Jump to content

Talk:American Gangster (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAmerican Gangster (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 7, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
January 7, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Untitled

[edit]

Hi, i edited this part the sentance "After his exiled partner dies from overdosing on "Blue Magic", a relatively new (and powerful) type of heroin being sold" to "After his exiled partner dies from overdosing on "Blue Magic", a relatively new and powerful type of heroin being sold" because i don't think it's something that needs to be in brackets.

weak sentence

[edit]

I disagree with the reversion of my minor edit. What does it mean that Lucas operated an "ethical business"- that he sold his heroin uncut and cheap? Stating outright that Roberts was a "womanizer" and declaring him hence morally culpable is rather brash. Suggesting his private behavior creates a "paradox" against his "status as an authority figure" represents a type of moralistic thinking which I feel shouldn't be in Wikipedia.Markemory 04:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of the film, he is operating an ethical business. Otherwise you can argue Carlsberg, Marlboro and Budweiser are also unethical. The truth is, millions of heroin users are putting cement, talcum powder and chalk in their blood, ending up with dead veins, embolis, and other injection related problems. Would you like it if alcohol was illegal, and your dealer put in piss, apple juice or cow wee in the beer to dilute it for more money? That actually happens in some Islamic states, both Alcohol and Opioids are addictive drugs, physically, and both have statistically a number of instrumental users, and a number of addicts/acoholics. Its a myth that everyone who uses heroin ends up an addict, many people are weekly users, and some use it as a sleeping aid after using stimulants such as cocaine or ecstasy. Any drug dealer that ensures a pure product, compared to other drug dealers, is more ethical, even though the whole topic is unethical. The sole reason overdoses happen is due to fluctuations in purity, so maintenance of purity is another harm reduction technique. Uncut, pure heroin is ethical in the sense that it is in the long term reducing harm. And the truth is, when people pay 10£ or 20$ for half a gram of heroin, they should receive Heroin, not 20% heroin, and 80% brick dust, cement, talcum powder etc. You don't buy 1kg of flour only to receive a mixture of flour, maize and other stuff? Therefore, its again ethical to provide what you sell. --93.97.181.187 (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superfly or Supersnitch

[edit]

Why is there nothing on his snitching on 1000 people? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John celona (talk • contribs) 23:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The synopsis has been revised into a simpler premise, depending on the angle that the film takes to the story. If people want to learn more about Frank Lucas before the film comes out and the full plot is available, they can visit his biographical article, which has been wiki-linked on this film article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 30, 2007 revision

[edit]

I've completely revised the article to trace the origin of the project in 2000 to the present. I also removed the Trivia section, since it was mostly original research pointing out similarities in the actors' roles and the cross-collaboration of certain figures in Hollywood films. However, one trivia bit may be of use to include in the article: "While Antoine Fuqua was working on the film, he wanted to cast John C. Reilly and Ray Liotta in supporting roles." If anyone can find an attributable source regarding that information, that would be greatly appreciated. I've also revised the Cast section to be based on the references that I found instead of IMDb, which should not be relied upon prior to a film's release, based on its lack of disclosure of the sources of information. One thing I would like to finalize for the article is the actual conclusion of filming. The last citation says that Crowe finished filming in September 2006, but more filming may have been done. I was not able to find an attributable source for the conclusion of principal photography at this time. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

[edit]

Maybe I am merely being too picky, but this article has some grammatical errors, and needs some revision. I did not look the whole thing over yet, however, to begin with, names beginning in "s" need to have their posessive form written as "s's," as the "s'" form is reserved for posessive plurals as well as ancient posessives "Jesus', Isis', etcetra."

"possessive"
  • Whose mirrow? It#s not only a problem of this page, there are some grammar probl(w)ms in the film visible. ..." I#m your man!" is mammys mirrow and not the figure franks partner be meant."They think I'm santa claus!" is anyhow a mirrowing problem and a syntax either. The red hat type isn't franks aunt, it#s a pusher, so he takes to much sugar. count! The grammar in foreshadowing is a little strange.--Hum-ri (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:American Gangster poster.jpg

[edit]

Image:American Gangster poster.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the fastest movie to be Pirated?

