Talk:Little Caesar (film)

Chicago Low‑importance

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Organized crime Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Organized crime task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Film: American

	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
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Library of Congress Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress 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.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Rico & Otero

I'm surprised nothing has been mentioned about the homoerotic undertone to the relationship between Rico and his right-hand man, Otero. Rico was outspokenly disdainful of relationships with women. There is a scene with Otero in Rico's apartment in which Rico is laying in bed with Otero sitting at the foot of the bed. As the scene fades out, Otero can clearly be seen moving closer to Rico. 71.125.231.136 22:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was no consensus. Vassyana (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little Caesar (film) → Little Caesar—All other uses of "Little Caesar" don't actually use this text. They are either plural, nicknames, collective, or in eye dialect. This is the only usage that uses "Little Caesar" as a whole in the title. —Parable1991 (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support as nominator Parable1991 (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Little Ceasar" is a reasonable search term for at least two or three of the entries on the disambiguation page, and there's no need to force an extra click for users to get to them. Powers ^T 18:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree with the nominator. All of the other uses don't employ the use of only "Little Caesar" in the title. It's implausible they would end up here when searching for the ambiguous uses. 71.106.173.211 (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per LtPowers. Not necessarily runaway primary usage, per [1], not to mention Lil' Caesar. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The disambiguation page seems necessary to me, so the question then becomes, is the film title a clear primary usage? I think not; The other meanings don't seem related to it, nor any more obscure than the film. Andrewa (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - By clicking that link, I find that most of the uses of "Little Caesar" refer to the film while the rest are for the restaurant chain which is plural. There's your disambiguator. Dumrovii (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree with the above. The rest are plurals and redirects. 66.121.215.213 (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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

Fair use rationale for Image:LittleCaesarP.jpg

Image:LittleCaesarP.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 ensure 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) 23:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago

While the article names Chicago as the city where Rico and Joe go when they head "east", it is never specifically mentioned by name in the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.235.118 (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sr. not Jr.

The image on the poster, interestingly, is not Fairbanks, Jr..... It's Fairbanks, Sr! Upsmiler (talk) 05:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. In his youth, seen from some angles, Junior's face uncannily evoked his father's. That's Junior in the poster. 66.81.104.121 (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the end of Rico

A little homage was paid to this line in an edition of the comic 2000AD. The character Judge Dredd shoots his own brother, Rico, who utters the line "Is this the end of Rico?" before dying. (37.30.85.39 (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]

More worth noting is that the famous final line was originally "Mother of God, is this the end ..." until censorship concerns (yes, there was censorship in the pre-Code era—a patchwork array of state and local censorship boards with scissors in their hot little hands) minced the profanity to "Mother of mercy ...". 66.81.104.121 (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just reinstated (with some revision) a short section about this famous line which was deleted on 28 October 2010 because "This is entirely incorrect it was released with the original and then later censored, removing it entirely", which is manifestly wrong because the "Mother of mercy ..." version was certainly filmed, as a viewing of any of the home video releases proves; it was present in the (often heavily censored) 16mm prints of pre-Code WB films struck for TV in the 1950s and in the (often more complete) prints shown in art houses and film archives in later decades. Perhaps one or more sound-on-film reissue prints (the originals were sound-on-disc, which made any revisions a major hassle) with the line cut entirely exist, the work of some local censor or TV station owner who could not abide even the minced version, but if so they are not representative. 66.81.105.9 (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete

This article is incomplete and needs to be expanded. There is no information on the film's production and reception (critical reviews) these should be added and information on the film's release theatrically and DVD releases. That way this article covers its subjects completely.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The article is poor. It lacks context and description. And the homosexual references are bordering on the ludicrous. But what can you do? Edit a Wiki article these days and someone reverts it no matter what you do. It used to be a good place to work. Not any longer and not for some time. (A former editor now anonymous). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.44.178 (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "... homosexual references ... bordering on the ludicrous ...", I frown as hard as anyone on the gay version of what I like to call the "Black Cleopatra syndrome", in which a subject's inclusion in some oppressed minority group is claimed by a writer in that group solely on the basis of statements from questionable sources, or a chain of assumptions, or simple wishful thinking. But even more offensive are attempts to obliterate "accusations" of homosexuality from Wikipedia articles when there are solid clues there for anyone with open eyes to see. Here, the stated fact (if such it is) that the story's author complained about Rico being portrayed as queer in the film seems like more than enough to justify including claims that there is a gay aspect. 66.81.104.121 (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In The Maltese Falcon, the Peter Lorre character is intended to be read as gay because his handkerchief is perfumed (in the book Sam Spade is outright calling him "the fairy"). Compared to that the stuff with Rico and Otero is hardly subtle at all. 73.114.147.77 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are some changes from the book by Burnett.

1.)Joe hanged with the rest of the gang, rather than turning State's Evidence and going on to show business success.

2.)Rico was not captured immediately---there was a stretch where he went to Milwaukee and ran a beer racket under an assumed name. When his true identity was discovered, he was ordered out of town as too dangerous, and a stool pigeon told the Chicago police where to find him.