Talk:The Italian Job (2003 film)

"Starring" ?

User:Xdddre added Jason Statham under the 'Starring' slot in the infobox. Is this correct? I thought that the term "starring" meant that this actors name was up on all the billboards. As you can tell from the DVD box image in the article, Jason's name does not appear in that list. So I'm reverting that change - although I'm prepared to be convinced that I'm wrong to do so. SteveBaker 19:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Remake

Should have more reference to original film.--Jack Upland 10:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned and linked right there in the very first paragraph - what more do you want? If people want to know about the original movie they'll click on the link. I don't see a need to say more. With some 'remake' movies you can make a point-by-point comparison of the two - but this movie really shares nothing whatever in common with the original beyond having red white and blue Mini/MINIs in a car chase and a few character names in common. Well, I guess there is the stunt sequence of driving through the underground railway and sewer in common I guess. SteveBaker 04:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Although it bears the same title to the orginal 1969 farce comedy..the plot seems more closer to the 1967 John Wayne-Kirk Douglas Movie [[The War Wagon ]] in which a rancher and associates take revenge on a corrupt businessman who had stolen a ranch and harresed a local Inidan tribe.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.135.236 (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Summary

It's summary is a little too general...it doesnt contain the heist plains like in Ocean's eleven(2001). just add that please. Picklepie 08:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Up coming sequal

I've heared there's to be a sequal named the Brazilian job. should info in respect to that be mentioned here? (Morcus (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Regional task forces

I'm wondering why this article is in four regional task forces: British, Canadian, French, and Italian. The Italian task force makes sense, as this movie was set and filmed partly in Italy, but I don't see why the other three apply. Can anyone illuminate this for me? Mr. Absurd (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Since no one's replied, I'm going to go ahead and remove the article from all the task forces other than the Italian one. Mr. Absurd (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could go to the task forces and read their scopes before removing them summarily. (Tags restored.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Minor spelling issues. I found survey (give ya a hint, it's in the plot section) and Ukrainian misspelled, and that was with a quick WORD search. Easily fixable. Other than some spelling, and maybe some comma errors, the prose is pretty well written. One problem though, I would like to see something more than "Critic X gave the film a B-, or something like, "epic fireballs, car chases edited into edgy demolition joyrides, and a demon squad of cutely delineated cool-jerk crooks who deadpan their way through a caper as weightless as it is far-fetched." It's a nice quote, but it doesn't really scream "critical analysis". Try paraphrasing more and quoting large chunks less (quote when you have no real choice to quote, which is when it cannot be turned into someone's own words).

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Per MOSFILM, listing the film's ratings in different countries is trivia. Without context as to why it got those ratings they basically hold no value. This sentence--"the plot and characters of this film differ significantly from those of its source material"--is a problem. What is defined as "significant". It's a mighty word that is rather subjective at times, unless you're directly quoting someone. Sentence works just as well without it. Use of the past tense in the plot section, for instance: "he was a cousin of a Ukrainian..." - He "was"? I think even when you're dead you still are. "Hastily", subjective and unnecessary. Also, "Casting" should really be with "Production" it all goes together. I'd place the text between the first and second paragraph of the "Production" section.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   No IMDb, really glad to see that. The sources appear to be good. I didn't see any that I have not had the experience of seeing (or using) before in featured film articles, which is good.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   You capture the basic idea, but I'd like to see some expanding. The reception section should be the easiest to expand (critics are right there at RT).

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Per WP:MOSFILM and WP:FUC, images in the article, unless accompanied by critical commentary, are generally a no-no. I'm not sure what illustration is needed to show that the film had Mini Coopers in it. The fact that it had the same cars doesn't really mean it needs an image to prove it. Atleast not just a generic image of the coopers on the subway. If there was more context behind it, I could see, but the image really doesn't serve a purpose beyond eye candy, and the article isn't that large that it needs eye candy..

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I did not list every 1a issue, that would become tedious. My suggestion is to look at what I did point out and see if you can find other instances of this in the article. If you're unsure, review User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a, it's an excellent tool for these things. I'll be monitoring the article so I can keep up to date on your progress, this way you don't have to wait a week to get passed if you satisify all issues. Cheers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

My concerns have been addressed. Please keep expanding the article. The critical reception section can still be added to, plus the production section (hopefully someone has a DVD with commentary). Cheers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

One minor note: as far as I can tell, "surveil" is not a misspelling, but means "to engage in surveillance". Mr. Absurd (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that WORD doesn't know it (I checked elsewhere, you're right it does exist). The fact that WORD doesn't recognize it (not that that's proof of anything), and since it isn't a title or proper name, makes me think that maybe the sentence should be rewritten to use the words actual meaning of "surveillance"; you know, for the casual readers who might not know what "surveil" is.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay Bignole, what are the current outstanding issues? I think Cliff Smith has taken care of most of the problems. Anything still causing a problem? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 11:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Norton's reluctance

I recall reading that Ed Norton was not a very willing participant in the film, but was contractually obligated ... anyone?

Hrhadam (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's true. See Fight Club (film)#Casting. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Locations

The filming for Steve's house in LA was done here: 34°8′56.36″N 118°10′20.86″W

Where else was this film specifically filmed? JakobWithA"K" (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Another crap film article fapped over by the stupid

Geez what a dull, dull piece of work. Who cares if they had to close roads off to film??? It's a film so they would have to that! Duh. Maybe they had cameras, lights and make-up as well? Wow and they they used a certain type of the camera. Wow!!! Why not include a whole section on the type of film stock they used and how it reacted to light under different conditions? As someone who is interested in films, I learned really nothing about this movie in respect to what I saw on the screen. Which is my main point, ON THE SCREEN. Oh that look familiar, why they doing that? what was that for? how did they do that? But no what you get here is the usual cobbled together gobbledy-gook quotes and facts from third-party trade mags telling you nothing at all. But hey it's been decided it's a good article. No wonder so many editors continue to quit this ridiculous site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.118.253 (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A lot of people enjoy reading about a film's production background. The article also covers the film's reception and significance (particularly in the "Analysis" subsection). This film does not have enough notoriety to be truly studied, like American Beauty (film) has been. Do you think this article needs more of a different kind of coverage? Erik (talk | contribs) 11:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

He makes a bona fide point about the "quotes and facts" and thereby the content. Any "good article" that can say of this film that "he wanted to make it as realistic as possible" with a straight face is self-immolating at best. For years wiki has been trying to discourage "trivia"--now whole articles are based on it.--Reedmalloy (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

We can revise that sentence about being "as realistic as possible", but does that mean it is not worth saying that actors did most of their own stunts? Or that there was a goal to minimize computer-generated imagery? In an action film, there are going to be different pathways to completion. I don't see why it is trivial to trace a particular pathway for a given film. There are plenty of "making of" film books out there that have this kind of detail, so there is an audience for that sub-topic. We do discourage bland details like some teaser poster for a film being released on a specific date (see MOS:FILM#Marketing). If you have concerns about film articles in general or specific articles, you can bring up the matter at WT:FILM. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Music and rating missing

This article is missing some information that seems rather important to include in high-quality articles. For one thing, it doesn't discuss the film's music at all. Aside from noting the composer in the infobox, nothing at all is said about its score and soundtrack choices. Also, it seems to have no information about its MPAA rating. Chubbles (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

"The Italian Job (2003 film) (film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Italian Job (2003 film) (film). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 19:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)