Talk:Snatch (film)

Question
Was Snatch the first movie to feature that stylized character intro in the trailer? Music plays while the film's characters are introed. The image freezes on each one and it usually blends into a black and white photo or artwork based on a photo of the character. It was parodied for the trailers of films like Herbie Fully Loaded, Disney's Chicken Little, Lucky Number Slevin, and probably others. I'm just guessing Snatch was the first film to feature that syle, but it easily could have been mimicking another earlier film.


 * Sam Peckinpah did that numerous times before in his films, most notably The Wild Bunch. Count Ringworm 14:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Diamond Size
Possible spoiler Yes, I know it's 86 carats the entire movie, but in Turkish's final narration, he says the vet found an 84 carat diamond in the dog's stomach. No clue what happened to the other two carats. --Milton 06:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe the dog ate it. -Kid.

Title
Shouldn't this page be "Snatch." seeing as "Snatch" is the alternate spelling?
 * Alternate spelling of what? Are you saying that the title is supposed to be "Snatch." (with a period)?  I'm not sure I follow you.  Wavy G 15:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the actual title of the film is "Snatch." - the alternate spelling in the US is "Snatch" however the official title is "Snatch." (the word and the period.): ehmjay 16:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. I was going to say, my DVD cover just says "Snatch" but obviously I have the US version.  So, if that is the correct title, I say move the article to "Snatch."  Wavy G 16:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the imdb.com page has the period. I say move the page. I'll do it. --Milton 21:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My DVD cover just says "Snatch" too, and I've got the EU (IRL) version. I've never before seen it spelt as "Snatch." I'd actually like to see something official that says "Snatch." (the imdb page doesn't count) +Falcon9x5 07:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC
 * Had a quick look at official Sony sites, two UK and one US  site, and they all call it "Snatch". All DVD covers call it "Snatch". I wasn't able to find a single "Snatch." apart from wikipedia and imdb. It should be changed back. +Falcon9x5 07:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Another look through the first eleven pages of google results for '"Snatch." film' still only gives the wiki page and imdb as spelling it "Snatch.". I'm moving it back. +Falcon9x5 07:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well the Opening Titles do contain the period so I don't know what's the official way. You can see the opening here.
 * You're right. I don't know what is correct.  IMDB seems the most reliable source, but apparently it's the only one that has it listed as "Snatch."  Don't know what to make of this one, although it is bit of a trivial point.  Wavy G 06:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then again, Turkish is actually "*Turkish*" in the titles, so the logic mightn't apply to "Snatch.". Leave it as it is, I think, most people know of it without the full stop, and like I said, there is only one pages on the internet (imdb - as far as I can tell) that keeps the full stop. +Falcon9x5

Fair enough. Let's leave it as is. : ehmjay 17:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Running Time?
Hello. Whilst looking this article I noticed that it has the running times down as different for the USA release and the UK release (UK:104 min / USA:102 min is the exact text). I was wondering, is this due to certain scenes being cut? If so, which scenes were cut, and should it be mentioned in the article? Or at least there should be a minor mention to the reasons why the running times are different. --Dreaded Walrus 18:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Because the US version has had some dialogue re-recorded to remove some of the British slang and to annunciate words that would be hard to understand due to the thick accents, presumably this is what causes the time difference. Also credit length for different regions could cause the runtime to change (remember the runtime is really just approximated, as some films that say are 104 minutes are only like 98). Anyways, there isn't any real changes mentioned on the IMDB Alt. Versions page and apart from the US. TV edit, I've never noticed many differences. : ehmjay 17:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Title in infobox
The film's title in the infobox was "scarface snatch ak47" , I have no idea what the hell this was but I changed it to "Snatch." 84.1.193.2 08:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The painting under wich lies Turkish's safe.
That painting under wich lies Turkish's safe is, in fact, on Orthodox Christian icon of Saint George. The confusing part is that the English are Protestants.

"No non-nude women"?
"No non-nude woman appears in the film with the exception of Doug's daughters."

That's not true, what about the female model's at the jewelry party. They are seen while Avi is talking to Doug over the phone from New York. I'm pretty sure they were clothed. --Dark_Wolf101 10:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is completely false, what about Brad Pitts mom. She is a pretty major character and thankfully she is fully clothed. --Daniel J. Leivick 17:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And the "All bets are off" woman. I'd have to watch it again, but I'll bet you could find more. superlusertc 2007 July 29, 03:49 (UTC)

Trivia
The trivia section states that "A painting hanging over Turkish's safe looks very much like Coat of arms of Moscow". It looks like the painting is an icon (or a copy of an icon) depicting Saint George. See this for an example. --JohnRubin 13:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any link between Boris, the "invincible" russian hacker from Golden Eye and Boris the Blade? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.12.62 (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The only links between the two would be that they are both named Boris and are both killed despite claims within the movies that they are "impossible to kill" and "invincible" respectively. WesUGAdawg (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Avi "Gets the diamond"
Do we have any evidence that this is true? Last I saw, Avi was flying to England, but whether he actually gets the diamond is anyone's guess. After all, last time he flew to England, it did not result in him getting the diamond. superlusertc 2007 July 29, 03:56 (UTC)

