Talk:The Ladykillers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Given that this page is linked to from Joel and Ethan Coen's page, it seemed only fair that their 2004 remake should have at least as much detail as the 1955 original.

Since someone clicking from there to here isn't likely to see the name "Coen" at first without scrolling down, some changes should probably be made to the structure of this page to make it more obvious that it deals with both versions of the film. Unfortunately I lack the time at the moment but I'll work something out later if no one else beats me to it. -- Take care, Ransom 04:14, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Done. I added a couple of headings and mentioned the Coen version in the introductory text. It's not the prettiest solution, but at least it should let readers know there is more to the page than just the Guinness film. -- Take care, Ransom 17:07, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to give the two films separate pages, after all they're pretty different... JW 15:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I thought so too, but I've been looking up articles on all the movies with remakes that I could think of, and all of them tend to keep the original and the remake on the same page as we've done here. Doesn't mean it's the best way to do it, but it's consistent with established practice, as far as I can tell. -- Take care, Ransom 16:06, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand Ransom's statement that the 2004 remake should have as much detail as the original. The latter is an Ealing gem, the former a critical failure. The fact that the page is linked to the Coen's page is irrelevant isn't it? I will attempt to expand the article on the Ealing comedy, and I would invite the author of the piece on the remake to reduce it in length to bring it in line with the significance of its subject matter. Peter Maggs 07:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think perhaps they should have separate pages. And despite the "critical failure" of the Coen brothers' version, I really enjoy it. It may yet make it's cost back via DVD etc. Paul Tracy_|\talk

Contents 1 Page split 2 Alec Guinness steals the show 3 "Decapitated" 4 Fair use rationale for Image:259094.1020.A.jpg

[edit] Page split

The original and the remake should be on separate pages: The Ladykillers (1955 film) and The Ladykillers (2004 film). Then you can post as much information as you want about the remake. I personally disliked the remake, but this really isn't the proper place to discuss matters like that. (Ibaranoff24 15:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

The split has been made, although the The Ladykillers (2004 film) page may need editting and reformatting. Clever curmudgeon 21:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work Clever curmudgeon. I have taken the liberty of tidying up the Ealing film page; I'll let someone else deal with the remake. Peter Maggs 22:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Great, just glad to have that crappy remake off the page of a good classic movie.Clever curmudgeon 02:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alec Guinness steals the show

I don't know. Katie Johnson is enormous competition for him. She deserved her BAFTA for this film. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Decapitated"

I just saw the movie last night, and it was my impression that Marcus was bludgeoned by the sign, not decapitated. As I remember, we see the sign dropping but don't actually see contact with his head. Further, the sign appeared to be of wood, and 1/2" or more thick -- unlikely to decapitate. Unless anyone has information to the contrary, I'll change the text in a wek or two. Dmjames 21:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Already done as unsourced fancruft.MarnetteD | Talk 04:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:259094.1020.A.jpg

Image:259094.1020.A.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) 04:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)