Talk:Training Day

These new revisions suck
I read this Wikipedia article like a year or two ago and it was great -- it talked about the LAPD's Rampart scandal and how Denzel Washington decided to grow a goatee to look like Rafael Pérez, the central figure in the police corruption case. Now, all of that relevant and interesting info has been removed and a huge, lengthy summary of the entire plot is here. Why? This article sucks now and doesn't even mention any connection to the real-life events that inspired aspects of this great film. You know, maybe when an article is good, you can try to keep it at that standard instead of letting people remove whole sections and add cliff notes. This article reads like a 3rd grade book report. Bring back the old content that people took the time to research and source -- this is one of the things that really frustrates me about Wikipedia. This movie has been out for years and little if any new information has come or is coming out about the film. There is no reason I should come back here and see a radically different, poorer quality article. Sometimes I think Wikipedia should pay real editors to oversee content. Awful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.207.235 (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Took time to research and source?" I checked and it was not cited; that's why it was removed. I have found a citation and added it back. Connor Behan (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Objectivity
I'm a pretty big fan of this movie too, but the thing that is so great about it isnt the detail of the story by the premise it creates in relation to the power police hold, expecially in the grim world depicted within the film. Because of this ive totally scrapped that huge bit about the specific twists and turns of the movie and broken it down to (hopefully) its core without spoiling it for those who haven't seen it, and also to respect that this is an encyclopaedia, not a fan-site.

This article was clearly written by a big fan of this movie, and, quite frankly, it reads a bit immaturely in comparision to Wik standards. Hey, I loved this movie, too. Denzel was amazing, kept me wondering at every turn, I think I probably enjoyed this movie as much as whoever wrote this. But a Wik article should not betray the writer's giddiness over a movie (or anything else, for that matter).

One other thing: for the life of me, I can't figure out what purpose the "Quotes" section serves here. Some fan thought that there was some cool dialogue, and so therefore included it. I'm going to come back in a few days. Without finding an adequate explanation of that sections, I'm just going to delete it as irrelevant. Unschool 13:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "The Story" section is badly in need of paragraph breaks. mhunter 07:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed the story section to reflect the outline of the story, while trying to maintain an NPOV view of the movie. Sledgeh101 02:54, 20 February (UTC)

OR
There seems to be way to much unsourced apparant OR in the "Best Actor Academy Award controversy" section. Could someone knowledgeable please source it or delete it? 84.238.28.62 23:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Correctamundo, there is unsourced OR here -- Delete this section. If someone wants to accuse Hollywood of being racist let them do it in the Hollywood page, or in the Racism page, or in the Nappy Headed Ho page or someplace else. This section adds little, if anything to the fine movie, Training Day.

Minor modifications
“Infuriated at being set up”

I merely want to remark on this particular sentence. Is it a fair assumption to assert that Jake was fueled by his rage of being set-up? Because I can easily advocate that the reason behind Jake’s desire to catch Alonzo was just to defy everything that he had taught him that day. Jake looks like the typical family guy who will not put his life in danger for revenge; this is just a theory that I firmly believe it should be considered.

