Talk:The Italian Job/Archive 1

Personal opinion
Just seen the "remake" and thankfully, it's not as bad as I'd expected. More a homage to the original than a remake. The action is quite involving and there are some cool effects. The fine line between plausibility and over the topness is trod well. I still think the original is a far better film though. GRAHAMUK 07:16, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Shopping arcades
the roof of an aircraft museum, if I understood the DVD, but what's its name? --wwoods 08:19, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I've reinstated the original text which gives the name - Palazzo Vela. I'm pretty sure it's not an aircraft museum but an art museum - but I could be wrong, it's the one place i didn't get around to visiting on my trip to Turin. Incidentally I have no idea why the edit was made - it greatly reduced the sense of the section and took away a useful fact or two - I can only assume it was a blunder rather than a deliberate edit. Graham 02:49, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Charges of racism, sexism etc..
''The film has been criticised for being nationalistic in tone, patriotic to the point of racism. There are also one or two racist jokes in the script, mainly at the expense of the black coach driver Big William, and the Italians in general. ''
 * I don't recall any racist jokes at the expense of "Big William", unless it's perhaps him saying he doesn't like the colour he's painting the bus (RW&B). Can anyone enlighten me before I remove this? Mintguy (T)

Anyone at all recall the racist jokes!? Mintguy (T) 01:17, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the "joke" about the colour of the bus is racist. The implication is that it's the sort of thing that gets said to BW in other contexts... it's not that offensive to me but then again I'm not black. Such throwaway racism was typical of films of the period. Otherwise though there is much low-level racism directed at the Italians - "bloody foreigners!" said only because the helpful person spoke in his own language for example, and the general way they are portrayed as bumbling idiots. Not to mention the stereotype fat Italian woman (both racist AND sexist!). These are what I can recall, but I also recall that other film critics have noted this too (can't find a source to cite though - ooer) so the statement that "the film has been criticised... etc" is true as far as I know. Graham 02:49, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd say the bus thing is an anti-racist joke if anything. It is not true to say that they portray all Italians as stupid. The portrayal of the mafia is another stereotype but they are sinister rather than stupid. The sexism, e.g. the "Welcome Home Party" for Charlie is sexist but par for the period. I have to disagree with you about the fat Italian woman. There is only 1 fat Italian woman in the film whilst there are 3 fat British woman (remember Annette, and the two lovelies is the sports-car?), the joke is not about them being fat but rather about Professor Peach's fetish. In general the fun comes from the oddities of the British characters, the "Bloody foreigners" joke is poking fun at the character's inability to understand Italian and expecting them to speak English, rather than suggesting that there is something wrong with Italians. The classic scene of the Camp Freddy's board meeting ("Fulham, bit dodgy at the moment"), the scene with John le Mesurier as the prison governor, Bridger's obsession with the Queen, the "chinless wonder's" driving the minis, are all examples of the joke being centered on British eccentricities.  Mintguy (T) 11:45, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Well-argued. To some extent I'm just playing devil's advocate, as I love the film and don't find it offensive myself... in many ways its datedness is part of its charm. I have read that it has been criticised on this basis though - perhaps it's just a case of political correctness gone too far? I feel it deserves some sort of mention though, perhaps in another form of words. Graham 23:43, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It's definitely not racist, certainly not in a "we're better than they are" sense, and it makes far more use of British stereotypes than Italian stereotypes. As Mintguy correctly observes, the "bloody foreigners" scene is an attack on the intolerant and ignorant Brits who have such attitudes, and says nothing at all about Italians. It makes a valid point too which still rings true today, I've met many British tourists abroad who expect everyone in the world to speak English and get angry when people don't. As for "Big William", he's barely featured and (except perhaps obliquely in the name) I can't find any racist references to him in the film at all. He's mostly treated as just another one of "our lads", so you could even argue it's a model of integration at a time when the first large numbers of Black Britons were appearing in London. Incidentally, the enthusiastic one-hour documentary that comes on the Italian Job DVD was written and narrated by a British Asian, so this film clearly appeals more to a general sense of British character than any particular ethnic group.

I removed this bit about racist jokes: "There are also one or two racist and xenophobic jokes in the script, mainly at the expense of the black coach driver Big William, and the Italians in general." Mainly because I think Mintguy is right in his analysis.


