shot some of it in Boston" here. How many sources did Curbed list??? Depauldem (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It does not list any source at all for the Departed claim, which in itself is manifestly absurd. Softlavender (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, the reports note: "Creation and approval of the annual feature film reports is overseen by a Research Taskforce subcommittee of the FilmL.A. Board of Directors and includes executives from major studios, industry unions and guilds, staff from the California Film Commission and the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation." The FilmLA board, as it happens, includes Warner Bros. executive Michael Walbrecht (the same studio for the film). Are you telling me that a well known report produced under the supervision of executives at the very studio that made this film is false? BTW--Warner Bros. itself is listed as a source. Depauldem (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

To repeat, it does not list a single citation for the claim that The Departed "filmed over 90 percent its shoot in New York", which is manifestly absurd in my opinion. Scorsese says "We spent, I'd say, more than half the picture in Boston." [5] -- Softlavender (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

To repeat, the report, all of it, lists Warner Bros. as a source. And they oversee it before publication. As for the Scorcese quote, it's contradicted by everything else (the NY & MA film offices, numerous newspaper reports, a study produced with WB overseeing it, two of the stars in the film) and it's also not clear if that quote is taken out of context from a larger interview or if he was referring to exterior scenes in particular. I am even fine with including that quote in the section. Please do list it. I am not trying to rule anything out that is based on a RS. Depauldem (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Scorsese is not really contradicted by the NY film office, the MA film office, any newspaper report, or either star. There's also nothing out of context about it at all. The entire interview is right there to read. It all boils down to about a 50/50 split of filming in Boston/NY (the tipping point or "most" varying depending on who is being quoted), with the Boston/Massachusetts crowd bemoaning the fact that it wasn't all filmed in Boston. And to repeat yet again, movies are routinely filmed in locations where they are not set -- based on tax breaks, costs, or appearance -- and this is nothing new or unusual. Softlavender (talk) 00:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The front of the book states it is edited. If it were "the entire interview" then where are the questions?? Because it's edited. And yes, the various reports above do contradict his statement that most of it was shot in Boston. Damon and Dicaprio (and I included the links) both have quotes that totally contradict the book. In any event, I am FINE with including it. Not sure why you are arguing about a source that I am saying we can and should include. I have never argued about movies not shooting where they are set, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. And the fact you do keep bringing up seems to raise yet another contradiction for you....if you keep repeating that is so common for a movie to film in locations were they are not set, then why are you so incredulous that this film shot primarily in NY??? Depauldem (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing ambiguous about "We spent, I'd say, more than half the picture in Boston" -- it's not from an interview about another film; he's talking about The Departed and there's no way to misconstrue his words. To repeat, nothing except that ludicrous PDF claim contradicts that some of the film was shot in Boston, and some of the film was shot in New York. Scorsese says more than half in Boston; Damon (who wasn't even in the second shoot in Boston and so has a skewed and inaccurate viewpoint) says most in New York. A couple of newspapers give the budget or dollar amount spent in Boston but not the budget or dollar amount spent in New York. And that's all we have. So it looks like a draw, with apparently approximately 50% spent in each location, and Bostonians and Massachusettsians often claiming that to be "mostly in New York", because they obviously would have preferred that it was all filmed in Boston. So what works best is the formulation we've had for a while:

The film got the official greenlight from Warners in early 2005, and began shooting in the spring of 2005. Although some of the film was shot on location in Boston, for budgetary and logistical reasons many scenes, interiors in particular, were shot in locations and sets in New York City, which had tax incentives for filmmakers that Boston at the time did not.

References

That is completely accurate, covers all bases, and does not violate NPOV or UNDUE or engage in OR or needless detail. Softlavender (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The report does not contradict the fact that some filming took place in Boston. It simply notes the over 90% was produced in New York. That leaves 10% of filming to occur elsewhere, you know...like the $6 million they spent to shoot at a dozen or so exteriors in Boston. Again, that report is overseen in part by Warner Bros, the flipping studio on this film. I am sorry you do not like the sources that contradict your narrative, but they do exist, they are overwhelmingly reliable (despite your protests to the contrary) and are more than appropriate for inclusion. Their inclusion does not raise any POV issues and they are not needlessly detailed. We are talking about two very short sentences that flesh out more on the filming....kind of the point of a production section. How about we just add the line that "only $6 million" of the budget was spent in Massachusetts? Are you really that opposed to that simple fact? Depauldem (talk) 01:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