Shotgun
Does anyone know what kind of shotgun is used in the film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by STiLL DRE (talk • contribs) 02:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Jmg38 (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Villian?
Why is Alonzo considered a villain? It seemed to me like he was a good guy. Alonzo Harris is no more of a villain than Severus Snape is. Or Han Solo. Or Robin Hood. Come on now, what are you people thinking. 71.228.50.12 (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to get the point of the movie.. He killed the drug dealer Roger not to get the the money he owed the Russians. He was a crooked cop. He killed Roger without provocation, he stole evidence, he routinely broke the law, the implication was the he used his position as a law enforcer not to uphold the law and make LA a better place, but to make his life comfortable. 70.73.59.208 (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree that Alonzo was a villain, but I can see why some people might argue otherwise. He was crooked to the core, no doubt, but he perceived that he was doing good, by fighting an underworld he believed was depraved. He is not all that different, really, from some "heroes" in other films (like Dirty Harry, for example). The difference is that the movie itself seems to present him as the villain. In short, whether a character is a hero or a villain has a lot to do with the movie's point of view. (Han Solo, Robin Hood, and Severus Snape are poor examples, firstly because the systems they defy are far more corrupt than the one Alonzo Harris works in, and secondly because they have some standards--they don't believe the end justifies the means.) marbeh raglaim (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Murdering some Russian because he couldn't control his temper. Murdering Roger to try to get away with the first murder. Attempting to have his new partner murdered to cover up the second murder. That pretty much says villain to me...Christopher White 1982 (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Alonzo was a villian because, ultimately, he had become a part of the problem, and if anything was making the problem worse.John ISEM (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is the important part about this character and the movie.he is neither a villain nor a good guy!maybe even once he was like Jake but people like Roger put him in wrong way and he lost his way of being a good cop.Sure he done terrible things in the movie but from his talks you can find out that he had some good things in him one day...--WikiBahal (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Alonzo is a villain in the context of the movie. Whether or not his actions are justified is another topic of debate. In the context of the movie, Alonzo is the antagonist and Jake is the protagonist. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Alonzo is definitely the antagonist/bad guy. He does not do or think he's doing the right thing. He misuses his position in the LAPD, his size, demeanor etc to get what he wants. He is highly selfish, intimdating to his colleague and easily meets the ASPD criteria. Jim Michael (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Having found the article Alonzo Harris, I suggest it be merged into this page. We generally only have separate articles on particularly important fictional characters, where there's so much to say about them that they need their own page; that's not the case here, where all the information on Alonzo can be included in this article. Please discuss this merge below; if no one objects, I will carry it out myself. Terraxos (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I support the proposed merge. If the character was is more than one movie, or had an existence outside Training Day, he might warrant his own article, but that is not the case. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge. Character is not notable outside this singular movie, and does not warrant his own in-universe article. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge Kuralyov (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed the Alonzo Harris article to a redirect to this page. I did not move information as almost all of that information is present in the article already. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Merge - the information here is almost a duplicate copy of the main film article, and the character is not noteworthy outside the movie itself.159.18.26.96 (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge and do it now The character only appears in this one film and there is nothing here that couldn't -- and shouldn't -- be merged into the article for the film. Alansohn (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed and ✅ Klbrain (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Connection to the Rampart Scandal
While the Rampart Scandal was about CRASH anti-gang units, and Training Day was about narcotics agents, it is hard not to see the movie as being heavily influenced by the Rampart Scandal and the LAPD culture it exposed. When Alonzo's team invades the house and finds the money, they seem to be operating just like a CRASH unit. If anyone has more info about whether Fuqua or anyone else commented on a connection between the movie and the scandal, it should be included in the article. Of all the odd things, I was not aware of the Rampart Scandal until I saw info about it on the Cellular DVD, but even though Cellular involved corrupt cops, it seemed to remind me a lot more of Training Day than Cellular.John ISEM (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sara is not Alonzo's wife
This article says "Alonzo visits his wife Sara (Eva Mendes) and their young son." Sara is not Alonzo's wife. She is one of his mistresses.

In a deleted scene, after they leave Sara's apartment, Jake asks Alonzo, "What about your queen?" Alonzo says, "Sara's my princess."

When Jake remarks "I like her. She's a really cool lady," Alonzo adds "So are her two sisters. They look damn good and they party. How'd you like to be in the middle of a bitch sandwich? Come to Vegas with us."

Jake asks if Sara's son is "Number Five." Alonzo says the boy is "Number Six." Jake says, "Six kids. That's all? Or you holding royal court in a few more houses?"

Anyway, if Sara were Alonzo's legitimate wife, he wouldn't set her up in an apartment in one of the most dangerous areas of LA, a place where he even warns Jake "Never come up in here without me. For your safety. I'm serious."


 * Fascinating but your conclusion is pure conjecture. She's listed in the IMDb credits with the same last name. So, unless you can come up with a reputable source that says otherwise, it remains "wife".--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

IMDB information is user provided, and in some sections, user-edited. Its details do not solely flow from some official authoritative source. IMDB makes sure to give the usual accuracy disclaimer about errors it makes. http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?infosource

In the actual cast credits (time index: 1:59:57), Eva Mendez is only credited as "Sara" with no surname.

Alonzo says, "I'm married. I got my queen too.  I remember what it was like to have a pretty young bride" (time index: 11:30). If Sara is his actual current wife, why does he refer to "pretty" and "young" in the past tense? It's also strange for Alonzo to only refer to his wife as "Just one of my lovelies, you know, one of my dimes, a loving touch, you know, don't worry about it." (time index: 51:43).

