Talk:The A-Team (film)

story line

the opening paragraph says the origin of the story line has been shifted from vietnam to the middle east. the second paragraph says they were accused of robbing a bank in hanoi. is that hanoi,iraq or hanoi,afghanistan? that second paragraph is lifted directly from the a-team series page. why not fix it? i would, but everytime i edit something on wiki, some edit-nazi changes it back to it's original form, no matter how wrong it may be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.143.189 (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Potential notability is not notability

This film may become notable but it has not been released yet. Do not confuse potential with fact. -- allen四names 04:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what Notability on WP is in terms of subjects. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (films), in particular: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." and ""Notability" as used herein is not a reflection of a film's worth. A film may be brilliantly created and acted, fascinating and topical, while still not being notable enough to ensure sufficient verifiable source material exists to create an article in an encyclopedia." There's plenty of verifiable material here, per WP:RS. - BilCat (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You should read them without excluding the content you don't like. Face it, on notability grounds this article is a sitting duck. -- allen四names 05:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. - BilCat (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I will not nominate this article for AfD until my anger at your refusal to accept the facts has cooled. This will not prevent someone else from doing so in witch case you can expect me to vote delete. -- allen四names 06:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you haven't presented any "facts". The film is being made by notable producers and actors, and is currently in production, as per reliable sources. The film itself may not be "notable", but the article abouut it certainly is, which is what is under discussion here, and what the guidleines I quoted refer to. Sure, anyone can nominate the article for AFD, if they believe it's not notable. However, I'd recommend against it. Btw, I recommended merging the article to the main A-Team page a couple of years ago when the film was still just a paper project. But once production began to work up, it was time to restore the article. - BilCat (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is entirely valid. The subject is certainly notable and has recieved a great deal of coverage in reliable media outlets. Production has begun and set photo's are available to back that up. Please do not waste anyone elses time with your pointless crusade to have the page deleted, you will not win. magnius (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The two of you act as if you but need to say this film production is notable to make all the facts (WP:N, WP:NF, and WP:BALL) "prove" the notability it does not have. These and the references I checked point to a run of the mill film production. -- allen四names 14:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, you've missed the entire point that notability here has absolutely nothing to with the quality of a film. I can't see how else to explain it, but I'm done trying. - BilCat (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a trailer for the film on rottentomatoes: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_team/. That seems pretty notable.Rachelskit (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Two-and-a-half years later, User:Allen4names looks like a fool. The movie is fact, and it earned $177 million. Even at the time he created this section, there had been significant coverage from reliable independent sources and filming had begun. That met the requirements for WP:NF and WP:N. --JHP (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Budget

"The A-Team," which stars Liam Neeson, Bradley Cooper and Jessica Biel, cost Fox and its partner Dune Entertainment $110 million, though tax credits brought the final budget to around $100 million.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/06/karate-kid-and-ateam-duking-it-out-in-battle-of-the-80s.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.87.228.118 (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I adjusted the article to use the pre-tax figure as the budget spend, even though it eventually ended up costing less due to the tax credits. Film budgets are tricky to describe accurately, if film makers are not deliberately misleading and that only describes the production costs, the marketing cost may be even higher. -- Horkana (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes they initially spent $110 million, but was refunded $10 million. Technically and allegedly they only spent $100 million. But I don't have any problem with including either one in the infobox, so as long as it's explained in the article. Mike Allen 22:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Both Box Office Mojo and the Numbers are also going with the larger figure. Overkill maybe (and I'd prefer if I wasn't forced to repeat a citation more than once per paragraph or infobox but too many editors wont check if you don't cite every last sentence) but I've triple cited it since named references are easy enough to reuse and having multiple sources makes it easier to WP:VERIFY the facts. -- Horkana (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The Numbers have changed to the lower figure, but their article makes it clear they sourced their figure from the LA Times. A rebate doesn't change how much you spent, $110 is the figure, and the details of the refund are provided below in the box office section.

Of course this only tells us the production budget, the marketing budget could be easily the same amount again. -- Horkana (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Intro

Intro was tagged as too short. Tag was removed. I restored it. Last I checked the intro included notes about the film makers and cast; a very short paragraph giving a brief story overview (don't assume readers know anything about the story even if it is a based on a television series); a quick note about what the critics thought (mixed). The latter paragraph/sentence about the critics could later include a second clause commenting on box office performance (existing sources in the article are already enough to say it underperformed studio expectations, but it might still do well on DVD).
Please help revert any vandalism to the intro, there seem to be several editors who just don't get it. -- Horkana (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Dwight Schultz on the film

Via his official fansite (22 June 2010). Mostly positive. Maybe someone knows how to distill something for the "Comments by original cast" section in the article.

