Talk:Indecent Proposal

Fair use rationale for Image:Indecent proposal.jpg
Image:Indecent proposal.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 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 03:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

what
what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.29.148 (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Differences with the Novel
Jsamans (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC): I appreciate the need for proper citation and thus have included a link to a NYT book review (cited by Amazon.com; the original review is no longer available on the NYT Web site) to provide basis for what I wrote. However, the themes in the book are not concealed and my summary of the plot was not some sort of academic interpretation. Main-character Joshua is a Jew, his foil is an Arab, and the dialogue exchanged directly between these characters as well as their interactions makes is blatantly clear what is going on between them.

It's a little annoying to have to include citations for what is just a summary of the book's overt themes, presumably to "defend" my claims to those who haven't bothered to read the book at all.
 * The problem isn't whether they're a Jew or an Arab. The problem is these parts:  "To those who have seen the film but not read the book, it should be immediately apparent based on that quote that, although this film shares some thematic elements with the novel that inspired it, the underlying plot is entirely different."  And:  "The extent to which this distinction matters is difficult to overstate, because it changes the entire point: the mental battle between Joshua and his rival is not merely a game of money but rather an extension of the power struggle inherent in the Arab–Israeli conflict, and everything that follows – even down to the references to krav maga – is part of the symbolism of the story."  These are your interpretations of the themes of the book.  If they're as obvious as you say, it should be easy enough to find a commentator talking about them or something else you can cite to show that the book is ultimately about the Arab-Israeli conflict or whatever; but you can't simply say that yourself.  And phrasing like 'it should be immediately apparent' and the purple prose about how important the distinction is raise red flags in my mind -- that sounds like you trying to convince us of what you think is important about the book and what you personally feel its themes are.  Don't do that.  Either show them (by describing things from the book in a dry narrative tone) or cite other people discussing them.  --Aquillion (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I must agree with Aquillion. I've never even HEARD of the book and I'm quite well read. That said, I tend to avoid things of contemporary conflict nature, as I have direct and personal experience with said conflicts, with data not permitted to the public. The FILM, frankly, only BARELY resembles what you describe from the book, Jsamans. Rather a lot like MOST books "treated" by Hollywood, turning from something of a particular substance into a hollow shell of what was intended. As a prime example, consider the SF Novel "Starship Troopers", then consider the abysmal film. The NOVEL was socio-political in nature, the movie, blow things up and show a woman's breasts to please God knows who, other than base state men. To be honest, nice jugs, but I'd rather have watched the NOVEL put on film, socio-political argument, warts, pimples and all. In THIS film, 90%+ of the US and global audiences would be lost with the Nice Jewish Boy vs Arab story, as it is not part of OUR culture. I'm only aware of it from both Jew friends and Arab friends. Damned if I get it, other than the first two humans sons who rated entry into religious text. American movies are typically geared to American and some global audiences. The BOOK is essentially useful only in the US, a sparse few other western nations and Israel, no Eastern culture would even comprehend what it is *truly* about. It's all about audience, culture and knowledge/experience. The MENTION, as it stands now, is relevant. Your view is not relevant to 90%+ of the readers, as your view is purely cultural in nature. Though, it COULD end up as a worthy essay for ALL audiences, upon which, said essay could be a target of a Wikipedia article itself.Wzrd1 (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Fridays sketch?
The plot of this film reminded me strongly of a sketch that ran (as far as I remember) on the ABC comedy series Fridays in 1981. A "Mr. Hinckley" (this was a short time after the Reagan assassination attempt) offers a married lady one million dollars for sex, because "this is what I buy." Husband first enthusiastic, wife reluctant, then they both change their minds. It does not appear to be on YouTube. - Pro hib it O ni o ns (T) 18:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

double-sided coins
the plot summary contains the sentence: "Gage gives her his lucky coin, which is revealed to be double sided."

all coins are double-sided.

perhaps "double-headed" was intended. could somebody familiar with the film please make a correction?

Pgilman (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)