[edit]

Even a week and a half before the release date, a full length, theater quality version was made available to a number of pirate torrent sites. Though probably just a leaked reviewer copy, this may be worth noting at a later date.--Yue.san 08:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Headlines

[edit]

1

[edit]

2

[edit]

3

[edit]

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creative License?

[edit]

It would be good to note which elements of the story were fictionalized. For instance, I find it hard to believe the lead investigator (Richie) went on to prosecute the case. 75.44.221.106 01:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. There was an interview in which Washington flat-out said, don't expect a historically accurate account. It's meant to be a film. In the meantime, check out the above headlines, which still need to be implemented in the article. Maybe you can find useful information in them. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Roberts went on to prosecute, I think he became Frank Lucas's defense attorney. I might be remembering the ending wrong, though... 64.252.167.134 03:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The film ending says that his first client was Frank Lucas, acting as defense attorney. The ending also says that three quarters of the New York DEA were convicted based on evidence supplied by Lucas, which is quite an amazing claim that should be mentioned either here or in the Frank Lucas (drug lord) article. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Lucas WAS released in 1991. The movie got it right. Captain N —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.100.216.90 (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denzel's salary for American Gangster

[edit]

It is a rumor going on on the internet, due to the inaccurate information on IMDB (which they are in the process of changing), saying that Denzel got paid 40 million. This is not true ( there's no proof). There is proof that he signed on the second time for his gross.

Which is why Wikipedia requires sources for material like that.

Wildhartlivie 22:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is source that says he signed on for his gross. I think it is important to show that, since there is a source.


Grazer cannily took advantage of Universal's need to send a message of strength and viability; brand-new co-chairmen Marc Shmuger and David Linde went ahead with the deluxe deal. If Snider had not left, she would likely have kept the budget down. The key players got paid full price, with rich back ends. Denzel Washington had already gotten paid his upfront guarantee pay-or-play, so he signed on just for his gross. (He also got paid half his $20-million fee on Inside Man.) This way even when American Gangster makes money, so do gross participants Washington, Scott, Grazer and Russell Crowe. That adds up to a huge piece of the final gross going out the door--in all likelihood, some 37.5 25% of the gross. ($37.5 was Universal's all-time high, on Grinch.) The studios are all trying to not go over that 25%, which is still a hideous percentage.


http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononhollywood/american_gangster/index.html

Plot?

[edit]

Um, this film came out at least three days ago. Why is there no plot synopsis yet? -- Grandpafootsoldier 01:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess no one's come by that wants to write one. I haven't seen the film myself. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, why are you reverting my edit ten minutes after I write it when you haven't even seen the movie?!Markemory 02:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Crowe/Denzel Washington Connection

[edit]

Who keeps adding this info to the intro of the article. The only possible place this information would be useful is a trivia section. However, since Wikipedia frowns on trivia sections, this really has not place in the article. Please stop adding it! It is not relevant to the movie! ≈Alessandro ♫ T • C 16:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, though I think it could be mentioned in the body of the article (because they talked about it in an interview, found in External links). It shouldn't be one of the highlights in the concise overview that the lead section offers, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I am the one that has been adding that sentence because it is important as far as them acting together for a second time. It needs to be somewhere in the article. If someone can find a better place for it than after the film description then do so. But i'm going to add it back again as I see nothing wrong with it being included. Also, what is this message Erik:

The point that I am trying to make is that this is not really relevant to the actual movie. This has nothing to do with the actual movie. If you wanted to include everyone who has acted together before, then this article would be a mess. ≈Alessandro ♫ T • C 18:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the point I am making by including it is that this is the second time that Washington and Crowe have acted together in a film, and the last time was 12 years ago in Virtuosity. This would be an important fact for a fan of these two actors that may think this is only the first time they have acted together, and the trailer and ads seem to imply that anyways. It's the same thing as mentioning Righteous Kill being the 3rd film with both Pacino and Deniro, and the 2nd with them acting together. It's not like saying "this actor acted with this actor and acted in this with this guy in this film" like Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon or anything. I feel it's important to the article because it is a related fact. - Russell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.101.211 (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from. However, this information does not need to be in the lead section of the article. If you can find a place other than the lead to put it, then okay. But otherwise, it does not fit with the article. And fans of the actors can get information from the actors' pages. This is an article about the movie, not necessarily Denzel Washington or Russell Crowe. That information is not relevant in the understanding of the movie. ≈Alessandro ♫ T • C 18:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well i'll add a Trivia section and just put that sentence, can we agree on that? - Russell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.101.211 (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Gangster Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a >>reliable source<<, as you did to American Gangster (film), is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)>>