I am too close to the A-TEAM TV series to consider myself objective or to write a proper critique, so I ask you to take into consideration that I loved working on the show, and no matter how heartbreaking I found working on it at times, I am indebted to Stephen Cannell and Frank Lupo who both gave me a life changing opportunity. The Film ,THE A-TEAM , is about twenty light years away from the series. Over and over again I heard from a variety of sources, that the movie would be "gritty" ,"real", "not corny", "big" ,"violent" , and "people would get killed "

It appears that these descriptors were accurate and had the intended effect on THE A-TEAM. The film pays homage to the series while it eschews its essential working premise: a band of capable military brothers for hire determined to save underdog and usually poor civilians from scum. But wait! The point is... this is not the TV series. It's a well shot wave of action, with hilarity, modest sex, violence and well played bad guys that you want to see tied up with shrink rap. Brian Bloom, co-writer and central villain clearly got to pen his own lines. Interesting! Check out that car scene! The team characters are sufficiently different and, with so many roles reversed from the original, one could say they are not really derivative, save for their names.

The exception is the brilliant Sharlto Copley as Murdock. He is faithful to the original, but at the same time is big screen twisted and right at home with the new team. I saw the film with a packed house and the audience applauded, laughed and were all smiles as they filed out of the theater. The only major criticism that I will let slip is the decision by such a creative team not to use Mike Post's great music theme....one of the absolute best..to jump start the film.....The audience would have screamed in delight.

Dwight

—95.89.24.139 (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

movie mistakes

the train station falsely called frankfurt central station is actually the cologne central station. the cologne cathedral is clearly visible. compare to the german article of the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.188.14 (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not a movie mistake, but surely a deliberate joke. The original series also didn't really care about this kind of accuracy. —95.89.24.139 (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If you simply state the facts "The Frankfurt Station scenes were filmed in Cologne" and provide citations to back it up then it would be relevant to include information about such location shoots under the Production section. You will need citations.

WP:IMPROVE. It was wrong delete before asking for citations or trying to clean up and move information to a more appropriate section as WP:TRIVIA clearly explains editors should do. The text does need citations and after marking Citation needed it might have later been acceptable to delete it if references were not provided instead of Original Research but rushing to delete does not help improve Wikipedia or encourage editors to try harder. -- Horkana (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What the...? I just corrected blatant inaccuracies such as mixing up German with Norwegian, Frankfurt with Cologne, the German US embassy being in Frankfurt and so on, even with correct citing. And you just delete it with a simple "trivia" note. There are TONS of other movie pages on Wikipedia which list even smaller inaccuracies. Do you guys have ANY idea how frustrating this is? I added this so that viewers wouldn't get a wrong picture of Germany. Apart from that, this info is already part of the German Wikipedia article (and the German wikipedia editors aren't exactly known for approving trivia either), so why won't you approve it? 188.104.9.171 (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Movie mistakes are trivial and entirely unencycopedic. It's fiction, they can do what they want, in that fictional world that is the correct place. Whats next? Add every place where they actually were in a sound studio and not that actual place in the world? It's a movie. And other stuff exists. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 15:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Christ, the whole MOVIE is fiction, still there is an entire article about it. I don't say correct every mistake, but the most blatant ones like mixing up cities and languages. I bet there would be an entry if there were an aerial shot of London and the caption said "PARIS". If you don't want a special trivia section, that's fine, I understand that. But then please just tell me where I could squeeze it in in the article. And please don't delete articles with a simple "trivia". Talk to the people. 188.104.9.171 (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If you can find sources talking about the errors, some of the mistakes you noted might fit well into the production section. Millahnna (mouse)talk 15:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Added the Frankfurt - Cologne controversy along with shooting locations under the "production" section. Hope it stays that way. 188.104.9.171 (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how reliable IMDB is considered for shooting locations, so the first ref might get pulled by someone who knows more than I do. However, the second link actually goes to another source so that should be fine, I would think. I think it needs to be reformatted to reflect the actual source instead of going through the IMDB link to Spiegel Online. I'd do it but I have this knack for breaking things when I play with refs. But if you can't fix it either, I'm sure someone else will. Millahnna (mouse)talk 17:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sticking at it, that location information is a good addition. It's a shame editors weren't better able to help you cleanup the content and fit it in the most appropriate way. I've done a little to reinforce the citations, since IMDB is a weak source but there should be no doubt that filming took place in Vancouver.
The link from Germany to Norway is poorly explained but I take to just be they got out of Germany and were leaving Europe through Norway not Germany. -- Horkana (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Box Office Paragraph