There was 6 weeks of filming in Boston: [6] (half in June 2005 and half in August 2005). The entire shoot lasted 18 weeks (late April to late August 2005), so time-wise approximately 1/3 in Boston and 2/3 in New York. That's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH though, so we can't state that, but it does give an approximation of the breakdown. The most we can say is that "many of the scenes" or "most of the scenes" were shot in New York. Softlavender (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I am somewhat troubled you edited the article back to how you want it, with your note that it was "per consensus and talk page info". That's simply not true. In any event, Studio System shows the shooting dates were from April 25th 2005 to September 17, 2005. And as the link from the NYC Mayor's film office shows, the production was there from February 2005 to July 2006, which makes sense as last minute re-shoots were done just before the film was released. Bear in mind that filming days are just one component of the production and prep time can add months to the production. All that said, I am fine with what you changed the section to. However, I want to add a line about the film being in production in New York over a period from February 2005 to July 2006, that it employed a cast and crew of 200 people and that the Mayor's office assisted with 26 various locations in the city. I also want to include the line that while filming in Massachusetts, the production spent $6 million of its $90 million budget in the state. It seems obvious that the remaining budget was spent primarily, if not entirely in New York. Of course we can't say that. However, it does not implicate NPOV to state $6 million was spent in Massachusetts. It would be nice if we knew the exact spend in New York or any other location (like any post done in LA), but it's not prejudicial that we don't know it. It's just a fact that $6 million was spent in Massachusetts. Stating spends in certain locations and not others is a common practice, like here here and here. I do also think that it is extremely relevant and informative to include the thoughts from Damon and DiCaprio wishing more had been shot in Boston, as these "thoughts" are specifically encouraged in the MOS for the production section. Would love to know what you, RegistryKey Gareth Griffith-Jones and Betty Logan think of making these additions. Depauldem (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Depauldem: I can accept the proposed edit by Softlavender, provided that the in-line sources that link to the actors' interviews remain, as this would then both avoid a NPOV concern on our side, and allow the reader to draw his or her own conclusion and perspective should they decide to read the source directly and thereby become informed about what the actors thought. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 13:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

RegistryKey as of now, the article or the "proposed edit" (air quotes because she unilaterally made the change) only contains a link to an article with Damon's comments; the article with DiCaprio's comments is not included. There is also no mention of their thoughts in the post (which is the proposed edit), so readers will have no idea what is contained in them, much less a reason to click on a link to read about them. It would be great for readers to draw their on conclusions, but as of now they have no idea there are any conclusions to draw. On another note, are you opposed to including a line about the amount spent in Boston and/or the mention of locations used in New York and the number of crew employed? Depauldem (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Since my previous edit suggestions were ignored by Softlavender, and after waiting for the better part of two weeks, in addition to soliciting input on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film#Production_Section_Information_Questions about the two factual additions added today, there is no NPOV issue about factual statements. Depauldem (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Remake section removal

Of the remake section??

"A one-hour-long TV show, set in today's Chicago, telling the story of a young police officer who goes undercover to infiltrate a Latino gang."

It fails to state if an adaptation has been made or not, nor does it name the show. I'd reckon a removal of the section is in order, or if not atleast clarify the details. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 08:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The title is the same. It's kind of borderline at this point whether it should be mentioned on Wikipedia at this juncture. Its status is "In Development since August 23, 2016" [7], and there is a studio and producers, so it's in development. It has an IMDB page: [8]. Normally it's best for items to be at least "in pre-production" before being mentioned on Wikipedia, but Amazon works pretty quickly and it's unlikely this would fall through so this is borderline acceptable. Softlavender (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Homages

The point of the homages section is to say that Scorcese uses the "x" as a symbol of death in a fashion similar to Howard Hawks. The use of oranges in The Godfather is irrelevant. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Plot editing

A long standing preexisting plot size advisory was brought to the attention of the WP community at which time it was deemed without a move toward consensus to be obsolete. Would the respondent provide the WP community a reasoning beside plot word count to justify the action of a long standing advisory obsolete. Others have been held accountable to the WP talk page process of consensus and it seems only responsible to follow in that manner. WP guidelines regarding plot are nit merely to have them within a word count framework but have as great an impact as with concise expression as possible. This will enable the entire WP community to take part in what is a community effort of cooperation and consensus.I look forward to seeing a plot that better expresses the content of the film without having to see it for those that use WP as a way of understanding the film. Sometimes the way that plots unfold in written content can be a bit acrobatic mentally.2605:E000:1301:4462:904E:DC75:3814:4202 (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what you are trying to say here, since WP:FILMPLOT is still active as the plot section size standard. It's not obsolete. Regarding the style of plot writing, of course concise wording is preferred. Concision (smaller plots) versus sufficient completeness (larger plots) will always be a judgement call. Binksternet (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Dear IP: (1) Your edits to the plot were not an improvement, and they were reverted. Please do not attempt to reinstate them without consensus on this talkpage. (2) Your English is garbled and hard to understand. With that in mind, it is likely that the way that the plot read beforehand was better and clearer English, and more clearly represented the events of the story. Softlavender (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Crime film

I know it's a crime drama but shouldn't we list it only as a crime film because it's also a thriller? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77Survivor (talk • contribs) 16:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

church Baptist?

In South Boston some years ago, Colin Sullivan, a young boy, is introduced to organized crime by former Irish-American church Baptist turned mob boss Frank Costello in the Irish neighborhood. ... (emphasis added)

I am unsure how to parse the bolded phrase. I guess "church Baptist" is a role in the church, like altar boy? If so, I'd decapitate the B. I'm also curious about how Frank became a former Irish-American. —Tamfang (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Critical response

The Critical response section is good but too short. It might not seem short but a large part of it is taken up by response from the director and other from Infernal Affairs. I suggest creating a subsection for this and then expanding the Critical response section with more critics. Not sure about a suitable subsection heading though, "Infernal Affairs response" doesn't sound quite right, "Other response", I don't know, suggestions? Objections, anything?

Seriously, the critical response section only has responses from 3 film critics, and it doesn't even include Roger Ebert, that must be against the rules. :) -- 109.76.147.161 (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)