Talk:It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World/Archive 1

What
What in the world?!?!?


 * Clearly, somebody has to report a bug on this one, but I'm unclear on what happened. I tried to move it (to the lower case title), but after KQ, I guess? DanKeshet

Thank you for your help, everyone. Modemac


 * "3iyZiyA7iMwg5rhxP0Dcc9oTnj8qD1jm1Sfv4" is used as a unique separator string in intermediate page parsing steps. How it got into a page title, I'm not sure.


 * Ah! Compare the wiki source and HTML of this revision of Buster Keaton.


 * Here's my bug report. --Brion 14:14 Aug 27, 2002 (PDT)

Sorry, right after moving that (and before finishing up deleting and explaining) I caught sight of the time--late for class. Brion, you got it exactly right--it was caused by the nowiki tags. --KQ 17:18 Aug 27, 2002 (PDT)

Dispute
Dispute Cinerama. The Region 2 DVD credits say "filmed in Ultra Panavision", although I guess this may have been compatible with one-strip Cinerama equipment.
 * Problem solved - filmed in Ultra Panavision, projected in Cinerama (and the first to do so, as well!). --Girolamo Savonarola July 1, 2005 16:29 (UTC)

Simpsons
Didn't a Simpsons episode involve finding a treasure under a T-shaped palm, with a W configuration showing up in the background? 142.177.124.178 03:30, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes. This is mentioned under influences. 199.224.81.132 16:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

DeForest Kelley
Wasn't DeForest Kelley also in that movie? I think I remember him in that scene dancing in a bar when his mother tries to phone him for help (but he ignores the phone first). Der Eberswalder 00:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * There's no bar dancing scene in this movie. You must be confusing this with a scene where Sylvester Marcus (Dick Shawn) is dancing at his bachelor pad with his girlfriend (Madlyn Rhue). &mdash;QuicksilverT @ 07:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The girlfriend was Barrie Chase. (Madlyn Rhue??) De percy (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Barrie Chase is Dick Shawn's girlfriend in the film. Madlyn Rhue is the lady police officer. I don't recall ever reading about DeForest Kelley being in the film. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Fabulous?
I'm not disputing the talent of the cast, but isn't "fabulous comedians" a slightly biased description (it's not in the context of a quote)? Surely there are people out there who don't find the cast fabulous. "Talented" might be more appropriate, or even "Successful comedians" is better, because it can't be disputed as subjective.

Neutral POV
I don't know about you, but it just doesn't really show a neutral point of view to me. This is wny I put up the neutrality sign. My arguments are: 1) QUOTE: "Most of the humor is not especially sophisticated, consisting mainly of very noisy slapstick gags" It doesn't sound very neutral to me. It depends on the person if it is sophisticated or not.

2) QUOTE: "The film had a wonderful title theme song with music by Ernest Gold and lyrics by Mack David. They also wrote for the film "You Satisfy My Soul" and "Thirty-One Flavors." It depends on the person, again.

3) QUOTE: "Phil Silvers, one of the greatest comedians of all time and player of Otto Meyer..." Also depends on the person.

I hope this helps 69.22.224.249 06:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * End of spoilers tag missing.

Versions?
The article speaks of the "yellow spine" and "blue spine" DVD versions. It states the 2001 version has a double-sized disc, the "Something A Little Less Serious" documentary and a yellow spine. Except I have the 2001 edition, it is a double sided disc (dual layer on one side, one layer on the other), it has the "Something A Little Less Serious" documentary, but it has a blue spine. Is it possible someone got the colors backwards? Bollinger 20:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Could someone elaborate on why the 182 minute version was not issued on DVD? a lot of people, including myself, are pissed off at MGM for not releasing this version on DVD. In the details of the different versions, it says that because of the nature of the "restored" footage, this version was not released on DVD. Somebody please explain this. Surely the "restored" sequences could be digitally cleaned up and possibly even color corrected (using similar technology to that used to colorize black and white images) to match the rest of the film. Garr1984 21:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Me, too. I want the longer, "restored" version released onto DVD, and I don't give a hoot if the restored segments are a lower quality - the story's the thing. I have tried, in vain, to make my own, private, not for sharing, not for sale, not for anything but my own private home enjoyment, copy onto DVD of my VHS, but the DVD recorder just won't allow it.  Hey, I paid my dues! - I paid for the VHS, and I paid for the incomplete DVD version! I just want them together! I tried direct video/audio cable, and I tried coax transfer. I suppose all I can now do is "kinescope" it. GBC (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I was able to transfer my VHS of the partial restoration to DVD just fine, without any problems Garr1984 (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC) §