Somebody please inform whichever editor keeps vandalizing the Box Office paragraph that "it might do well on DVD" is not a fact and cannot be cited. Budget stats have already been detailed in the article, so do not need to be repeated here as they are largely irrelevant. In my amendment(s) I have included only facts from other sources and have cited them, as appropriate. I understand that you are obviously a fan of this film, but you do not need to repeatedly let us know. Please do not allow your prejudices to influence your editing. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral source of information. Junkie007 (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It is good that you have that you have read WP:LEAD and improved the introduction. Thank you for taking the time to follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and provide edit summaries at least some of the time, it can help avoid the need for long discussion here on the talk page.

Please also read WP:DATED and rephrase the box office section to avoid the use of vague the vague phrase "to date". The previous wording very deliberately specified the date as July 28 which is before the UK release.

You mention something about "doing well on DVD" and I recall such an edit was removed from the article a while ago but it has nothing to do with the changes you have been making.

You say the budget information is detailed elsewhere in the article, but the infobox merely lists the information and it is preferable to present the information as prose. This is not seen as redundant as you can see from other film articles. Although the budget subsidies could be included under financing or development, including it beside the box office takings gives the earnings more context (even then it only tells of the production spending, not the marketing spend and general "hollywood accounting" that ensures practically no film ever officially makes a profit). It is also good to include multiple sources as they better WP:VERIFY the information is true. (Not in this case but in others multiple sources can help show something is WP:NOTABLE and also helps prevent against one of the sources becoming a dead link.)

If you look to the References section you will see a "cite error" and red text. This is because you have deleted a reference to The Numbers.com and continued to do so after I reverted to correct the mistake. The easiest thing would be to revert back to my last edit then make your changes from there, and without removing so many line breaks so you can make proper use of the "Show Changes" feature to see what has changed and the "Preview" option to make sure your citations are properly formed. -- Horkana (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well perhaps it would be better suited to the introduction, which, as you pointed out, has been tagged as too short, rather than the paragraph on the film's box office performance. I didn't read all of that, but I hope all misunderstandings have been cleared and that we no longer conflict in our editing of this article. Junkie007 (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Easter Egg

In the scene were they steal the AC-130 it is stated that it is US Army, Hannibal says that is why he joined the army (Army Rangers) the best and brightest, the flight control says that "they have also stolen property from the US Army" however when the plane is destroyed a piece of wreckage has "97 Marine..." obviously some reference number and Marine is obviously A US Marine Corp plane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.20.30 (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, he was calling Marines stupid. --Boycool42 (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Prejudice

I'm disappointed by the lack of critical thinking and pedantic actions by editors who have a prejudice against blogs instead of properly considering the source. It is very simplistic to dismiss sources simply because the author has not gone out and bought a domain name to hide their content behind, or you don't like the software they use to publish their content. Dismissing content with prejudice because it was published using Wordpress is just like dismissing it for being published using Drupal, or any of the big CMS used on bigger sites. It would be wiser to actually take a look at the credibility of the author, too look at the other articles he has written, look at the photographs his stories are backed by and not simply dismiss the content out of hand. He is clearly not just another random uninformed blogger, no one is even disputing his statements about the van, or other production details but deleting the information because of prejudice against the source. This is the same kind of attitude that would dismiss everything ever published by the tabloids because they lack credibility on hard news (but the are obvious an adequate source for non-contentious celebrity happenings and events like who's gotten married).
I would be surprised the content is not simply a reprint of work that is being done for a film magazine or news publication, but it is not yet clear if that is the case. Hopefully the content can be restored when it becomes clearer to people this is a good source. -- Horkana (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig. Just because a blog looks nice, with pretty pictures, doesn't mean its not still a blog. I could easily make a blog with pretty pictures of the van from the film, and say whatever I wanted to. If what the author says is so "credible" then it would easily be found on other sites that actually count as a reliable source. BLGM5 (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Others have linked to previous writings from the same source and I've read what he has written and I see little reason for the excessive skepticism, beyond the questioning one should have of any source, mainstream news sources make plenty of mistakes too. I've read articles he has written on which I have personal knowledge and he shows insights and points out flaws other sources unfamiliar with the subject would not know.