 * There is a world of difference between a movie that is racist - and a movie that portrays racist people. If anything, this movie might be the latter - it's certainly not the former.  However, we are getting ahead of ourselves here.  White British people and white Italian people are of the same race (Caucasoid) - when the Brits insult the Italians, they are not being racist they are being nationalistic - which is a very different (and IMHO much smaller) sin.  Being nationalistic was certainly 100% acceptable when this movie was made - and is probably still acceptable now.  The war against the Italians and the Germans had only been over for 24 years - and almost all of the British people portrayed in the movie would have lived through that war and had good reason to dislike the Italians.   We had the government sponsored "I'm Backing Britain" campaign for example - stoking the nationalistic fervor.  So making fun of the Italians cannot remotely be considered "racist" by any reasonable definition - and it was certainly not unacceptable by 1960's standards.   The only actor of a different race in the entire movie is Big William - that decision to have just one black actor merely reflects the relatively small number of non-caucasian people who lived in Britain and Italy in the 1960's.  Of the 10 or so people on the team - 1 is black - that's 10% which is more than statistically representative of the black population of Britain at the time...this was not set in America!   I don't see any place where William is mistreated or insulted because of his race - but even if he were, that would merely be an accurate reflection of how real people would have behaved at the time.   If any residual problem remains, it's sure as hell not sufficiently severe to warrant a derogatory mention in the article. SteveBaker 14:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Why are people so hell-bent on looking for raciscm every where? What exists in this film, I think, is a rivalry between the British criminal gang and the Italian criminal gang. Just becasue two people/countries/groups/teams etc are rivals it doesn't mean that they racist/sexist/anything-else-ist. LewisR (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

palazzo a vela
actually, the 'palazzo a vela' (= the sail shaped palazzo/building), was for quite a long time just an empty expositive place used to host a number of different temporary exhibitions. In the '80s it hosted indoor athletic events. Presently it's under reconstruction in view of the winter Olimpics in 2006 (possibly, that's why it's not included in the tour). I am afraid the reconstruction is not too respectful of the original structure (just my impressions passing by one month ago).


 * It was literally gutted for the Winter Olympics, and filled with a random pile of smaller, cubic buildings with a quite ephemereal air to them, but the distinctively shaped roof was preserved

Peaches vs. Peach
Did anyone notice one of the missions in the first Italian Job video game (the one based on the 1969 movie) was "Peaches for Peaches?" Isn't the character in the movie Professor Peach? Then shouldn't it be "Peaches for Peach". "I like 'em big. BIG!" --Hyad 07:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I noticed it too. But why isn't there an article about that game?

2003 'remake'
Just wondering why there is no separate page for the 2003 'remake'. Deliberate? I'd submit that it should have a separate page (mainly because it's not a remake, it's a crime caper film that just happens to have Mini Cooeprs and the same name!) --Suitov 15:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It's much more like a sequel; if you wanted to separate the two articles, you could.


 * Atlant 11:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think the remake is the worst movie I have ever seen. I am sure many people agree that it is a waste of time to watch. That's why it doesn't have its own page. Mosquitopsu 00:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Er - it does have it's own page The Italian Job (2003 film) - and Wiki isn't about opinions - it's about FACTS. SteveBaker 21:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Opinions obviously vary. And if it were the worst movie [anyone] had ever seen, that would be notable, adding to the push for it having its own page. ;-)


 * Atlant 11:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Scene question
I have seen this film a while ago, and do not have direct access to it now, but just have to know this, because I am not sure: is there a scene in it, where explosive charges are placed on the underside of a street, and a van, placed directly at this spot, falls down to the sewers through the hole caused by the explosions? I know, stupid question, 's just... ;) --Ouro 14:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's the remake, The Italian Job (2003 film). And it's a subway, not a sewer. —wwoods 16:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep - that's in the remake. They drill a bunch of holes into the ceiling of the subway line and pack them full of explosives - when the armored truck containing the gold stops right above them, they set off the charges and the truck falls about 50 feet straight down to where the gang are waiting to rob it.  We're told that the safe contains a thin sheet of glass that prevents you from drilling out the lock...how the heck that survives a fall from 50 feet is anyone's guess! SteveBaker 20:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. Should have posted it at the RefDesk tho :) --Ouro 12:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Poster
Why the replacement? The new poster does not reflect the film at all, since no guns were shown used by Charlie's crew... My impulse would be to revert as I can't see that this poster is authentic. laddiebuck 04:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the US poster has nothing whatever to do with the movie - it does however serve to explain why the movie didn't do so well in US markets! More to the point, the UK poster is the one chosen for the DVD sleeve design in both UK and US markets.  It might be interesting (and a fair compromise) to put the US poster in the "Sequels and remakes" section further down the article.  Notice where we are talking about disappointing US reception:

"the film was not a success in America. Michael Caine blamed its failure  there on an unattractive and misleading advertising campaign."