Er Wer Schreib Es (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)§
 * Someone has a DVD of the "Restored" version up for sale on Ioffer.com I am familiar with this seller's product and it is good quality product... anyone who is looking for a DVD of the "Restored" version should check out this link: http://www.ioffer.com/i/47560826

Criticism/Reception?
I'm thinking a section about the reception the film received from critics and fans (when it premiered) would be appropriate. Sundevilesq 00:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sequel
It's great to know that a sequel to this movie is finally going to be made! I have always enjoyed this movie---it features almost all its comedians it prime form---and I can't wait. Just hope it won't be anything like "Rat Race"! Posted by JS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.58.96.126 (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Glad this section is gone; it's citations were nebulous to the point of being rumours rather than fact. I'd like to see it reinstated with real evidence. MartinSFSA (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As I note in my edit summary, it failed per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS as Imdb is not considered reliable. For me the capper was the claim that a supposed sequel was to be released in 2010, which is impossible for a big budget movie that is nowhere near a shoot date in mid-April.  Like you, I'd be interested in solid information on this topic.  I believe the reason none has been added to the article is because there isn't any. Jusdafax   13:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The phantasm sequel is back, with, if anything, even poorer sourcing. If it's real, let's see a better cite. MartinSFSA (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. Please note that IMDB is NOT a reliable source as required by WP:RS.  We need hard information regarding a sequel and IMDB does not meet that.  Anyone can add material to IMDB so it is not reliable.  Again, if there is an article in the mainstream media regarding this, fine.  Cite the source, and the info becomes part of the article. Jusdafax   17:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Too much trivia!
Along with the trivia section, the "Background" and "Production" are replete with random tidbits that need to be moved, grouped or excised. Bantosh 21:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've incorporated the last of the trivia into either the Production section or the Cast/Cameos section. It still feels a little clunky the way it is so feel free to do another cleanup behind me. Claude 06:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * the trivia on this film is plagiarised or directly 'cut and paste' from the film's etry on the Internet Movie Database or www.imdb.com. IMDB should be given some credit for archiving this pirated trivia treasure reprinted here without acknowledgement or permission. The IMDB has its own BBS for registered member ONLY to access. More information about this grand film is there. it's sad people have to post stuff here as their own found facts and really just rip off others.4.168.45.66 22:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware of the source of the trivia; it was there before I came along. However, at this point since it's all either absorbed into the body of the article (and therefore placed into a context) or deleted altogether, and since there's a link to the film's entry in IMDB, it's sort of a no-harm, no-foul situation now, I think. Claude (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's one:

During the first part of the film, there's a scene where the major players are standing around discussing how to divide up the cash. They are in what looks like a 'vista point' off the side of HWY 74 ('Seven Level Hill'). I went out there a few months ago and cannot for the life of me figure out there this place is. The newly paved vista point does not match up with the surrounding area in the film. Does anyone know where this 'turn-out' is??? Is it even still there?? Txtabby 19 Aug 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Txtabby (talk • contribs) 16:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Cameo list too long?
I'm noticing that there's a long list with cameo appearances by different movie stars. Should we only note the cameos whose roles are more relevant? I think I am a little confused. SchfiftyThree (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Madworldposter.jpg
Image:Madworldposter.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Cameo
Big Miller apparently made a cameo in this film, but I don't know in what role. Chubbles (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[|James Cromwell] had a cameo in this movie, as the man coming out of the hardware store as Crump and his wife Monica were going in. This isn't listed in his bio and I can't find it anyplace else, but I'm sure that was him.Ladyferns (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sam and Max: Freelance police
Jukebox:"It's a max max max max, max max world" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.157.204 (talk) 10:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Comedy writers
I can recite much of the dialogue off the top of my head for the television version I'm familiar with, but it's news to me that Ding and Benny were comedy writers. Is this sourced from inside the film, accompanying materials, script or other? MartinSFSA (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ding and Benjy (not Benny) have no stated profession in the film. They are supposed to be on their way to Las Vegas, though the reason for the trip is never stated. In fact, they are the only men of the original group who have no clearly defined profession (Jonathan Winters is a truck driver, Sid Caesar is a dentist and Milton Berle runs a company that sells edible seaweed). Pastor Theo (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Background?
Why does the "Background" section contain instances after its premiere of showings on networks? What is the relevance, and why is it in a section entitled "Background"? Cactusjump (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's relevant and interesting that it hasn't screened on any of the major US tv networks for thirty years. It's less interesting and quite vague that it was on tv on New Years Eve in "the 1970s". It's neither interesting nor relevant that it's been on some cable channel. MartinSFSA (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well that clears that up! :-) Maybe these items should fall into a separate section? Cactusjump (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, very few motion pictures are broadcast in the USA by the three major networks, nor have they been since cable TV took root during the 1980s. I am old enough to recall when this film was a New Year's TV standard (though I seem to remember it being on NBC, not ABC).  In any event, IAMMMMW turns up frequently on Turner Movie Classics and American Movie Classics. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If “major network television” means US networks, then the article should say this; it is wrong to say that it hasn’t been shown on network TV since the seventies, because the BBC have shown it (unfortunately - it’s a dismal mess of a film, IMHO) since then. 79.67.148.152 (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Last network showing and five mad's
Regarding the last network showing, I added a link to p. 66 of Jet magazine dated 18 May 1978 as proof that the film aired on CBS on 16 May 1978. I also added a citation about the sequel, which has five mad's in the title, as slated for release in 2012. Both of these additions are now gone from the article.

If you are requesting a citation about network showings, why remove such a citation when it is supplied? Also, why remove the part concerning the sequel, especially considering that it answers Stanley Kramer's regret about not having five mad's in the title of the original film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.119.254 (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The Three Stooges

 * The 3 Stooges are seen at the airport, not in the final scenes on the firetruck ladder.

The Stooges' cameo is very brief, and this is not the first time I've encountered the belief they are involved with the ladder sequence. Did they ever have more than the remaining material? MartinSFSA (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of, and I've looked at a lot of versions over the years. Remember, they were pretty much at the end of their careers in 1963, and unlike Buster Keaton, who had at least one scene edited out, I think that one glimpse at the airport (with the soundtrack playing a short but profound 'Three Blind Mice') was all that was filmed. I do think it would have been funny to have had Moe or Larry up on that ladder though! Jusdafax   17:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The Three Stooges shorts ended in the late 1950s, and some tone-down-stunts requests and the Stooges getting older caused them to slow down. They were making some movie appearances, and by this time "Curly Joe" deRita was the 3rd Stooge. Larry had to retire because of a c. 1970 stroke. Carlm0404 (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Surviving cast members
Recently there has been a call to supply a citation proving who the surviving cast members are. I say no citation is necessary, since one can click the link for each person, as I did, to find which members are still alive. The summary list is merely a convenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.62.181 (talk • contribs) 03:22, July 26, 2010
 * Well, convenience is always good. I see no problem with it. What do you think, @MarnetteD, six years after this message was left?  Quis separabit?  21:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest keeping the list of surviving members with no need for citation. In a few years this will probably be a moot point. Sandcherry (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * First the ping did not work. Next a six year old post is not a good place to start a conversation. Since this effects more than just this article the conversation is taking place here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's a sad day when a man's ping doesn't work properly. As far as resuming a new discussion on an old thread, I see no problem (but my eyesight is pretty bad), but OK, we can continue in a shiny new venue, to wit, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Quis separabit?  01:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi R. Once again it did not work. FYI pings only work if you have them and your signature in the same edit. Going back and adding them after you made your initial post as you did here and here are why I am not receiving them. I know it is tricky and a pain that is why I am letting you know about it. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