In any case the pedantic rules and wiki-lawyers force me to wait until additional sources or something else comes along to make what is already a good source seem less like a "blog" as you and others so readily dismiss it and more like just another good website. The least I can do is mention that good information is being removed so others might have a chance to make a better article. -- Horkana (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Indentation

This article is far from Featured Article status and as such is subject to ongoing work and improvement. The article will need additional sections such as "Home media" as just one example of more work that will be needed. There are many citations which should have extra details filled in. There are many citations which would benefit from being backed up using services such as WebCite.org.

It is counter productive to remove all spaces from citations as User:Xeworlebi has repeatedly done. There are matters of personal preference which can be discussed but his changes to the indentation of the Infobox are particularly unusual and out of keeping with Template:Infobox film. It makes it much more difficult for editors to check the details are correct and to see if more details should be added when all spaces are removed from citations. It makes it too easy for vandals to hide junk in citations.

Editors can argue for a personal preference when it comes to line breaks. However unless the article has reached Featured Article status or another high level of quality it needs ongoing work and removing line breaks makes it more difficult for other editors to clearly see mistakes in the source and improve the article. I do not mind line breaks being removed when the article has reached a very high quality level. -- Horkana (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Stripping indentation and making fixes in the same edit makes it extremely difficult to see which changes have been made. I will continue to do my best to incorporate fixes, as I have already tried to do such as the error in the edit to the producers list but as I said it is very difficult to see and compare your edits. I see you prefer to use "first" and "last" so I have consistently replaced all the instances of "author" in the article. -- Horkana (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Random spaces and line brakes are unhelpful and can often lead to wrong line brakes which brake the page. They do not make it easier, in fact they make it harder to see which is in what section, and hard to find the actual text between all the random line brakes. All they do is blow up the article size and length when trying to edit it. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 17:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If I edit a citation to add more details in I will add line breaks to make it clearer when I work. If you are really sure a citation has most details filled out and then want to remove line breaks I'm not going to argue with that, if that is all you do. Stripping out all the spaces is too much.

I realise over formatting can result in mistakes but mistakes can happen anyway. At least when there are spaces it is easier to see those mistakes and fix them. Those mistakes can just as easily result from editors trying to put italics into citations instead of leaving them to the citation (e.g. cite news will format some parameters automatically with bold or italic formatting so editors should not put that formatting inside the citation manually in most cases.)

In the cases where you do choose to use indentation is very unusual. Please explain why you want to use indentation different from Template:Infobox film?

I am not alone in my preference for indentation. This came up while I was editing the Jessica Biel article Talk:Jessica_Biel#Wholesale_revert_to_clean-up_of_page and there were several editors who preferred more indentation. I am willing to work with less line breaks if you insist but again removing all the spaces is just too much. -- Horkana (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You reverted my changes and created errors. You re-added a duplicate link to a digitalspy article.
Empty parameters should be filled not removed, MTV articles for example are always dated. It would at least show good faith if you fixed these mistakes, especially since by removing the spaces you make it much more inconvenient for others to edit the article.
Line breaks between each critic makes things clearer but ideally such breaks would not be necessary and the critical response section would examine the film not on a critic by critic basis but instead based on writing, cinematography, and other aspects, something a few of the very good Featured Articles do. -- Horkana (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I would also direct your attention to Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. Spaces and line breaks are compressed extremely efficiently, there are certainly no technical performance issues to worry about, even if Wikipedia was concerned about performance.

Informal 3rd Opinion

OK, we have two opposing points of view about line breaks and spaces in citations. I must say that there is no harm in such spaces, I have not seen any problems where they brake(sic) the page. It appears that some of User:Xeworlebis edits have damaged the page by removing such spaces. It is especially important in infoboxes to let other editors see what is going on. I suggest that User:Xeworlebi focusses upon content rather than unnecessary space and line break trimming. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I keep looking at diffs trying to see where either version has broken the page or borked something and I just can't find it. Can someone explain it like I'm four (by which I mean pick a diff and tell me what I'm looking for). I just don't see the problem with either version. Millahnna (mouse)talk 18:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The first diff is extremely hard to read since it removed spaces and line breaks as well as making other changes. That is so difficult to see only confirms my point. At the very least Xeworlebi needs to separate his fixes from his removing of line breaks. It seems like maybe he is trying to do so with his later edits.