Well if the last scene we see is to be believed, Turkish is offering to sell the diamond to Doug the Head. Doug the Head was working with Avi in getting the diamond from Frankie in the first place, so unless Doug plans to sell the diamond behind Avi's back [which is certainly possible], it can be assumed he called Avi after the meeting with Turkish.ROG 19 14:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Eventual fate of each character inclusion
For what reason does this movie in particular have such a section? It is interesting and all, but... --Frenkmelk talk 04:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You think it's interesting, and I just wanted to know if anyone was embarrassed; I don't think Michel Foucault's wiki historical background is charted as well the characters of Snatch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.62.63 (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 01:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Variousartistssnatch-stealin'stonesandbreakin'bones.jpg
Image:Variousartistssnatch-stealin'stonesandbreakin'bones.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 20:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Mike Reid RIP
It is now 8th December and Mike Reid died 29th July 2007. It's about time this wiki page was updated. Is it not possible for wiki entries to link to other pages to update automatically?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Reid_%28entertainer%29

Mike Reid RIP
It is now 8th December and Mike Reid died 29th July 2007. It's about time this wiki page was updated. Is it not possible for wiki entries to link to other pages to update automatically?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Reid_%28entertainer%29

79.65.196.46 (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi - I assume you're talking about the table in this article that lists whether people are dead or alive under the heading "Fate of each character"? The table refers to the characters in the film (Guy Ritchie's films are sometimes notorious for their high body count), so although Mike Reid is deceased, the character he plays, Doug the Head, is alive at the end of the film, which is why it says "Alive" beside his name.-- Kateshort forbob  01:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"Bubbe"

"Bubbe" is the Yiddish word for grandmother so it might be worth noting that although the word is used several times in the film, (i.e. Avi calls Frankie "Bubbe", Frankie calls Doug "Bubbe") it is never used correctly. Remedy96 (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Snatch Movie Poster.jpg
Image:Snatch Movie Poster.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) 05:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rationale added to image article. Johnmc (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Lock and Stock
The section comparing this film to 'Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels' seems entirely original research. Also, the 'fate of each' character seems entirely irrelevant. Lots42 (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hava Negila?
Other sources state that a cut of "Hava Negila" by John Murphy appears in this film. Is this true?68.111.71.197 (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Track 8: "Hava Negila" vs. "Kosha Nostra Theme".
Are there different versions at Track 8 (of the 23 tracks edition)?

Track 8 is credited sometimes as "Hava Negila", e.g. MusicBrainz (with a length of ca. 1:52) and sometimes with "Kosha Nostra Theme", e.g. [https://coverartarchive.org/release/184ad287-2b9b-342b-b262-49af18bbc51d/19858752564.jpg Cover for this MBID!). This seems to be an error for this MusicBrainz entry.

However, there are also covers with "Hava Negila" (e.g. ). Please note the same barcode.

IMHO the "Kosha Nostra Theme" is also longer, ca. 2:19. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.149.174.139 (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Undue weight in Reaction section
The section devotes a relatively small amount of words to mentioning the movie's success (mostly in the box office; the only mention it has of critical success is "the film received mostly positive reviews") but then goes through a (relatively) detailed list of the negative criticisms that have been raised against the film. If the film really did get "mostly positive" reviews," shouldn't there be mention of them as well? If the article is going to describe what people didn't like about the film, it should also describe what people liked about it&mdash;especially if more reviewers liked things than didn't like things.  Giving it nothing but two unsourced and vague positive statements ("has developed a devoted cult following" and "received mostly positive reviews") but then citing at least four negative reviews  is pretty unbalanced.  Once I have some time I will look for some other reviews to cite to even things out, but in the meantime anyone else is welcome to add things, too. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 15:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * After a visit to rottentomatoes I found out, that half the reviewers, which gave this flick a bad rap, where unable to follow the plot. Seems to me, articles on wiki should confine to the box office results, dvd sales, etc. and forget about the so called "critics" … —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.93.205 (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Alan Ford deceased?
Well his wikipedia page and IMDB page do not show this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Ford_(actor) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0285495/

Where did the information come from that he is apparently dead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.74.234 (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, you're dim, the character is deceased, not the actors. That's why it says 'Eventual Fate of Characters' idiot! 84.64.250.111 (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Spelling
is edit-warring over the spelling of "jeweler", insisting that the British spelling is "jeweller" (double l). While the article should certainly use British English throughout, since this is a British film, this is the first I've ever heard of the word "jeweler" being spelled differently between British and American English (I'm American, btw). Merriam-Webster spells it "jeweler" (a search for "jeweller" redirects to "jeweler"). I'm not opposed to changing it if someone can give evidence of a British variation to the spelling, but I'm inclined to dismiss the IP outright due to his insulting edit summaries. Anyone with a better attitude care to comment? --IllaZilla (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I looked it up in a print edition of Merriam-Webster (10th ed.), which does give "jeweller" as a British variation. Nonetheless, I feel perfectly justified in having reverted the IP due to those uncivil edit summaries (being correct doesn't give you license to be insulting). --IllaZilla (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Alternative titles
I vaguely remember hearing that this movie was given a different title in some markets because of possible sexual double-entendre in the title "Snatch," just to avoid offending part of the moviegoing public, but when I look for reference to that online I can't find any. Does anyone know anything about this? Guyovski (talk) 01:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-sequel
Why does the article take pains to tell us twice that this film isn't a sequel to Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels? Are there other film articles that go out of their way to tell us that their subjects aren't sequels of other films to which they aren't sequels? Largoplazo (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Six weeks later, with no response, I've removed the unhelpful observations from the article. If the title of the film were "Lock, Stock, and Three Smoking Barrels", then I'd see a reason to clarify that it isn't a sequel to the previous film, if indeed it weren't, but that isn't the situation here. Largoplazo (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't see your original post. I agree with your removal. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 13:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)