On 23 August 2020 a contributor claimed that Bob Mazurki (miner's son) is alive. False. The miner's (played by Bob Mazurki (25 December 1907 - 9 December 1990)) son was played by Eddie Rosson (15 June 1956 - 19 September 1994), as shown at 2:26 - 2:38 on the Mad World Cast Guide updated August 2017 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZqLYQPxe8U). Except for possibly extras or stunt doubles, Barrie Chase and Nicholas Georgiade, curiously the only two personalities who, on the film, smoked any substances, are the only currently surviving cast members. Another curiosity: Rosson is the only person in the film whose character's first name (which Mazurki mentioned once) is the same as the real first name.98.149.97.245 (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

With the death of Nicholas Georgiade on 19 December 2021, Barrie Chase is the only surviving cast member.98.149.97.245 (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Passed vehicles
"Smiler" Grogan passes seven vehicles, not just the four vehicles (#1, #2, #6, #7) that stop when Grogan crashes. Vehicles #3, #4, #5 are never visible afterward. Viewing the opening scene suffices for proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.121.103 (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I just rewatched that sequence, and excluding cars passing by in the opposite direction, Grogan only passes the four cars that later stop - the truck (Winters), the red VW (Rooney/Hackett), the Tempest convertible (Berle/Provine/Merman), and the Plymouth station wagon (Caesar). Which other cars are there? I don't see them.  Shirt  waist &#9742;  07:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * View, for example, "It's a Mad Mad World (part 1 of 2)" on youtube. Assign the transition from credits to film at 0 seconds and define the passing time as the time at which the black vehicle with white top ("Smiler" Grogan) is in the left lane directly across from each of the other vehicles in turn.  Then the passing time of vehicle #1 (truck) occurs at 8 seconds, vehicle #2 (VW) at 19 seconds, vehicle #3 (white) at 27 seconds, vehicle #4 (brown) at 30 seconds, vehicle #5 (blue) at 32 seconds, vehicle #6 (station wagon) at 36 seconds, vehicle #7 (convertible) at 40 seconds.  None of vehicles #3, #4, #5 is a truck, VW, station wagon, or convertible.  Vehicle #6 has at least two curiosities:  the driver wears a hat (Caesar did not wear a hat), and there is no passenger evident (but Adams shows up right after the group of five ascends from the crash site to the road).  Before the police vehicle arrives, the only four vehicles seen on the road, after they stop, are, in order from front to back, #7, #6, #2, #1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.121.249 (talk • contribs)  10:36, October 14, 2011


 * IP 173.51 - You need to indent your posts in talk, and you need to sign your posts by typing four tildes - "~" - at the end of your posts. It makes threads easier to read.
 * I see what you're saying now. It appears that after passing the truck and the red VW, Grogan then passes a light-blue sedan, a brown sedan, another light blue sedan(probably the same light-blue sedan used twice), then a white station wagon, and finally the Tempest convertible with Berle et al. Curiously, the dark-blue station wagon driven by Caeser does not appear in the passing sequence at all. I suggest the wording in the plot be changed to "...wrecklessly passes several vehicles on a twisting, mountainous road in the Mojave Desert of Southern California before careening his car off a cliff and crashing. Five motorists from the passed vehicles stop..." Shirt  waist &#9742;  19:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ahem! Uh, don't you mean, "recklessly" rather than "wrecklessly"? Even if he did eventually wreck his car. LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 08:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Ernestine Wade
Not long ago someone identified Ernestine Wade as a migrant truck passenger forced off the road. Site http://www.aveleyman.com/FilmCredit.aspx?FilmID=9736 lists the person in question as "Unknown9736-1 Migrant Truck Driver's Wife". Maintainer of the site wearysloth@yahoo.com has a picture of Ms. Wade from 1963 and seems to doubt that the migrant truck passenger is Wade. Does anyone have additional information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.174.67 (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Inaccuracies
The paragraph about the widescreen process is an accumulation of erroneous statements. The Movie was filmed in Ultra Panavision 70 and released in 35 mm as well in Super Cinerama for selected theatres. Cinerama – 3 cameras, 3 projectors in 3 booths (recording and exhibiting are Cinerama) Super Cinerama – 1 camera, 3 projectors in 1 booth (only exhibiting is Super Cinerama) Ultra Panavision 70 is another term for MGM Camera 65 invented in 1957, using anamorphic lenses to compress the image in whole and not limited to the edges. Super Panavision 70 was invented in 1959, using spherical lenses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.110.113 (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Protection
I've just fully protected this page for three days due to the ongoing edit warring. Please discuss the issue here instead of continually reverting. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

See also vs. Influence
Related discussion here. See also sections do not require sourcing per policy; an Influences section should be reliably sourced. Per WP:CIRCULAR, links do not eliminate the need for sourcing, though it may be possible to copy the sources from the linked articles.

