Talk:In the Loop

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.

Comedy Mid‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

same cast, different characters

I've re-added the comment about Malcolm Tucker being the only recurring character - Armando Iannucci has confirmed this in interviews. I can't find a particularly great reference right now, but http://www.timeout.com/film/features/show-feature/4903/set-visit-in-the-loop-with-armando-iannucci.html confirms that Chris Addison and Alex MacQueen are playing new characters. The IMDb cast listing is wrong, and should certainly never be used as a reliable source for unreleased movies. — sjorford ++ 19:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feelgood rubbish?

A load of "feelgood rubbish" by the usual suspects in British alternative comedy, designed to hide the well known fact the Rupert Murdoch is "kingmaker" in British politics which therefore renders all their efforts impotent (something tacitly accepted by all the lawyers in the Leveson Inquiry into Press standards) and who forced Tony Blair to agree the Iraq War whatever on threat of switching his vital electoral endorsement to The Tories otherwise? Any online sources with that cynical truth about the true inspiration for this movie? At least shouldn't the later Chilcot inquiry be referenced, which revealed indeed that Tony Blair had already decided to invade Iraq whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.210.174 (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historical background

Is it worth having a section which briefly outlines the historical background, and relating the characters and events to real life? Might be helpful.Gymnophoria (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No.
On the commentary that is on the DVD, the director, Armando Iannucci, is "at pains" to clarify that this is contemporary and does not refer to Tony Blair & Co.
Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 12:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iannucci can be in as much pain as he likes - I think his reasons for saying that were probably more about marketing the movie at the time. Authors are not always the best analysts of their own work: Tolkien was also "at pains" to suggest Lord of the Rings was entirely unrelated to his own war experiences and the fact that his son was away fighting in WWII, which literary critics have concluded is patently nonsense. I don't think it's just a coincidence that this film is about a "sexed up" dossier, with a foul-mouthed media officer and a DFID minister who is dithering about resigning.Gymnophoria (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The commentary was added much later. Regardless of exactly when, it is a reliable source — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 13:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An old problem, even if a writer or director makes a statement, wiki still thinks it knows better… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.99.133 (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on In the Loop (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:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5p6kTm4hN?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oscars.org%2Fawards%2Facademyawards%2F82%2Fnominees.html to http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/82/nominees.html

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) 00:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 May 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. (non-admin closure) f e minist 09:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the Loop (film) → In the Loop
In the Loop → In the Loop (disambiguation)

– The film is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the phrase (and there shouldn't be an encyclopedia entry for the idiom). 60,000+ views for the film in the past 3 months, has established its long-term significance with respect to usage. Wikipedical (talk) 05:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The film is the clear primarytopic by usage and encyclopedic significance. The phrase has no WP entry, nor should it, as WP:NOTDICT. The link to Wiktionary on the dab page is the best result for those seeking the meaning of the phrase. Dohn joe (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the definition is not and will almost certainly not be covered on Wikipedia since it is a dictionary entry.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

same cast, different characters

Feelgood rubbish?

Historical background

External links modified

Requested move 1 May 2017

Categories