...well, that poster surely shows a misleading advertising campaign - the gun makes it look like it's a movie about Chicago gangsters during prohibition - not a hip 1960's movie. The way the guy is dressed makes him look like a Mafia guy (and the heroes of the movie are going AGAINST the Mafia) - as for the map on the girl's back...unless you know the movie is about navigating through a city, it could be anything! SteveBaker 11:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I fail to see where on the poster it states that it is the US poster. Plus the one that was originally on the page actually says on its upload page that it is a DVD cover. I would think that any movie poster is more applicable than a DVD cover, if that is what it is as the source doesn't verify this. I would be more than agreeable to put the original British poster up (can't have the yanks taking over the page) but if you look at the 'DVD ' poster it looks nothing like British posters of the 60's. It isn't a quad for a start. Apologies for not putting this before changing the poster. I hadn't noticed this discussion. Pally01, 12:58, 40 August 2006 (UTC)

The US poster is certainly not what was used in the UK - indeed the US poster is the precise reason that Micheal Caine believes the movie failed in the USA - which in turn explains why there was no sequel. I believe that the image that you keep reverting is the DVD cover - but it is essentially the same as one of the UK posters that was used at the time. The other poster shows the three Mini's parked together facing towards the camera. I really don't think it's appropriate to show the poster that played such a large part in causing the movie to fail at the top of the article - so I'm going to RE-revert. SteveBaker 20:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There is yet a third UK poster shown here:

http://www.allposters.com/-sp/The-Italian-Job-Posters_i122673_.htm

SteveBaker 20:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Then maybe the best thing would be to use the re-release poster that is a quad until an original British quad poster can be found. (Pally01 20:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC))

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 03:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Italian Job (1969 film) → The Italian Job'''
 * The Italian Job → The Italian Job (disambiguation)
 * Primary topic disambiguation. The page was moved, without discussion from The Italian Job on 13 April 2008 by User:Anthony Appleyard, leaving few links now pointing at the page. here, and hundreds of links for the page now pointing at the disambiguation page that are actually for the 1969 film here. The 1969 film is an Iconic British institution and certainly deserves primary topic disambiguation here. Jooler (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On further investigation it appears that the move was the result of an attempt to "repair" a cut'n'paste move Cut and paste move repair holding pen, so I think the case for restoring the original page name is even stronger. Jooler (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the proposal. Everything on the Disambig page has it's roots in the original film, and the film should be primary topic. - X201 (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The Italian Job's deletes etc log says:
 * 06:31, 13 April 2008 Anthony Appleyard (Talk | contribs | block) restored "The Italian Job" ‎ (2 revisions restored)
 * 06:29, 13 April 2008 Anthony Appleyard (Talk | contribs | block) moved The Italian Job to The Italian Job (1969 film) ‎ (histmerge)
 * 06:28, 13 April 2008 Anthony Appleyard (Talk | contribs | block) restored "The Italian Job" ‎ (394 revisions restored: hist-split)
 * 06:28, 13 April 2008 Anthony Appleyard (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "The Italian Job" ‎ (temp for hist-split)
 * Page The Italian Job started as being all about the 1969 film; then someone (probably User:Australiaaz) cut-and-pasted it to The Italian Job (1969 film), leaving The Italian Job as a redirect which was edited into a disambig page. I found that a history-split and history-merge was needed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Image copyright problem with Image:Matt Monro - On Days Like These excerpt.ogg
The image Image:Matt Monro - On Days Like These excerpt.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --02:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Competition about Charlie's Idea
Just wondering how I would go about adding the information about the competition at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/debates/3276323/How-should-The-Italian-Job-really-end.html to the article. It has been removed twice as (I think) spam(?) and I'm just wondering why. It seems to be an interesting piece of reaction to the film. I have not edited wikipedia much, and would greatly appreciate guidance on how this information should be added. Alanmuk (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Vehicles
In this section, the manufacturer of the Mini is stated to be "BMC", a company that was actually defunct in 1966, three years before the film's release. The director may have in fact said, or intended to say, "BLMC" - British Leyland Motor Corporation - who in fact were the owners of the company by 1969. I think this should be clarified - any views? JohnB57 (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The comments regarding repairs to the rear differential are also a little misleading. Front wheel drive may have been compartively rare in the early sixties but by 1969 it was becoming quite common, in use by, amongst others, British Leyland, Saab, Citroen, Renault, Subaru and even in Oldsmobile's Toronado in the States. Rewording needed. JohnB57 (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