It is my opinion that this section should either be reverted to a See also section or appropriately sourced ASAP...or removed. DonIago (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm with you. And how the hell did this get protected at the version with the controversial changes, and not at the status quo?  Incidentally, Dhamaal is unreferenced, so WP:CIRCULAR or not, we cannot say whether or not it is a remake.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on a search engine test, it looks like Dhamaal has been compared to this film, though nothing indicates that it is an "official remake" as the passage claims. Also, I think that "Influence" may imply too much of a direct connection, that the filmmaker of one of the subsequent films was conscious of this particular film. Why not do something like "Similar films"? That way, we can most likely verify comparisons made between this film and the others. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * These types of links would be better suited to an "influences/cultural impact" section, since none of the films—apart from perhaps Dhamaal (if it is indeed an official remake)—have a substantive connection to this film, so don't really belong in a "see also" section. Either way, the section should be sourced if retained, or pared down if the "see also" section is restored. Betty Logan (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The connection between this film and Rat Race is pretty strong; I found a lot of search results easily. Not so sure about the others, but this mentions a few other similar films from that decade. These might be better to put here. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I agree with Doniago and Rob Sinden. It was protected on the wrong version. Not only is there no source for Dhamaal being an "official remake" of this article's film, but the article Dhamaal has no reliable sources at all. Perhaps a "See Also" section would be ok, but an unsourced influence section should not be in the article at all. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Capt. Culpepper or Culpeper?
This edit changed all the names to "Culpepper", and these edits changed them all back to "Culpeper". However, I can't find a definitive source for the spelling of Spencer Tracy's character's last name; is it Culpepper or Culpeper? I find pages on the Internet with both spellings. IMDB has a page titled "Capt. T. G. Culpepper", but on the very same page it lists quotes attributed to "Capt. T. G. Culpeper". The film itself does not have a traditional credits list at the end showing the character names, only the list of actors at the beginning of the film. Any ideas? — Loadmaster (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The spelling "Culpeper" derives from the fact that, in the film, "T. G. Culpeper" appears on the outside of the glass of the door to Culpeper's office, appearing backwards from inside Culpeper's office.107.185.145.26 (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Shown on Network Television
ABC aired the movie on July 16, 1979. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.34.211 (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Coca Cola Sign Stunt
There is a problem with the description of the stunt where the Beach aircraft fly's through the Coca Cola sign. The statement that "A communications mix-up resulted in the use of linen graphic sheets on the sign rather than paper, as planned. Linen, much tougher than paper, damaged the plane on impact" is fully unsubstantiated and false. The aircraft sustained very slight cosmetic damage and landed safely. The aircraft was heavily reinforced and prepared for the stunt. Both pilots were professionals and inspected not only the aircraft but the sign construction as well. there is no way that two of the primer stunt pilots would proceed with a dangerous stunt without checking every detail. My father was the lead mechanic in charge of preparing the Beachcraft for the stunt and like the pilots, he made sure every effort was made to insure the safety of the pilots and crew and to insure successful completion of the stunt. Look closely at the sign and you can see it breaks up as it should and there is no evidence of linen sheets either hanging from the sign or the aircraft after it fly's through the sign. You can also see a lack of damage the the leading edge of the aircraft.Reelbikes (talk) 07:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi - Feel free to hit that paragraph with a  tag. Then, after a few weeks or a month or two, if no one finds a citation to corroborate the statement, it can be removed. Or you can simply remove it now, and say "See talk page" in you edit summary.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Don Mersereau's Boxoffice Magazine Review
Years ago there had been an online link to Don Mersereau's Boxoffice Magazine Review of 11 November 1963. That link is now dead. But every time I try to edit the associated reference, to remove dead link, someone keeps restoring the dead link. Whoever is restoring the dead link, please stop.107.185.145.26 (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging as I believe they're the reverting editor. It might have helped if you'd provided an edit summary when making your changes so that your intentions were more clear. Additionally, rather than simply removing the reference, tagging it with Template:Dead link might be more constructive, especially when your initial removal was contested. DonIago (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes a proper Help:Edit summary would have been most useful. Please feel free to restore the active link and, while you could tag the old one as Doniago mentions, I don't think that is necessary in this case. I will leave it up to you whether to do that or not. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 14:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion about adding edit summary. Since there's no active link replacement, I removed the dead link and double-bracketed the magazine name, because the magazine has its own Wikipedia article.107.185.145.26 (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the update 107.185.145.26 and for your efforts. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 05:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced material
Below information was tagged for needing sources long-term. Feel free to reinsert with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Abundant vehicular information
Read this article (or read the list, below). Look at all the cars mentioned, with info including year, make, and model. Some even include color. And yet, this is apparently not objectionable or unnecessary.