You put this on my messages when the verifiable source is that THE MOVIE EXISTS. I'm linking to it in the sentence about them acting together for a second time. Virtuosity was released theatrically in 1995 and then on video and DVD, and it stars Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe. So your message makes no sense whatsoever, unless you selected the wrong template for an auto-message and meant to pick another one. - Russell

Trivia sections aren't ideal -- see WP:AVTRIV. There is no need for the collaboration to be mentioned -- there are other indiscriminate observations that can be made -- "This is the first film in which Denzel Washington and Ridley Scott have worked together," or "This is the third film in which Russell Crowe and Ridley Scott have worked together." It's an indiscriminate observation unless a reliable source -- a secondary source with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight, which is not you or me -- makes that observation. It's hardly an important detail to put in the lead section, even. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable source is that Virtuosity is a film that exists that stars Washington and Crowe, this does not need to be "confirmed" by some film critic or anyone else. - Russell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.101.211 (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not understanding. Did you see the examples I identified above? We could very well say, "This is the first film in which Denzel Washington and Ridley Scott have worked together," or "This is the third film in which Russell Crowe and Ridley Scott have worked together." Why is the item you want to add particularly relevant? Directors and actors work with each other at different times in the industry. The collaboration bit is not important enough to belong in the lead section which is supposed to be a concise overview of the film article. I know of a reliable source that can support the Virtuosity observation, but the article will need to be slightly re-formatted in terms of Cast and Casting to address this. Content should fit the article and not just be pigeonholed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy on relevance. If the film American Gangster is a source for this article, then isn't the film Virtuosity also a source? It could be added to the Casting subsection of the Production section. --Pixelface (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that relevance needs to be independently verifiable. Otherwise, such information can become rather indiscriminate. Someone could say that this is Denzel Washington's nth film overall, same for Russell Crowe and Ridley Scott. Or nth collaboration with Crowe and Scott. Or Washington's nth film as a bad guy. For the Virtuosity connection, to just make matters easier, Clash of the Titans says, "Washington was lured back by the prospect of working with Crowe, who'd starred opposite him years before as a cyber-serial killer in the 1995 thriller flop Virtuosity." I'd suggest just citing that as an independent observation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many years later I read the article, since this film is aired on DR1 tonight. But I instantly reacted to this possible connection. Has Washington and Crowe had a formal or other kind of cooperation before 1995 ? This question rises almost automatically, but I believe Russel Crowe to be Australian and Denzel Washington American. There is a Swedish expression which translates to "one time is no time, two times are two times but three times is a habit". What I mean is, if these two actors, in this film (but also later), just have starred two films together, the current formulation isn't optimal. And given the readworthy status of the article, I think it should be rephrased someway. A small matter perhaps, but apparently am I not alone of getting unnecessary questions in my mind while reading the article lead. Boeing720 (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear?

[edit]

"The director sought to downplay a 'Beatles' atmosphere to the film " - I was around during the time considered, but I don't know what this is supposed to mean. I think "Beatles" is too unclear. Some-one who knows what is supposed to being said should improve this sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.34.178 (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was Ridley Scott's full quote about the atmosphere: "Then I started doing commercials very successfully and would come into New York at least once a month right through the '60s and '70s and '80s so I knew New York really well. Who dressed what, how they dressed. That's why you get that very reined-in view, because if people do a film about the '60s and '70s they think it's all like the Beatles. It's not like that. There wasn't that kind of money on the streets. So there were only the high-end elitists groups who might have been gangsters or might have been moneyed people, who would be able to dress like that. People would have the same suit for twenty years. It was much shabbier, so I reined it back and made it shabbier. I think that's what feels so real about it. Harlem was really, really shabby, beautiful brownstones falling apart." How do you think the passage in the article can be re-worded? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movie mistake