In this first edit the infobox was changed to removed <br /> line break tags and replace them with unbulleted lists. I'm ambivalent to unbulleted lists. Xeworlebi did not do this properly and broke the list of producers so that only the first one displayed correctly. Although I reverted his indentation changes I made a good faith effort to retain his changes to use unbulleted lists.

I'm giving Xeworlebi more time to show good faith and at least fix the minor regressions he has introduced when he reverted my changes and to fill in the empty citation parameters he should not have deleted.

Since 3rd party opinions are ambivalent and since Xeworlebi does not follow the indentation and formatting used by Template:Tracklist or Template:Infobox film it seems entirely fair to revert the article back to the indentation it was using before and that other editors did not seem to have any issues with until Xeworlebi.

I will continue to try to incorporate any fixes made by Xeworlebi but without more detailed edit summaries or keeping indentation changes separate from content changes it is very difficult to see what fixes Xeworlebi has made. -- Horkana (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

OK I understand the preference of the line breaks in the cite web templates. I have no preference myself but can see how editors may feel either way about it. It was the issue of the removal of spaces breaking something in the infobox are on the page in general that I couldn't visibly see at first. I think I was missing it because there were so many changes my eyes kind of glazed over. I'm kind of confused by the use of the unbulleted list parameter in this instance. Granted I haven't read all of the gory details on the film infobox template in a while but they've always seemed to created such a list just fine on their own. Millahnna (mouse)talk 18:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Aside: On bulleted lists:

When I first started editing Film Infoboxes I was happy to use commas between names. Keep it simple, avoid excessive formatting and tags. Many editors prefer to use line breaks so I go along with that but make sure to format the line breaks as <br /> which is the strict shorthand for <br></br> (some editors misunderstand the difference between the close tag and the shorthand for the combination of open and close. More recently some editors seem to find the line break tags untidy and prefer to use unbulleted lists and although it seems overcomplicated to me I will generally go along with this so long as fixing it is not especially awkward. -- Horkana (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I gave several hours for Xeworlebi to fix the breakages he caused and fill in empty parameters. Rather than waiting any longer reverted his changes so I can make these and further fixes myself. I have explained above why this is fair. I will attempt to incorporate any good changes he wishes to make. I hope it will not be necessary to request a WP:3RR block. -- Horkana (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism from cast

"The reception from the cast of the original series, The A-Team, too, was mixed."

The reference with Dirk Benedict supposedly criticising the film is actually him saying he expects it to be bad, not him having seen it saying it actually was bad. Shouldn't this be mentioned cos it's kinda an important point? 92.25.194.200 (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. That whole section needs cleanup and rephrasing. The comments from Dirk Benedict were in an article about Battlestar Gallactica, and only when I corrected the citation title did it become clear that previous editors hadn't provided the full context that was really needed. The claims and counterclaims from Mr. T are particularly a mess. -- Horkana (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible easter egg worthy of mention?

In the scene where they're about to break Murdoch out of the asylum, the movie starts and I happened to notice that one of the names credited is "Reginald Barclay", possibly referring to Schultz's Trek character? Was I imagining it or did anyone else notice this? -mattbuck (Talk) 10:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletionists removed notes to that effect at least once already. (I don't have the exact mark but it was somewhere after Revision (376432451) as of 15:02, 31 July 2010. You'd need to be clever about how and where you put it - perhaps with the notes about Dwight Schultz making a cameo - and maybe even have a citation from a review that noticed it.

There was quite a bit of material about the GMC Van deleted from the article too unfortunately. -- Horkana (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Dutch Customs Agents?

There are 2 airport customs agents inspecting BA and Murdock. They are credited (on IMDB) as Dutch Customs agents. There are however no waterplane airports or mountains like were shown in the scene like that in The Netherlands.

