Talk:Sam Spade

== Clean-up by Ca Strike-through text lton == Just did a MAJOR clean-up, mostly cleaning up very bad formatting

Untitled
The result looks like this.
 * Formatting
 * Using ALL CAPS to refer to SAM SPADE, was not good.
 * Indenting using spaces was a bad idea, because
 * Not like this.


 * Moving extraneous material
 * Most details about the The Maltese Falcon movies have been removed, and details copied to the Talk:The_Maltese_Falcon for anyone who wants to play with them.
 * Moved the radio play details (and the listing of 200+(!) episodes to their own topic Adventures of Sam Spade.

--Calton 09:23, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1931 version vs. 1941 version
I propose changing the second paragraph to read the following (including information about the first filmed version which seems perfectly reasonable to me):

Sam Spade was played by Ricardo Cortez in the extremely popular 1931 pre-code version of the The Maltese Falcon (1931 film). It was such a success that Warner Brothers attempted to re-release the film in 1936, but was denied approval by the Production Code Office due to the film's "lewd" content. The Warner Brothers decided to make a light comedy version of the story in 1936 which was called Satan Met a Lady and starred Warren William playing the central character who was renamed Ted Shane. In 1941, the Warner Brothers remade the 1931 version using the script of the 1931. The director (John Huston) updated the language and those parts which by that time were considered too lewd. Sam Spade is most closely associated with the actor Humphrey Bogart, who played the character in the 1941 version of The Maltese Falcon. This is partly due to the fact that the 1931 version was virtually forgoten because for decades, unedited copies could not be legally shown in the United States. Additionally, the film has not been made available by the copyright owners. Despite a number of perceived flaws and misteps - Bogart failed to dye his hair to the characteristic blonde called for by the novel, was considered to be too small and dark for the role, with the wrong facial structure, and was even slighted for not being enough of a lecher - he turned out not only to have succeeded, but in fact to have created the archetypal private detective, one which has influenced "film noir" characters ever since. 24.6.23.248 12:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Why are you so biased against including information on the original 1931 version. You completely dismiss this version and don't allow me to add any information about it.


 * Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Hey, a hat trick.


 * I'm against your glorifying (and yes, I do mean that word) a virtually forgotten movie version, elevating it into an overly promininent place in the SECOND paragraph, and larding it with POV language, unsourced assertions -- some demonstrably false* -- original research, and special pleading as to why your eccentric little obsession takes precedence over what actual film scholars agree on. Other than that, not a thing.


 * If you've got actual reliable sources backing up the factual portions of your claims, let's have those. Otherwise, go start a blog or something.


 * * I refer to your Additionally, the film has not been made available by the copyright owners: the availability of a VHS verion for sale demolishes that statement, as well as this this announcement and my personal experience of having seen the bleeding movie years ago at my local repertory cinema (on a double bill with Fog Over Frisco).


 * --Calton | Talk 12:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stick to the topic. Which part of the above do you consider to not be objective. Neither version should be glorified. andd the 1941 be made out to be the only valid version and the 1931 be relagated to the trash bin. as you are trying to do. This is suppose to be an article for an encyclopedia not a panegyric on the 1941 version. 24.6.23.248 21:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What part of "is most closely associated with Humphrey Bogart" did you miss? What reason is there to bury this fact in the middle of the graf in favor of extolling the godhood of Ricardo Cortez first? To repeat what I already wrote -- to which you have not responded, and have in fact have lied about in your edit summary by claiming not to see it:


 * ...elevating the 1931 version into an overly promininent place in the SECOND paragraph, and larding it with POV language, unsourced assertions -- some demonstrably false* -- original research, and special pleading as to why your eccentric little obsession takes precedence over what actual film scholars agree on.


 *  * I refer to your Additionally, the film has not been made available by the copyright owners: the availability of a VHS verion for sale demolishes that statement, as well as this this announcement and my personal experience of having seen the bleeding movie years ago at my local repertory cinema (on a double bill with Fog Over Frisco).


 * Do I need to need to bold-face the text and make it bigger for you to read it this time -- or at least to stop pretending it wasn't there? --Calton | Talk 01:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, I think you need to take your medication again. Second of all, the film will be released for the first time (for purchase) in October of 2006 (if the DVD plans go through).. the copies now on amazon.com are illegal bootlegs. Thirdly, which part of my proposed addition do you consider to not be objective.. Neither version should be glorified.. and the 1941 should not be made out to be the only valid version while the 1931 version is relagated to the trash bin.. as you are trying to do... This is suppose to be an article for an encyclopedia not a panegyric on the 1941 version. Please respond after you have taken your medications and are in a stable rational mood. 24.6.23.248 03:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * All you do is repeat yourself endlessly, and then throw in a few insults to attempt to dissuade those who disagree with you, oh anonymous editor (though, I strongly suspect you have another identity floating around here). You are on a campaign to hold up the 1931 version as the only valid version, to the point of using these articles to denigrate Huston, Bogart, Astor, and anyone else involved with the 1941 version.  The article as presented by Calton is well-balanced, mentioning all the different versions, but stating what is an obvious fact to everyone but you, i.e., that Bogart is more closely associated with Sam Spade than any other actor.  Whether you like it or not, whether you believe it should be so or not, that is the truth.