[edit]

A "Wu-Tang Clan" tattoo is visible on the arm of one of the narcotics officers circa 52 minutes into the film. The film is set during the Vietnam War, 20 years before there was any such thing as hip-hop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.224.93.113 (talk) 19:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh I too noticed that! I thought it was very funny! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.80.213 (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's because The RZA, the founder of the Wu-Tang Clan, plays the cop and happens to have a Wu-Tang tattoo. This is an anachronism, but does not need to be mentioned in the film. If you read the Wikipedia article on hip hop music, you'll learn that hip hop started in the mid-1970s (specifically 1973), immediately after the end Vietnam War. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It still should have been covered up because the tattoo is clearly visible and create a harrowing inaccuracy, among the many others in the film, but this one stands out and is so direct that it i obviously bound to be caught by viewers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.221.19.55 (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they let it ride on purpose.

Final scene's comical sense

[edit]

Is it worth noting that in the final scene of the film, when Lucas is released from prison, that the movie plays up the vast differences from the time he went in, to the time he came out (differences in music such as loud, bass-filled rap songs about different kings of gangsters, and obvious clothing differences such as giant, baggy-ass jeans and hoodies and such, while Lucas himself is wearing a tweed suit)? It seemed like something that should be pointed out in the last sentence of the plot summary. 12.107.247.9 (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I;m not really sure how to describe it, though I remember hor funny it was to see that guy with the puffy shirt walking by Katana Geldar 11:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katana Geldar (talk • contribs)

Criticisms

[edit]

This article desperately needs a section on the criticism the film faces for its glorification of a life-destroying drug dealer. There is no dearth of articles on the subject. I am unfamiliar with NPOV principles as well as being lazy, so I can't really write the section myself. But I'm sure one of you fine folks could. 69.208.172.72 (talk) 05:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen such criticism in the negative reviews by film critics? We need to cite independent voices for such perspectives because we can't use our own voices -- that's what would violate NPOV principles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is one or two reviews that state something along those lines, but then again what we are triying to reach here is a concensus.200.83.56.221 (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with writing in "Production"

[edit]

A lot of the writing in this section looks redundant nearly to the point of comedy. I'm talking about things like this:

  • "In March 2004, the studio entered new negotiations with director Antoine Fuqua to helm the project, as well as actor Denzel Washington to star in the film"
  • "In November 2003, Universal and Imagine entered negotiations with director Brian De Palma to helm Tru Blu"
  • "The following May, actor Benicio del Toro entered negotiations to star as Detective Richie Roberts"

Maybe this is just an overestimation of intelligence, but I'm pretty sure that when readers see "to helm" (which could easily be changed to "to direct" in many of these cases) and "to star" in the article, they can infer that the people being referred to are directors and actors, not plumbers or ham sandwiches.

I would be bold and clean this up myself, but I'm wondering if there's something I'm missing, particularly since I've seen this same writing style in other film articles (which unfortunately I can't remember at the moment). - DoubleCross (talk) 09:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. It seems odd to say "director" to "direct", and I think Variety and The Hollywood Reporter use terms like "helm". Perhaps it's too much slang for the common readership. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Accuracy of the film

[edit]

Originally, this article stated that Frank Lucas admitted that 75-80% of the film is true; I checked the article this sentence cited (http://www.sohh.com/articles/article.php/12929) and the article explicitly states that 20% was admitted to be true... maybe the person who put this in meant to say 75-80% INaccurate, but come on, let's not push our personal agendas just because we liked the movie.