The one car that could arguably be considered the most important, given that it's mentioned in one of the most memorable lines by a principal character (Mrs. Marcus, "We're the ones with the Imperial, and we're running last?" (cf IMDb's quotes page for this film, link at bottom)) is the 1962 Imperial Crown convertible. It's white, but I left out that fact. I figured the year, make, and model would suffice.

Here is a listing of the vehicles already mentioned in the article:


 * 1957 Ford Fairlane
 * WWI-era Jenny biplane
 * 1954 Ford furniture van
 * 1951 Willys station wagon
 * ivory-colored 1948 Ford convertible
 * Dodge M37 tow truck
 * red 1962 Dodge Dart convertible
 * blue 1956 Ford Sunliner
 * 1959 Plymouth Yellow Cabs

I am very much looking forward to reading the explanation of why the above list is necessary, but the most important vehicle, the one actually mentioned by name by a principal character, is not.

Or would the administrators like me to go through the article and edit out the above car info? That would actually make more sense than rejecting just the one item.

Thank you for your attention.

IMDb quotes page

JeffoftheNE (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Plot Point
The plot summary suggests that Culpepper's decision to abscond with the money is a spur-of-the-moment decision prompted by the greed he had observed in the others during the chase to the Big W and occurs only as he is leaving the scene. But I have always felt that it was implicit that this was his plan from the start - and that that was the reason why he wistfully looks at "Mexico" on the map in his office, why he looks, equally wistfully, as he leaves the police headquarters for what he assumes will be the last time, and - perhaps most importantly - why he insists that no other police be present when he goes to retrieve the money. All of these incidents take place long before he departs the Big W. The one element I can think of that would contradict this is Culpepper's plan to vacation with his wife in Hawaii after the Grogan case is closed. Nonetheless, it would seem that his scheme is finalized before he leaves the police station rather than after leaving the Big W - if not well before. PurpleChez (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say that if all we have to work with is implication then it is probably best not to touch on the question of whether his plan was pre-meditated or not, especially as it's not exactly critical to understanding the film. The key point is that he does abscond with the money. DonIago (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO it was premeditated. There are a couple hints like his gazing at the map and looking longingly at the Mexican border. This is made clearer in one of the deleted scenes where he calls the character played by Buster Keaton and arranges for his escape with the money. I'm not sure what might be done to the plot section though I have removed a "presumably" sentence which is entirely WP:POV AND WP:OR. I note that the article does not have a section on the deleted (and now partially restored scenes on the Criterion Collection release.) If anyone wants to take on the task this section The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is one example of what can be done. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is one of those situations where WP policy trumps reality. And perhaps it begs for WP:IAR.  Clearly, Culpepper's motivations is not spur of the moment. There are numerous clues throughout the film.  This is why Aloysius (William Demarest), also comes to the conclusion that Culpepper is going to slide away with the loot.  That being said, unless we can find a valid source which discusses this, then what we would be doing would be WP:OR. This excerpt gives a bit of an insight into the fact that Culpepper's action was premeditated, and discusses the deleted scene. This mention also suggests that it was premeditated. I don't have access to The great cop pictures by James Robert Parish, but what I can glean from the tidbits offered on searches, this might be the smoking gun regarding Culpepper's motivation, also A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World: A Life in Hollywood, an autobiography of Stanley Kramer, might also shed light on Culpepper's motivation, particularly on page 192. It is not simply the greed of the others, but also the fact that Culpepper is going to be denied his rightful pension which drives him to this act. It is not as if Tracy's character has been planning this for years, it is a "crime of convenience".  As all the circumstances come together, he sees a way out, and then plans to take it.  But to suggest that it a spur of the moment decision cannot possible be reconciled with the plot. Clearly, before he takes the money, he has set up certain actions, so it can't possible be spur of the moment.  The current iteration of the plot isn't bad, but it does suggest that Culpepper's action is spur of the moment. Another source I don't have access to, Spencer Tracy: A Bio-bibliography, by James Fisher also might give insight into Culpepper's motivation.  Not sure any of this helps, but hopefully it might spur someone on to take a look at those sources and add definitive sourcing to his motivation.  Onel 5969  TT me 00:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Plot tag and current length
I’m removing the plot length tag for now since it’s been up a while and no discussion has ensued. As for the length, it’s clearly larger than the mandated range of 400-700 words.