BBC story re: ending
source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7756288.stm —   pd_THOR  undefined | 06:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Re-do Previous Requested Move
From WP:RM:


 * The Italian Job (1969 film) → The Italian Job —(Discuss)— It was agreed last April that this film would appear at the basename, however last november someone decided they didn't like it and moved it. This was corrected partially via a re-direct but not fully.  This would fully fix the alteration of the consensus decision. I tried to just correct it but because the basename has history it won't allow me to do it. --ChappyTC 16:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this and doing the right thing by going to WP:RM, it's good to go through the hoops if in doubt, and a good way to get admin attention. But we don't need to go through WP:RM to revert an undiscussed, unilateral move that goes against a previous RM decision, so I'm closing it and as neither the target nor the talk page target had significant history, I have simply moved it back to comply with the previous decision here.

If anyone wants to move it in future (and I can see some possible grounds for this, but that's not the issue here), please discuss it here first. Andrewa (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Professor Peach's arrest...
The last we see of Professor Peach, he's being hauled into an Italian police station for, ahhh, helping an Italian lady onto a bus. He's not exactly the tough-guy type who'd keep his mouth shut in jail about what he was doing in Italy or whom he came with. Is this just a loose end left by Collinson, or is it a tantalizing reminder that even if they do get the bus unstuck from the cliff, they still have a canary singing away back at the scene of the crime? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to recapture visibility on watchlists — HarringtonSmith (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Never really thought about that before. Interesting discussion but not for here. Dino246 (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's interesting, then it's a candidate for inclusion in the article; if it qualifies for inclusion there, it qualifies for inclusion here. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not unless you can find independent and notable sources discussing it. Otherwise it's OR.Dino246 (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a nit-pick - Professor Peach... erm... helps the large Italian woman onto the bus... but then decides to get on the bus with her, and licks his lips in anticipation... so clearly he's... erm... tried something while *on* the bus....


 * 86.25.121.155 (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In the novel the fat woman gets stuck in the doorway of the police station and as Peach is helping her through the Land Rover drives up, Croker grabs Peach and pulls him inside and they make their escape. Just one of several differences between the novel and the film. Idealfarmer (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Poster: UK re-release v US poster

 * Why the replacement? The new poster does not reflect the film at all, since no guns were shown used by Charlie's crew... My impulse would be to revert as I can't see that this poster is authentic. laddiebuck 04:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the US poster has nothing whatever to do with the movie - it does however serve to explain why the movie didn't do so well in US markets! More to the point, the UK poster is the one chosen for the DVD sleeve design in both UK and US markets. It might be interesting (and a fair compromise) to put the US poster in the "Sequels and remakes" section further down the article. Notice where we are talking about disappointing US reception:

"the film was not a success in America. Michael Caine blamed its failure  there on an unattractive and misleading advertising campaign." ...well, that poster surely shows a misleading advertising campaign - the gun makes it look like it's a movie about Chicago gangsters during prohibition - not a hip 1960's movie. The way the guy is dressed makes him look like a Mafia guy (and the heroes of the movie are going AGAINST the Mafia) - as for the map on the girl's back...unless you know the movie is about navigating through a city, it could be   anything! SteveBaker 11:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I fail to see where on the poster it states that it is the US poster. Plus the one that was originally on the page actually says on its upload page that it is a DVD cover. I would think that any movie poster is more applicable than a DVD cover, if that is what it is as the source doesn't verify this. I would be more than agreeable to put the original British poster up (can't have the yanks taking over the page) but if you look at the 'DVD ' poster it looks nothing like British posters of the 60's. It isn't a quad for a start.