--Matt Sienko (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i changed it, but it was immediatly reversed. i don't quite get why we should stick on calling it 80% accurate if the source clearly states: " Lucas, whose character is played by Denzel Washington, admitted to sources that "only 20 percent of the film is true." " "true" and "accurate" DO mean the same thing, don't they? i'll therefore change it back until someone can back up the 80% -- Flechtwerk (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just read another article concerning the film's accuracy. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080118/ap_en_ot/film_american_gangster;_ylt=Amoanl0lsDGzLWTYCCksaaqs0NUE). Even though I'm not sure on the exact percentage myself, I honestly think 80% of it being true is bullocks as they say. 135.245.152.34 (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Anonymous[reply]

Budget

[edit]

At 12m that's quite extraordinary. Chensiyuan (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The figure was vandalized -- the correct budget is $100 million. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot - first para

[edit]

Have just come out of the movie, so fresh in my mind.

Lucas' shipments are carried on many flights through the film in quantities apparently similar to the first shipment - a few bags. It is the very last shipment, when he realises the game is up, with the withdrawl of US forces from Vietnam, that he goes for the two tonne shipment and the novel shipping method. Thx. BadCop666 (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Detective, inexperienced lawyer prosecutes major drug trial - strange?

[edit]

Where was the D/A in all of this? How likely is it that Roberts, having only recently passed his bar exam, would prosecute the case against Lucas? If anyone can shed any light on this it would be appreciated.BadCop666 (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extra scene after the credits (warning: spoiler)

[edit]

The article is missing one thing, important in my opinion: That after ALL of the final credits roll, there's an additional short (about 5 sec) scene, showing Frank Lucas shooting a gun (I think it's even used it the trailer, at 00:45 to 00:50 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=QOSOYSLDuQE).

We can't see if hes killing anyone, but I guess it's very possible, that Frank takes revenge on Richie Roberts. That way, it would be obvious why we see Lucas going out of jail in the final scene of the "regular" movie. And it would add a lot of dramatism - Lucas murders Roberts, regardless of what he had done to defense him. But that is just my own research :)

Anyway, I would like someone to confirm that this scene really exist, and then add the information to the article. - ArCgon (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the context surrounding the scene? I can't really speculate as to the purpose of the short scene, only to say that the film is based on a true story, and both Frank and Richie are alive in this present day. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The film ends with Frank Lucas stepping out of the prison's door, after 15 years he spend there. Then the credits starts, and after that, we see Lucas shooting it the direction of the camera. That's the context, and that's what we know for sure. As for the extra scene itself, it is uncertain, leaving much room for speculation, just like you've said. - ArCgon (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taken obviously from a much better work. Goodfellas.
He couldn't have killed Richie Roberts, the guy's still around! It's part of an extended ending in the DVD I think where Richie picks Frank up and they talk about how the world has changed. Katana Geldar 22:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katana Geldar (talk • contribs)

In the unrated extended version there is an alternate opening which is the scene that plays at the end of the credits in the theatrical version. But it also shows a man playing the drums before Frank Lucas shoots his gun.

In the extended version there is an alternate ending where richie roberts picks lucas up from jail. Frank Lucas didn't kill richie because they are both still alive today and are friends. Richie is the godfather of Frank's son.68.251.100.233 (talk) 06:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

street sign

[edit]

There is a scene in American Gangster where they show the street sign 116st and 8th avenue, but the street signs are green. In the 1960s and 1970s the street signs in manhattan were yellow.They were not green until the late 80s-early 90s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zannus88 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best seller on release

[edit]

Just as it is worth mentioning if a film becomes the best selling film on release at the cinema, it might also be worth mentioning that American Gangster was the best selling film for the week it was released on it's high definition format. [1]. It is undeniably notable in itself, but just in case that was a source who said it was notable by noting it. JayKeaton (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

[edit]

This film was not as well recieved as the article makes it seem. Indeed it was extremely lacking. Can we get som citation to confirm this. COme on, you all know it sucked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.6.84.67 (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cute remark, please keep contributing to wikipedia, what would we do without you?--201.215.161.72 (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was one of the best films I saw in a long time. But classic's take time to make. Go Rusty! Katana Geldar 22:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Time circles

[edit]

There is the narrative time, the story takes place and there is a difference, which depends on the historic real time and the atmosphere the film passes through. So it#s not Frank the myth you may watch in this movie. The 80th aren't like the 60th._and changing times isn't a good thriller tool! In the frame of myth and major!--Hum-ri (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Police criminals

