Talk:The Gambler (film series)

Why merged?
Why were these five films run together when they originally had separate articles? The unique cast list for The Luck of the Draw, with some of the characters, unlike in the article itself, referencing in the links the historical figures played (Bat Masterson, Wyatt Earp, etc.) and actors not mentioned in the text of the article, such as Mickey Rooney, has disappeared. This is the only film series in Wikipedia that I've seen in which the articles were condensed and combined this way. Please don't do this to James Bond, Tarzan, or Sherlock Holmes. MightyArchangel (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's simple: I was bold and did it. The five movies have little room for expansion and would practically forever be in "stub" status otherwise. Other film series do frequently have such consolidated articles (e.g., Terminator (franchise), Batman in film, and so on). In the case of the Terminator, those films have substantially more content and also have "main" articles to expound upon each title. In the case of the Gambler series, none of the title's have enough content to warrant main articles. Perhaps they will in the future but at the present they are not needed. In regards to the cast, if you wish to add full cast and crew to each movie, create a list article and put links to it. The content for each movie would be dwarfed by the a full cast section and would ruin the style and flow of the article. Almost every movie in Wikipedia only shows the top-billed cast, or most important characters. Keeping with my example, even The_Terminator does not have a full cast and crew. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so it makes sense to add cast and crew entries only in relation to the completeness of the rest of the article. It is also true at Wikipedia that even when an something is notable, individuals involved in it may not be, so there's no mandate to include every cast and crew member. Since the MoS for Film is incomplete and does not specify what to do in the case of film series and is rather ambiguous for cast list, the over-riding guildline should be the use common sense one. I have no problem if the full cast and crew are added to a separate list but such lists don't necessarily belong here. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that the full cast for "The Luck of the Draw" is literally stunning in that it's truly all-star and features 1950s actors reprising their series roles forty years later, as well as the now missing Mickey Rooney. Nobody said anything about a full crew listing but the cast list in the case of this one film is truly unique, doing for western television series what "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" did for comedians, i.e. putting so many major players into the same film.  The original (obliterated) cast listing also differed in that the links were to the actual historical characters while references in the body of the article were to the various television series, to convey as much information as possible.  On the other hand, it's not the end of the world and I can see why you'd do it this way.  After all, this is merely "The Gambler" we're talking about.  It makes for a good article, Jason, and is probably at least as sensible to do it this way.  MightyArchangel (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of going back in and restoring the cast list after reading this because it is unique and a lot of big names are currently omitted from the text that people should know about. That having been said, Jason, I do think it was a superb idea to put all the Gambler films under one roof, and thanks for taking the time to do that.  Roccobam (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Year of The Adventure Continues
In the Pitts' book, the year for The Adventure Continues is given as 1982. But it seems to have actually broadcast in 1983. Not 100% sure which is right. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Running Times
A couple of these telefilms list a running time of 240 minutes. Seems incorrect to me--I'd guess each was around 90-94 minutes (as some are listed). Sir Rhosis (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * They first aired on television in two-hour time slots. 240 minutes would be a two-part airing, two hours each night (usually,but not necessarily, consecutive nights). - BilCat (talk) 21:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)