Apologies for not putting this before changing the poster. I hadn't noticed this discussion. Pally01, 12:58, 40 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The US poster is certainly not what was used in the UK - indeed the US poster is the precise reason that Micheal Caine believes the movie failed in the USA - which in turn explains why there was no sequel. I believe that the image that you keep reverting is the DVD cover - but it is essentially the same as one of the UK posters that was used at the time. The other poster shows the three Mini's parked together facing towards the camera. I really don't think it's appropriate to show the poster that played such a large part in causing the movie to fail at the top of the article - so I'm going to RE-revert. SteveBaker 20:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There is yet a third UK poster shown here: http://www.allposters.com/-sp/The-Italian-Job-Posters_i122673_.htm SteveBaker 20:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Then maybe the best thing would be to use the re-release poster that is a quad until an original British quad poster can be found. (Pally01 20:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC))

Due to the recent mini edit warring I have brought this discussion back. (Pally01 above was me in an earlier life). The parameters for the infobox state ''Insert a relevant image for the film. Ideally this should be a film poster, but a DVD/VHS cover, screenshot, or other film-related image may also be used''. As per above, the US poster bares no relation to what the film was about and Michael Caine has blamed the promotion of the film for it's failure at the US box office. The UK re-release poster is basically the same as the original UK poster, barring the fact that it mentions that it is a release. It shows the iconic minis, Michael Caine looking like he did in the film and not some mafioso gangster and gives an overall impression of what the film is about and not the misleading impression the US poster shows. Therefore I believe that the UK rerelease poster is more relevant to the film than the US one and, if anything, the US poster should be put back in the article under reception where the promotion if the film is mentioned and where the poster itself was for about two years. (Quentin X (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC))
 * I agree. Dino246 (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Quentin and Dino — HarringtonSmith (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Per the discussion here I've added the American release poster to the reception section of the article. If it's decided it should be removed entirely feel free to do so. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Bravo, Grandpafootsoldier! The perfect solution! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Dino246 (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

New redlinks
Why did we add all those redlinks to the tiniest roles in the cast list? The picture is now forty-one years old; if those actors were going to go on to notability (and hence dedicated Wikipedia articles), wouldn't they have done so by now? Whatta you say we add the link after the article gets written. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The film is now forty-two years old and not a single article has been written about any of the redlinked performers in the small roles since my November posting above. If there are no objections, I'd like to remove the redlinks to these non-notable cast members. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 10:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, that edit cannot be simply undone, but most of those links can be removed, and one or more comments added to point out that they should not be recreated. If we leave just the three red-links (one with an Italian note), they may be more likely to be created than if there are 8. ISTR that stubs go against WP:REDLINK. Tim PF (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is an article about it:Renato Romano, although I note that it omits his role in it:Un colpo all'italiana and vice-versa (correction -- my first two italian edits). Alastair Hunter and Arnold Diamond also have considerable credits, and probably satisfy WP:REDLINK, but I think the other 5 should certainly be de-linked.  I would, however, make a note about Lana Gatto aka Hazel Collinson aka Mrs Peter Collinson (per The Italian Job website). Tim PF (talk) 12:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * John Morris should also be delinked, as he doesn't appear on the John Morris DAB page. Tim PF (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You know Tim PF, that John Morris link used to be to [John Morris (actor)], and I removed it because that John Morris was born in 1984. Then the editor who re-linked everybody re-linked Morris. If we're serious about generating articles about Alastair Hunter and Arnold Diamond, then let's leave the links in, but slap in a couple of stub articles to help embelishers get rolling. Myself, I am dubious that anything would come of it and would just as soon delink 'em until such time as someone reaches back forty years to find some meat to hang on dem bones. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I assume you mean by ?  It should have been reverted, since all the links added were either WP:REDLINK, WP:OVERLINK or incorrect links (John Morris and Barry Cox), and the anonymous user should have been asked to not add such links in future (uw-linking).  I note that this was one of many such, so they could also have the suggestion that they check the links are correct ({[tl|uw-preview}}), warned for a lack of edit summaries (uw-editsummary), and then for (uw-disruptive1, etc.).
 * Yes, that is the most egregious, but there were others before also. I don't know what it is about this article that flushes out the compulsive overlinkers. If it were my planet, I'd pull all the redlinks until the articles are written. I just don't subscribe to the theory that a redlink will inspire someone to write the article, certainly no more than no link will. And in the meantime, they give the article an unfinished look. I also doubt that there are enough sources to develop articles on these bit players from so long ago. Incidentally, I installed your link to Renato Romano at the Italian wiki. There'll be those who object to that, though, and someone will soon yank it.  — HarringtonSmith (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be right about removing all red-links, but I think that's an open invite to re-add them all again. I've knocked it down to the 3 that have a reasonable filmography at The Italian Job website, entered NOT comments against Barry Cox and John Morris, and modified the link in Italian to not surprise (per Help:Interlanguage links or thereabouts).  I'm off to bed shortly -- let's see if it survives the night. Tim PF (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nicely done. I'm curious, too, to see how long it lasts. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Vehicles
I think there are at least 3 vehicles not currently covered: As to the last, I believe that many Italian trucks were still RHD at the time. Tim PF (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Is the football fans' minibus a Ford Thames 400E?
 * 2) Which model Landrover do they use to tow the bullion vehicle?
 * 3) The two RHD car carriers used to block the road and ram the doors.