And since Alonzo has referred to his wife as "my queen," that lays the ground for the later deleted scene exchange when Jake asks Alonzo "What about your queen?" and Alonzo corrects Jake by saying, "You talking about Sara? Sara's my princess." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.197.98 (talk) 04:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Play the DVD with Antoine Fuqua's commentary and watch the meeting with Sara scene. Beginning at 52:22, Fuqua says "What we discovered is that a lot of these guys meet these women right off the boat, so to speak, you know when they're sixteen years old and they 'raise them.' It's the term they use.  They manipulate them and a lot of these girls don't know much, and they put them up in an apartment, you know, they make babies with them, and its like these guys are living two or three different lives, even more.  She probably doesn't even have her green card.  So, you know, what's she going to do?  Who's she going to tell?  Send her back to El Salvador.  So, Alonzo has a family somewhere else, but he makes his stops here.  He keeps his guns here.  It's an escape.  He also can keep his eye on everybody around."

So Alonzo's legitimate, legal wife is an exploited immigrant woman who could be deported if ever she were to report anything to the authorities? And Alonzo keeps his loaded guns and stolen drug money in the home of his legitimate wife?

And in the final scene, when Jake is walking to his house, we hear the radio broadcast about Alonzo's death. At 1:55:18, the broadcaster says, "A Los Angeles Police Department narcotics officer was killed today, serving a high risk warrant near LAX. An LAPD spokesperson said Officer Alonzo Harris was survived by his wife and four sons."

If Sara is Alonzo's legitimate wife, where are the three other sons? Even IMDB includes the quotation about "his wife and four sons" though it does not get the statement exactly right.

"Newscaster: Spoiler! A Los Angeles Police Department Narcotics officer was killed today serving a high-risk warrant near LAX. An LAPD spokesperson says that Detective Alonzo Harris is survived by his wife and four sons." http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0139654/quotes

At least three academics believe Sara to be Alonzo's mistress:

Leonard, David J. Screens Fade to Black: Contemporary African American Cinema. Westport: Praeger Publishers, 2006. (Chapter 2: The Ghettocentric Imagination)

"Out of harm's way, the men move onto another neighborhood known as the Jungle, a place where Jake is not to go without Alonzo by his side. This neighborhood is not only the home of Alonzo's mistress and son, but a place where Alonzo reins as alpha wolf due to his coercion of the black and Latino male population; he boasts that he'll jail any who cross the line." (page 52)

"Jake tracks Alonzo down, intending to keep him from his meeting and bring some justice to the corrupt day. A fight ensues, which includes a gun battle that endangers Alonzo's mistress and his son." (page 53)

http://books.google.com/books?id=MSXEVLq_Jz8C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=%22alonzo's%20mistress%22&f=false

Coleman, Robin R. Means and Jasmine Nicole Cobb. "Training Day and The Shield: Evil Cops and the Taint of Blackness. The Changing Face of Evil in Film and Television.  Ed. Martin F. Norden.  Amsterdam: Éditions Rodopi, 2007.  Pages 101-124 (Chapter 7)

"This theme of pitiless disregard for children's lives within the context of warlike cruelty is accentuated when Alonzo, in the home of his mistress, engages in a gun battle with Jake, while Alonzo's own son, Alonzito, is caught in the crossfire" (page 106)

"In Training Day, Alonzo is not only defined by his remorseless savagery but also by an equally volcanic sexual identity. In one scene, Alonzo stops by his mistress' house for a mid-day tryst.  He never asks for sex; rather, he expects she be at the ready whenever he stops in." (page 108)

"A shootout instigated by Alonzo, too, leaves his mistress' home damaged by gunfire." (page 108-109)

"...has little regard for his unseen wife and four children, and as he sexually consumes his mistress with no doting or care." (page 110)

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ck5Nci7dMYwC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=%22training+day%22+alonzo's+mistress&source=bl&ots=4i-i-yHaZo&sig=_BSclwrz6wXvN-se3MZG0zh-6Ck&hl=en&ei=-5nETJmHJcKclgeh6JgD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAg#v=snippet&q=mistress&f=false

Article title
Shouldn't this page have "(film)" follow the title? I don't know how to make that change but if someone could, that would help distinguish it as a motion picture. Jamodalamo (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)