Talk:Dick Tracy (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Dick Tracy (film) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
January 25, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dick Tracy (film) article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Alec Baldwin?

The article mentions Mr. Baldwin having a cameo in the movie, however I can't find any mention of him on IMDB or an obvious return through Google.

Is he really in the movie? iKato 22:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I've watched the movie (and the credits) five times, but I've never seen any appearance or mention of Alec Baldwin credited or uncredited. Check the Internet Movie Database and check filmography around the year of 1990. It'll show you he wasn't in it. However, Dick Van Dyke appeared as a district attorney, and Dustin Hoffman made a memorable secondary performance as Mumbles, the slow talking, yet hardened hitman for Big Boy Caprice. Jonathan.Bruce 09:32, 4 July 2006 {UTC}

I too have never heard of Alec Baldwin being in this movie. --MatthewUND(talk) 20:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sequel

I understood the film to have been a disappointment, financially speaking. If it made such a large return on the initial investment does anyone know why a sequel wasn't made? 193.129.65.37 04:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Another group wants to make a Dick Tracy television series, while Warren Beatty wants to make a sequel to the film. The contract he signed guaranteed a sequel, provided that the film was a success. Made for $35 million and $12 million in advertising, it grossed $104 million dollars in North America, more than double the budget altogether.

Technically, since it was a success, Beatty appears to have the right to make a sequel to the film, but it'll most likely be played by a younger actor, now that he's on the verge of turning 70! He's trying to kick their asses in court over the rights.

Jonathan.Bruce 0932, 4 July 2006 {UTC}

As perhaps the biggest fan of this movie in the world, I would love nothing more than to see a sequel. --MatthewUND(talk) 20:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
As of now (mid-2006), Beatty is in court and got the go-ahead with the lawsuit. Hopefully, he will make a sequel or maybe a prequel. Check YouTube, there's a fantastic fan-made trailer of a Tracy Prequel of Daniel Craig as Tracy! That would rock! --Jonathan.Bruce 12:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve the Tramp action figure

I recall Entertainment Tonight proclaiming that the figure would be recalled, but I saw no evidence that it actually occurred, as it remained a common figure. I believe Collectible Toys & Values said that the recall never got past the talking stage, and that it only briefly created a surge in demand for the figure in collector circles. I can't cite it, so I just put [citation needed] by the claim that the figure was actually recalled. --Scottandrewhutchins 15:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nominee

Please review this article, and if you seek improvements, contact me so it can be promoted to GA status. Go to Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Film and cinema. Wildroot (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments:

  1. Image:Dick tracy1.jpg has an author information problem that needs to be rectified. Details can be found on the image's main page
  2. The fair use rationale for Image:124526 dick l.jpg needs to be more detailed - specifically, it must at least mention what article(s) it is to be used in and have a separate rationale for each. Aside from the fact that's incomplete, the one on Image:Dick tracy1.jpg is good
  3. "When one of them refuses, he meets an untimely demise." (Plot) Since this is an encyclopedic article on the film, it needs to mention exactly which one (I have no idea, I haven't seen the film)
  4. I did a copyedit to get rid of the tag but, since I haven't seen the film, please review at least the Plot section to make sure that I didn't accidentally introduce any factual errors in the process
  5. The wikilink for James Keane leads to a long-dead bishop, which I doubt was your intention
  6. All one-two sentence paragraphs must either be expanded or merged with the surrounding paragraphs, as they break up the prose and disrupt its flow (I think there's only one, the first paragraph of "Production", but it's something to keep in mind for further editing)
  7. There are three direct quotes in the second and third paragraphs of "Production" without direct citations — direct quotes require direct citations, even if it's the same one used at the end of the sentence/paragraph. There's also one in "Casting", one in "Music", two in "Release and controversies", two in "Critical analysis" and two in "Sequel"
  8. "Danny Elfman was in vacation at the Bahamas for three days when Warren Beatty flew him to Los Angeles about him writing the film score for Dick Tracy." (Music) This is not a proper sentence. Neither is "It was to premiere in the Videopolis theater at Disney Land, whereas a casting call was written." (Release and controversies)
  9. I personally feel that the awards would work better as prose than as an embedded list, but that may just be me, and I can easily see the arguments. Not something I will hold against a GA pass, but something to think about.
At the moment I haven't the slightest idea of how to do such a thing. Wildroot 20:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. The lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. Specifically, it must adequately summarize all the major points/headings made in the body of the article. Currently there's little, if anything, on "Production" and its sub-sections.

If all of these are addressed within seven days, I will review again and check the references. To allow for these changes to be made, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 06:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, a week certainly did this article some good... it looks a lot better than when I first reviewed it. The references all check out as well, so everything looks good. You mentioned that you felt like something was missing. My only commentary was that I felt that the tone of many of the sections seemed a bit casual... not so much as to prevent me from passing this as a Good Article, but something you might want to look at if you're seeking to improve it. Anyhow, congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 07:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)