 * I now notice that there's a link to Land Rover Series IIa in the "Reception" section, but I don't remember if it was an 88 or 108. Tim PF (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"You're..." and not "You were..."
The report in the "Daily Telegraph", cited in the article, quotes the line of dialogue as: "You were..."

but Michael Caine in the movie itself *clearly* says: "you're", and not "you were".

( Most recently shown in the UK on Film4 on April 9th and 15th and clearly "you're" in both those showings. )

86.25.122.63 (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have a screen shot of the subtitles? If not, that would come under WP:OR.  My own two pence worth is that Caine's accent makes it difficult to differentiate.  It would need a reference from an expert in the relevant area of linguistics to overturn the quote. Tim PF (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd always thought it was "you're" too but written sources say otherwise and if you think about it, "you were" makes more sense as he says it after the event. As has been pointed out, Caine's slightly drawly accent swallows the words and it's entirely feasible, likely even, that the correct scripted line is "you were". In any case, that's what it says in the referenced source so that's what it will say on Wikipedia. Anything else is opinion.Dino246 (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "you were" only makes sense if there is only one detonation intended, and that was it, and it is now in the past... but they are rehearsing for a future performance, in which case "you're" makes more sense, as it places emphasis on the intention... but unless we can get Michael Caine to publicly state what he actually said, this would appear to be an end to the matter... :)


 * 86.25.123.22 (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Whilst they were indeed rehearsing, I don't recall seeing a line up of other vans ready to be tested, nor a clip of any further tries. If a smaller explosion had failed to blow the doors off, the trial could have been repeated until it did, but the near total destruction of the van precluded any further tests on it.  I therefore consider that the past tense perfectly reflects the past tense of that van, with the end of any further prospects of testing without the procurement of additional targets. Tim PF (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely "you're". I'm sorry but the written sources that say otherwise are wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g_GeQR8fJo 86.45.47.195 (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Reception area
The first two paragraphs in the reception area are un-sourced and have NOTHING to do with the critical or public reception of the film. They should be removed. 71.35.236.243 (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I just went through and retooled the reception area to discuss critical reaction to the films as well as some discussion on it's public reception. Does that improve that section at all and warrant the removal of the NPOV tag? Comics (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it's been over a month since I retooled the reception section and nobody's commented, so I'm going to go and remove the NPOV tag. Feel free to put it back up though if there's still a problem - I tried to make it as balanced as I could. Comics (talk) 09:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Cost & Revenue?
How much did the movie cost? How much did it bring at the box=office, and DVD releases (VHS?), and with its 30th anniversery re-release? I've no idea where that information might be found, but I'm sure some movie buffs do... ~ender 2012-03-13 21:02:PM MST

Computer "virus"
The plot summary says Peach infects the computer with a virus. I thought they just changed the tape reel and so install a new program. I don't know enough about the technicalities of 1960's computers to know if this can accurately be described as infecting with a virus. Anyone have opinions ?Idealfarmer (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been changed in the meantime but to answer the question: The first virus/self-replicating program is documented as being form 1971, the Creeper virus. In the film the computer that controls the traffic lights is basically screwed up so nobody can go anywhere on the roads.  So assuming the film was set in at some point in the 1960s (is this stated at any point?), it was not a virus as they did not "exist" prior to 1971. NKTP (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Exaggerated claim should be deleted
"Subsequent television showings and releases on video have established it as an institution in the United Kingdom." It's a well known film but it is untrue to say it is an institution. 92.24.181.112 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)