Talk:Dog Day Afternoon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Dog Day Afternoon is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 21, 2006.
June 10, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Staxringold (talk · contribs)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Spoiler in the intro?

I think it's reasonable to call "Wortzik intended to rob the bank so he would have the money to pay for his "wife" Leon Shermer's sexual reassignment surgery" a spoiler. This information is not revealed until midway through the movie and it is not at all expected. Any objections to removing it from the intro? Someone who hadn't seen the movie and read that intro would have a surprise twist of the film ruined for them. Moncrief 18:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. No reason to reveal non-obvious plot details in the lead. I'll do it right now. Staxringold 20:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] GA Nomination

Image:LFChaseP1975.jpg is the copyright on this correct, the original uploader never actually clarified the question about the copyright Gnangarra 11:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, User:Brooklynl asserted to me in an email (I emailed him a while ago) that he himself took that photo (and was a general witness to the events of the actual theft). He uploaded it, so if he took that photo he can certainly assert the CC liscense. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I accept that but the discussions between yourself and Brooklynl on talk pages dont clarify that could put a copy on the image page Gnangarra

[edit] GA Promotion

Congratulations to the editors of this article in avchieving GA status Gnangarra 12:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FA candidacy.

I would love to see this as a Featured Article. How can I help? - Zepheus 19:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If you check out the FAC page (either on WP:FAC or through the template up above) people have lodged various stylistic and technical issues with the article which, if you have the time, you could help out with. Thanks for the interest! Staxringold talkcontribs 13:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is this movie 4/5 stars? How is that decided? If it goes by the IMDb rating that it's next to (8.0/10), then essentially no movie would get 5 stars. Even The Godfather, which I think is 9/10, would only get 4.5 stars out of 5. My personal opinion is that this movie is at least 4.5 stars, if not 5 (which usually refers to a classic such as this movie). - Zepheus 17:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The star rating is based purely on the IMDb voting. Personal opinion can't enter into an encyclopedia (though here I would definetly agree with you). Staxringold talkcontribs 22:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal opinion aside, my statement still stands: dividing IMDb ratings in half to find the number of stars seems an inappropriate way to do it. Even the highest rated movies, such as Godfather and Shawshank Redemption would get only 4.5 stars. It makes no sense to me to have a 5 star system where no movies receive 5 stars. - Zepheus 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The stars don't really mean anything, they are just a representation of the actual vote count in the mouseover. You couldn't really fit 10 readable stars in that space. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If they don't mean anything, then why are they even there? - Zepheus 23:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it is the standard used, and provides a quick visual. Also, many movie reviews use the 5 star system, making this a more standard version for some people. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wife?

I'm confused as to why the word "wife" is used in reference to Leon Shermer all the way through the article. Obviously he's not Sonny's legal wife and, as the film and article tell, he already has a wife and kids. Would it not be better to refer to him as Sonny's lover, or some other term that explicitly connotes the homosexual nature of their relationship? -- Hux 07:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  • No, because he is universally referred to by Sonny, his heterosexual wife, and Detective Moretti as his wife. Staxringold talkcontribs 09:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand that. My point is to do with the article's utility: those parts of the article are confusing to anyone who has not already seen the film. I think it needs some cleaning up but I'm not sure how! -- Hux 17:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
It really doesn't come up that often in the article. Not including the cast list, the word "wife" is only mentioned three times. I recommend changing "his wife's sex-change operation" to "his wife Leon's sex-change operation." (italics for demonstration only)- Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 18:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but you changed the page to say "wife Sonny's" instead of "wife Leon's." I've gone ahead and changed it. I'm assuming it was just a typo (or brainfart, as is the term). - Zepheus (ツィフィアス) 21:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure calling Leon "she" is right. I mean, he's not a woman yet. I may sound alittle conservative, but I was just saying. --200.76.103.97 (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Surten

[edit] Who is Donald Matterson?

The Daily News article about the hold up says "The slain bandit was identified yesterday afternoon as Donald Matterson..." So who is Donald Matteson? This article says that, according to the Life Magazine article, the real life accomplice was named Salvatore Naturile. Did the writer/producers decide to change the name of every other main character except for Sal? Or did the Daily News mess up?

I have looked up both names and have found nothing on Donald Matterson. Everything I find on Salvatore Naturile is either: 1. in direct reference to the character, Sal, from the movie; 2. apparently copied or referenced directly from the Wikipedia article; or 3. Just bad information in general. (like the paragraph in this article that incorrectly claims Sal was to have the operation) I'm definitely inclined to believe that the real life accomplice's name was Salvatore Naturile, but I'ld like to see some independent confirmation of it. - Ektar 18:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • All I can say is I read the article and unless I was a serious idiot that day he was named Salvatore Naturile. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Story

The spoiler reads:

       The police are somehow alerted


Don't the police see a fire in the bank? Ozzykhan 21:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • It is unclear how the police are alerted. All the alarm systems seem to be stopped, and the fire is put out. The only guy who notices is the shopkeep across the street, but the manager seems to calm him down. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plot section needs work

I can't believe this became a featured article with the plot outline written so poorly. Was it changed recently from a more "featured article" quality state since its been featured? Was it like this when it was nominated?

There is not even the most cursory context. e.g.:

The bank is closing. The police are somehow alerted.

Thats the beggining of the plot section! Alerted to what? Then it talks about characters as if your already supposed to know who they are. No introduction. No mention of the reasons they are robbing the bank (which is apparently an important theme in the story.)Brentt 21:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • If you feel particular sections need juicing up or language fixed, please do. As for the order of the plot section (not revealing purposes or intent out of order) that was done on purpose, in the style of Ran (film) and other FA film articles by telling the plot in chronilogical order. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
You didn't mention any of the problems I pointed out. The problem isn't that itsin chronological order, its that there is no mention whatsoever of apparently important themes in the movie, and no mention of which characters are which at all.
Seeing as how I've never seen the movie, I can't really work on the plot section, but I can see that the plot section is lacking something serious. Brentt 04:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia from IMDB is a reliable source?

Wow, this article frequently references the trivia section from IMDB, which is submitted there by anonymous users and is completely undocumented. (I used to add trivia there myself, and they never asked for my sources.) Not exactly a reliable source. —Kevin 01:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yea, one problem with the wikipedia referencing system. Brentt 04:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] attica chant

Does anyone know if the "Attica" chant was in use before this movie came out? I'm doing some edditing of the attica prison riots article, and I'm not clear on when attica was first used as a chant. Charles (Kznf) 19:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, what does it mean? The article doesn't give sufficient context to explain why the chant has such an effect (though neither does the scene, for that matter). --Kizor 08:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

  • That is because any such statement would be an assumption. They don't cut to some cop on the sidelines who says "Oh, this is working because X". The assumption, however, is that it works because it turns people against the large body of police and makes Sonny out to be a "victim". Staxringold talkcontribs 13:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

But there could be a short line 'in reference to the famous/contencios/important prison riot.' remember when the move came out it didn't nee to be explained, but now it's more obscure.140.232.154.111

If anything, the Attica scenes are actually not that intense in the actual movie. He's a loser, and it's a loser call out. The black comedy episode between him and his female wife at 1:32 or so show that it's more light hearted than a lot of people think. The comic timing of him going insane on her is nearly perfect. Monty2 00:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)