Talk:Ronin (film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Plot
[edit] Synopsis
I took the liberty of changing the plot synopsis, trying to make things a little more streamlined and removing some of the 'fat' from the previous synopsis. If anyone can think of any good suggestions to clean this up even further, let me know. - Sledgeh101 17:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- That would indeed be useful. As someone who has not seen the movie I have no clue as what is going on!
- What Iralith says below about the movie's themes, that would do very very good in the plot section (as we have no theme section) --80.171.195.87 (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removed
I removed the following from Synopsis:
(Sam also reveals to her that he, in fact, never left the organization he worked for and is actually there to capture Seamus himself). It is implied, but not explicitly stated, that Sam is an American CIA agent.)
It was obviously added with little thought to the paragraph as a whole, the parenthesis do not even add up. I do not know the film well enough to redo the section to make this sentence work, so I have simply removed it. If someone is willing to redo it, go for it, but I see no value in it at all. Russeasby 06:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to have a crack at adding that fact, as briefly as I can, to the current synopsis. I totally agree that the two sentences as they were were weird and messy. But the information's quite important in context--the movie spends ages and ages exploring loyalty, belonging, people's spook/military credentials, the disintegration of a whole world of cloak-and-dagger badassery in the wake of the Cold War's end, etc., culminating in a lecture on the Forty-Seven Ronin. All of that discourse comes off as an examination of what it's like to be Sam, this guy whose CIA background has totally defined him and who's now adrift and middle-aged . . . and then you find out at the end that the it's kind of a scam. Iralith 20:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sequel
I can't find any confirmation of this speculation anywhere. If a source can't be cited the statement should be removed. Johnatx 05:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
This section is clumsy: "The fate of the case and its contents are unknown, however, a montage of news audio clips tell us that the killing of Seamus was somehow instrumental in ceasing the violence between the British Parliament and the IRA."
This suggests that 654 politicians were fighting the IRA, which is obviously not true. Parliament is not government. This could be changed to the British government, Britain, British security forces or the Royal Ulster Constabulary, but Parliament doesn't fit. Is "British Parliament" the actualy line in the film?
[edit] Gregor is not Russian.
The article states that Gregor is "a Russian ex-member of the KGB". Within the film, when Vincent describes the group he is chasing to Jean-Pierre, he clearly states he is looking for "Un Irlandais, une Irlaindaise et un Allemand" - an Irishman, an Irishwoman and a German man (the subtitles duly translate this). Can I just go ahead and change this, or are there any objections? Ant368 18:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: further clean-up
I don't believe Mikhi's two associates in Arles are Viennese either - as that implies they are of Austrian nationality/origin. The leader of the pair is called Sergei, which is a name I would associate with someone of Slavic nationality. It's merely stated in the film that Vincent encountered them in Vienna, which is where they remember one another from.
Whilst we're on the subject of Vincent's past, is there any definitive reference or source for him being ex-OAS? My own reading is that he is ex-SDECE or ex-DGSE (French intelligence service and its successor). Is it mentioned in any source that he is OAS (ie, a director's commentary? I only have the film on VHS). Is there a similar reference that backs up the two men Mikhi sends to Arles being Austrian rather than Russian?
If not, would it perhaps be better to change Vincent to being a French mercenary with an unspecified past and to change the nationality reference for the two men in Arles to Russian? Ant368 18:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Be bold, go ahead! LDHan 23:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I made those changes and also cropped some items that were speculation more than fact about the film's plot. (ie, the case might have contained nuclear materials, that can definitely be read into the film, but nowhere does one of the character's suggest this, so I deleted that!)Ant368 00:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What is remarkable about the tunnel
- The second major car chase passes through a Paris tunnel that is remarkably similar to the site of the car accident that lead to Diana...
Sorry but I don't know anything about the tunnels of Paris (and maybe a lot of people are in my same boat) so possibly someone could elaborate about whether the tunnel just looks remarkably similar or in what other way is it similar? Cryptonymius 07:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- The two tunnels look enough alike that many web pages (including past versions of this article) have incorrectly stated that it was the same tunnel. I have found that you cannot just remove incorrect information like this (somebody else will just insert it later), you have to include sourced correct information. —MJBurrage • TALK • 08:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
If the tunnel has a name, then insert the name in the article. I think this might be a solution.--Mato Rei 09:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Broken Link
The reference in paragraph 2 (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_19980810/ai_n10444144) is now broken. I added it to the references section anyway. CaNNoNFoDDa 18:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- And of what use shall that be?? --80.171.195.87 (talk) 10:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ronin movie 1998.jpg
Image:Ronin movie 1998.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The case
The case had four stones in it. Not one or two or three, but four. Four stones. --70.131.117.219 (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)