[edit]

Why is there nothing in this article on the reality of the extent of the corruption in the NYPD at that time. It is a big part of the movie, in particular at the end. It is said in the movie that 3/4 of the narcotic police was corrupted and for this reason prosecuted thanks to Lucas testimony. There is nothing about this in the present article and neither in the Frank Lucas article. Does this mean that this part of the movie is completely fictional or that the NY police is cleaning Wikipedia ? Gpeilon (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“at that time”? It still exists and is more prevalent than ever. 69.127.244.66 (talk) 11:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Morton

[edit]

Who did he play? He looked like Gordon Parks. Who was his character? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.233.203 (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did Scott have Final Cut Privilege?????????/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.128.112.178 (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot - final section

[edit]

The final paragraph includes - "Once convicted, Lucas provides evidence that leads to more than 100 further drug-related convictions. In 1977, Lucas and his family are placed in the witness protection program. Frank has his Federal and state term reduced four years later in 1981, and in 1984 is caught and convicted of trying to exchange one ounce of heroin and $13,000 for one kilogram of cocaine. He is defended by his former prosecutor, Richie Roberts, and receives a sentence of seven years." I don't recall any of that being mentioned in the movie. -- Beardo (talk) 04:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:American Gangster (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 04:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD
Plot
Filming
Box office
Critical response
Accuracy of the film
Accolades
Images

Did some more work, but am unsure about reshuffling the reception section, even if the acting is discussed by most reviewers. Maybe the traditional "positive followed by mixed/negative" order? igordebraga ≠ 01:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Give the reorg some that and take your best shot.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tried again with the Accuracy points above, and reorganized the reviews that were there (adding an extra one so it would be 5 positive/5 mixed-negative). igordebraga ≠ 18:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template is somewhat unnecessary, otherwise it wouldn't be on the brink of deletion. I did the plot issues, they're right in the first paragraph! But otherwise is everything OK? (even the one that's unstruck regarding the acronym was done) igordebraga ≠ 04:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: Roberts defends Lucas

[edit]

Please change the section of the plot summary that references Richie Roberts prosecuting Frank Lucas--instead, it should say that he defended him (in the film, it indicates that Frank Lucas became Robert's first client). The fact that Richie Roberts would defend a man that he had been trying to put away for so long is crucial to the understanding of their relationship (as depicted on film).

In reality, none of this actually happened, but since the plot summary is focused on the events in the film, I believe it should accurately reflect the script.

Thank you,

-Aszal13

"Roberts, having passed the bar exam, prosecutes Lucas, who, once it becomes clear he will be convicted, provides evidence that leads to more than one-hundred further drug-related convictions, while he himself is sentenced to 70 years in prison, of which he serves 15 years and is released in 1991."

Aszal13 (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kharkiv07Talk 19:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the movie, in text laid over the final scenes. Done. --EnOreg (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2015

[edit]

In the infobox, box office says "$266.5". Change it to "$266.5 million". 117.192.161.187 (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Stickee (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Listed Actors

[edit]

Any particular reason Denzel is listed after Crowe? I mean he was in the "titular" role, he's even listed before Crowe under the cast. Just seems odd to me. Knowitall0213 (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on American Gangster (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on American Gangster (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020

[edit]

There is a line in the text that says "After handling in" it should be "After handing in" please correct. 2605:B100:132:F9A5:3C3F:57CD:3AE9:2B3C (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

already done IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did John Goodman play in this movie dancing?

[edit]

John Goodman 74.193.6.186 (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Martin reference incorrect

[edit]

In the movie, Frank is asking a family member who was aspiring to be a professional baseball player why he missed the meeting that he had set up for him with Billy Martin. In the movie, the Vietnam war was still going on at this time, and it should be known that Billy Martin did not become manager of the Yankees until the middle of 1975, which is after the end of the Vietnam war. At the time period that this would have taken place either Ralph Houk or Bill Virdon would have been manager of the Yankees at that time. 69.127.244.66 (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Gangster_(film)&oldid=1204799670"