 * And, I must ask that you refrain from using those deep indents so as to set off your responses---use proper talk page formatting, please. Thank you. ---Charles 04:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My revision simply adds information about the 1931 and 1936 versions. The statements about Bogart such as "Bogart is more closely associated with Sam Spade than any other actor" were left intact.. in case you didn't notice... I only added information about the other two versions which were simply dismissed Calton (or whoever who wrote it)... maybe you need eyeglasses as well as medication like your bosom buddy.24.6.23.248 04:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * the copies now on amazon.com are illegal bootlegs. Oh for the love of Mike...you're just making this up as you go along, aren't you? For the umpteenth time provide some reliable, verifiable sources for your claims -- and I don't mean "straight from your ass". And knock off the grade-school insults: those, and your rhetorical techniques -- sputtering and handwaving -- don't help your case in the slightest. --Calton | Talk 00:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

''The statements about Bogart such as "Bogart is more closely associated with Sam Spade than any other actor" were left intact.. in case you didn't notice.'' That is known in the rhetoric biz as "a half-truth": intact, yes, but BURIED in the middle of the graf. Call up your high-school English teacher and ask him or her about "topic sentences" sometime. --Calton | Talk 00:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Rhetorical fallacies

 * The fact that sites like amazon.com and ebay.com are full of bootlegs is known to everyone except you. See the following webpages as examples: http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t270925-bootleg-dvds-on-amazon.html
 * http://groups.google.com/group/alt.marketing.online.ebay/browse_thread/thread/cbb43fbfbea39822
 * Go to any reputable site that sells only new videos/dvds and doesn't allow anyone with an email account to sell whatever they wish and you won't find a copy of the 1931 version.
 * 24.6.23.248 02:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I found this comment on the feedback of the seller who is selling a bootleg tape of the 1931 version: "Tho the seller will argue the fact, the movie was taped off tv, chanell 9. After starting the movie and seeing the terrible quality, I immediately wrote madphat. They offered a credit and I returned it a month later the credit still hasn't been applied to my account" Date: 2/24/2006 Rated by Buyer: pirillo

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/seller/feedback.html/002-2191770-9579233?ie=UTF8&asin=B00009RTCP&pageNumber=3&marketplaceSeller=1&seller=A2G2XU8VN3HB4O 24.6.23.248 05:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And get a load of this quote from the seller: "We sell rare & very old movies dating from 1890s on, NOT mass produced films. We clearly advertise that they are shipped in generic covers." Date: 1/19/2005 madphat

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/seller/feedback.html/002-2191770-9579233?ie=UTF8&asin=B00009RTCP&pageNumber=19&marketplaceSeller=1&seller=A2G2XU8VN3HB4O Sounds pretty clear to me that this is a bootlegger.24.6.23.248 05:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to provide a master class in rhetorical fallacies? This latest batch is what's known as the "strawman argument": make up phony argument for your opponent and argue against that.

Like this: The fact that sites like amazon.com and ebay.com are full of bootlegs is known to everyone except you. Since I no way, shape, or form even HINTED at claiming that Amazon and eBay don't sell bootlegs -- and did not even MENTION eBay -- this is a phony statement from top to bottom. You, in effect, lying by implication in attributing this nonsense to me, since what i actually asked for was proof that THIS ONE SPECIFIC MOVIE'S COPYRIGHT HOLDERS WERE KEEPING IT OFF THE MARKET. You are making the claim, YOU have to prove it directly.

What's even better is that one of your bits of misdirection disguised as evidence even hints at the opposite: "Tho the seller will argue the fact, the movie was taped off tv, chanell 9". Which means, of course, it was being broadcast on "chanell 9", implicitly putting the kibosh on your claim that it was being hidden away.

Sounds pretty clear to me that this is a bootlegger. Probably true. Also, completely 100% irrelevant to the actual issue of whether this specific movie is being withheld and/or has been withheld from the market, or even its copyright status generally.

So, once again, you need:


 * 1) evidence of the actual claims YOU are actual making,
 * 2) evidence which is verifiable
 * 3) evidence which is from a reliable source

And that's just the TIP of the iceberg here, one single bit of the myriad of claims, assertions, POV, minority-opinion claimed as majority, excuses, and rationalizations you've offered up without the slightest shred of a shadow of whisp of backup. Until you make the slightest nod in actually backing up what you say, you're getting nowhere.


 * Awww... poor little boy is mad cause he got trumped, beaten, moded... and the funny part is.. you expect me to waste my time looking for evidence for you, don't make me laugh. You wouldn't know a fact if it hit you in the face. So long. :) 24.6.23.248 07:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This is really ridiculous

My personal view on this matter...
...is that any story, film, or tv show worthy enough to go on wikipedia, would be worthy enough to have individual pages for the characters within it. Therefore, I think this page should remain. Keep therefore... :p Iamandrewrice 14:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

=
I changed "Anthology" to "Collection". An anthology is a collection of works by different authors; a collection is by one author, so describing a book of stories by Hammett as an anthology is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.87.76 (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Gibberish
The opening paragraphs of this article don't make a bit of sense. It says Spade was in three novels by Hammet, then a sentence later that he was only in one. I don't even know what it means, or which is right, so I can't fix it.

The second paragraphs contains reference to a "nameless book" which has a title.

Can someone who actually has read Hammet's stuff and knows what they're talking about fix it so this article isn't nonsensical? 155.135.55.231 (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Very lacking
I find this article, honestly, very lacking. The Maltese Falcon was named the 56th best English language novel (according to its article) and the lead character of that novel should have a much better article, in my opinion. I will be adding to it as soon as I have time, likely later today. I am reading The Maltese Falcon right now, so I'll add descriptions of him from that. Jeancey (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)