However, the source of that mandate, the Manual of Style/Film also notes “The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction or Memento's non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range.”

I’d say this film’s structure is indeed unconventional in the number of characters played by major name actors, and that the complicated plot required to showcase the stellar cast is in fact too complicated for 700 words. Subsequent plot section improvements should tighten, and not bloat, the section. Happy to further discuss. Jusdafax (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The plot tag doesn't require discussion as it's self-explanatory; the plot should be shortened. Leaving the tag there calls attention to the issue for readers and editors who may be in a position to address the problem, so I'm inclined to oppose its removal without better reasoning.
 * I just went through the plot and was able to make multiple edits to shorten it. Other editors may be willing and able to do the same.
 * Barring other editors supporting your view, please reinstate the plot length tag. It does no harm and may ultimately lead to a more concise summary. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * To be brief, I strongly disagree with your views and edits. Jusdafax (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless you're going to provide some rationale for your disagreement, it's hard to take it seriously. I'd note that another editor has further trimmed the summary. Assuming it remains above 700 words and you are unwilling to reinsert the plot length tag, I will plan to do so myself at some point, unless a consensus forms against doing so. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've easily cut it down to 660 words. Everybody happy now? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Works for me, and thank you! DonIago (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Fictional county reference in the movie
Not only Santa Rosita located between San Diego and Tijuana are mentioned, there was a county called Crockett where Palm Springs is and that's eastern Riverside and San Bernardino counties, with Indio as the county seat. There are 2 real Crockett counties (TN and TX), and overall 58 counties including San Francisco as a city-county in CA. It's like Camden County on My Name is Earl where Fresno is located in CA. 2605:E000:100D:C571:E0A0:848E:577F:F036 (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

1st cast member to die
The following was reverted by a user who complained that it wasn't sourced. I am sorry I'm not the best at specifying sources, but it was using information already on wikipedia, including in Don C. Harvey (born 1911) article, and he is on IMDB too.

"Don C. Harvey, listed in an uncredited role in this movie, died on April 23, 1963, the first cast member to die after filming."

Please don't revert this here in the talk page, or you will be giving me a runaround. Carlm0404 (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * IMDb isn't a generally reliable source, as discussed at WP:RS/IMDb. If the information is discussed at another article, you can't just use that article as a source per WP:CIRCULAR, but you could copy sources used at the other article and use them here to substantiate the information you wish to add. Hope this is helpful. DonIago (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I took a look over that article and it has extensive problems with information not being cited. I'd recommend searching elsewhere for sources and then improving that article, and perhaps this one in the process. DonIago (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

More stuff, from YouTube
Much of this movie was filmed in summer 1962 because of people needing time off from other shows. Sid Caesar and Edie Adams play a married couple. Ernie Kovacs was to appear in this husband role but he had recently been killed in an accident. (Edie Adams continued work to pay off bills.) Carlm0404 (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)