These agents also stamp their passports. Isn´t that only done when you enter a country instead of leaving it? Robin.lemstra (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That's odd, I wouldn't have guessed they were leaving Europe from the Netherlands the scenery made me think Norway maybe. The Netherlands is right beside Germany and Rotterdam is a huge shipping port so I suppose it sort of makes sense and isn't any more inconsistent than the other mismatches between filming locations and what is claimed on screen (the shots of Cologne claiming to be Frankfurt). I don't think any of this is worth mentioning in the article though. -- Horkana (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, i´d think they´d still be in Germany or Switserland or wherever they landed with the tank. Yeah, maybe not frontpage worthy but funny as trivia.84.196.117.109 (talk) 07:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

When they go through the passport control they are at a Norwegian passport control. All the signs are in Norwegian and English. The Police uniforms are Norwegian. When they walk down to the airplane it says Oslo Port Authority on the white cover of the walkway. I'm not sure which port passport control they have used, but the scenes of the plan talking off is not in Oslo anywhere. It could be in BC. --Jpfagerback (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Movie-censorship.com

The diff removing Movie-censorship.com -- Horkana (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Movie-censorship.com's terms of use say this, "Our Service may, from time to time publish rumors and conjecture in addition to accurately reported information. Information presented on our Service may contain errors or inaccuracies, and we make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy, correctness or reliability of the content of our Service. We have no responsibility for the accuracy, correctness or reliability of any information contained on any website to which we may link or from which we may quote." (Italics mine.) It is not a reliable source. I was also calling it linkspam because in 2009, this website was included across multiple film articles. Ckatz brought to my attention a resurgence of this linkspam, being used as references instead, with new "sections" citing this website. That's why I removed it. If we want to discuss the film's cuts, we can surely find a reliable source if the content is noteworthy. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Very odd for you to label it as linkspam instead of saying "not a reliable source". I'm not sure why you are surprised why the disclaimer excludes everything it possibly can. It's a film preview site, of course there's going to be speculation. Wikipedia claims to be an encylopedia and to be completely unreliable at the same time.

The specific article referenced is a review of the extended cut of the film and just not the kind of speculation the disclaimer was warning about. It includes screenshots and comparisons of the two versions of the film. I'm surprised that you would exclude the reviews section of a website because it also has previews. I'd say it was included across multiple articles not because of spamming but because editors thought it was quite good.

In your edit summary you wrote "It is linkspam disguised as a reference" it sure is well disguised, cunningly disguised as a pretty good article.

Tag it as citation needed if you must. Ask for additional citations, but the removing the uncontroversial claims about the difference in runtimes and number of extra scenes hardly seems necessary. Removing them doesn't challenge other editors to find it better source it just leaves us back with a vague statement about there being an extended cut and no further information about that extended cut.

You mention that you brought up this issue before, if there was a discussion at WT:MOSFILM I'd be interested to read it if you can provide a link. -- Horkana (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I had called it linkspam because I had to purge it in April 2009 when it was widely solicited as an external link. This time, it was solicited in its own section (for the most part). The IP who solicited it already admitted that he was trying to spread content from the website. In retrospect, the proper term is apparently citespam, a term that was new to me this year. :) The website in its entirety is not a reliable source, either. It is the burden of the editor who restores material to ensure that it is properly verifiable with reliable sources. It was not particularly discriminate anyway, to say that x scenes were edited. There's a discussion at WT:FILM about the website in general; you can see it here. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Call of Duty reference?

There was one scene when the bad guys were in the car and they were watching a tv of the air strike, he said "It's just like watching Call of Duty" Is that worth mentioning in the article under some pop-culture thing or not? Govvy (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Large deviation from original series

This film did not follow the original series at all, in refrence to the spirit of the series. In the original series, they were mercenaries, soldiers of fortunes. They were former soldiers who now work for money. In the film, they ridicule that position. The only thing they have in common is the names of the characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.21.47.186 (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• True, but our observation means nothing. It's called original research. If a reliable source discusses it, then we can discuss inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"Canceled sequel"

Maybe the (level 2 heading and) section title "Canceled sequel" is incorrect. There was nothing canceled, was there? That would mean there was something other than people expressing interest. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The A-Team (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 https://web.archive.org/web/20110918073930/http://www.latinoreview.com/news/exclusive-sorry-fans-mr-t-will-not-appear-in-the-a-team-remake-8869 to http://www.latinoreview.com/news/exclusive-sorry-fans-mr-t-will-not-appear-in-the-a-team-remake-8869

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) 21:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)