Talk:The Boondock Saints/Archive 1

The Sequel

As of January 6th, the Internet Movie Database has removed its page for "All Saints Day". Boondocksaints.com has also removed its production diaries from the sequel. I think the sequel is dead. I have been trying to get on the message boards on the main site at Boondocksaints.com, but the site is down right now. Can somebody give me an update here?

also: I just noticed that they no longer own the domain to "Boondocksaint.com". They had that domain in the past.

Norman Reedus and Troy Duffy had a huge fallout and the sequel IS cancelled for all time, or until Duffy can find a replacement for Reedus. The sequel should be removed from the page.

Empire magazine reports that Fox has agreed to finance a sequel [1]. As clearly it isn't cancelled for all time, I added the information to the article. IrishGuy talk 20:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw bob marley in my hometown on the 30th of july. He plays greenly. After the show I was talking to him and he confirmed that the legal issues were clearing up and work should begin on it soon. On an offtopic note, I caught some video of the guy next to me slapping his ass during the skit. Crache talk

Is the use of the word "blacklisting" to refer to the lackluster showing of the movie being neutral?

Nope, "Blacklisting" Refers to a general repression of the Film's release and lack of advertising, designed to make the film's performance appear worse than it is. Being Blacklisted for the violence soon after the "Columbine Incident" due to the fact that the characters appear similar to the 'Trenchcoat Mafia' that caused the problem, and the Vigilantism glorified.

A few places have had screenings recently, including a few colleges. Cult films have a habit of never dying...

And if you haven't seen this movie yet, it isn't as much of a "Rambo" in terms of action, but it still is worth the cost of the DVD.

The quote "Evil is when good men do nothing." is incorrect. What is actually said during the sermon is different.

- - It is highly likely that the "blacklisting" has more to do with personality conflicts than Columbine. See the documentary "Overnight". Impression from this movie that he is difficult(impossible?) to work with...I think the word is 'ass'. It almost seems a surprise Boondock Saints could have ever been made.

What about noting the double entendre or euphemistic naming of Paul Smecker --- i.e. Small Pecker. Perhaps when Willem Dafoe's character is introduced.

Polish message.

Above user wrote in Polish. From what a free online-translation-service tells me the user simply seems to praise and recommend the movie.

I find this somewhat confusing. Should the above user's post be removed?

Online translation site:

Poltran Polish-English interpreter

--82.83.11.227 17:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it, since this is the english part of Wikipedia. Robrecht 00:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Verification

Can anyone find any links or quotes regarding the fan and industry rumours referenced in this article?

I would also like to split the plot synopsis up a little bit, if anyone owns the DVD could they maybe split it into chapters? Alexforcefive

Movie Summary has been revised

Having seen this movie quite a few times since my first viewing in 2000, I have split the summary into sections to make for easier reading, while also deleting some of the more extraneous details from the entry. The identity of Il Duce is not vital to a summary of the movie; it is also one of the key elements of the entire plot. For this reason I have kept the identity of the Duke secret; as well as adding some info on the movie's overall conclusion. - Motion J5

While I disagree with keeping the identity of Il Duce secret in the plot synopsis (that's what the spoiler tag is for), this section has grown WAY out of control. Anyone feel like trimming it? I've not got time right this second to make a good go at it, or I would fix it myself. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Identity of Il Duce

The plot section that reveals the identity of Il Duce has recently been changed. Someone changed the article from saying that Il Duce is the McManus' father to saying that he is Irish and knows the McManus' family prayer. Personally, I've always felt the movie portrays Il Duce as the McManus' lost father (in fact, I believe one of them calls him "Pa" in the final scene). But I don't think it's explicitly stated in movie. I'm going to revert the changes, but I'm curious what assumptions people have made about Il Duce's identity from the movie. X-Mack 20:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is "Da", not "Pa." 131.238.31.40 18:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Agreed; I always understood it as Il Duce being the brother's father. IIRC, They do mention their missing father earlier in the movie, so I very much doubt he's just a random Irish guy...

==I figured he was an uncle or something, you'd think they'd recognize each other during the first shootout if they were father and sons. -156.34.86.252 06:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the scene where Il Duce is introduced, it is stated that he has been locked away for the last (if memory serves me) 25 years. The brothers being probably only in their late 20s or early 30s, they would have been just kids when he was arrested. Also, IIRC, there's a deleted scene on the DVD where the brothers talk with their mother about their estranged father. X-Mack 17:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the last sense, Connor (I think) called Il Duce "Da", and they possibly didn't recognise their father in the shootout because 1) They where too young, or 2) You can imagine that some one's appearance would change over 25 years in Prison. And also, Il Duce and The Brothers both share the uncanny ability to kill people with ease. 172.162.143.12 08:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the prayer was passed on to the brothers by their father, and Il Duce was in jail for the supposed years, how did Il Duce teach them the prayer?

Kirbyrocks 23:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When the three are reciting the prayer at the very end before executing Papa Joe, they split the last line. Il Duce says "patris" which means father, and one of the brothers says "et filii" which means "and brothers," the other wraps it up, but that part isn't important. What is is that Il Duce is definitely their father.

--24.63.119.11 05:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Et Filli" doesn't mean "and brothers". The whole thing is simply the latin Trinitarian formula while making the Sign of the cross: In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen. = In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. IrishGuy ^talk 17:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==yes, but this could simply mean that he has become a sort of father to them, and is not their biological father.

There are plenty of hints dropped, their father disappearing coincidentally with Il Duce being jailed, Murphy talking to Rocco about the prayer ("My father's father etc") and so on. That he technically could be an uncle/family friend is irrelevant, since the film is clearly intending for the audience to believe he is the father. --Big gun 23:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The mother states that the father left at an early age. She also states she found his service revolver, leaving the inferance that he has past experiance in military. He's had to be in jail for atleast twenty-five years to get parole, aswell as Augustus stating "...twenty-five o' thirty years." The brothers are twenty seven. Judging that the former top mafia brass used him three times, a year is a good time span to leave with him getting caught. That also depends on the mafia being in a horrible time. That means he had one year to teach his sons the family prayer. Also, I may have short-changed him. He could have had two years to teach his sons the prayer. He might have done his work for the mob before having kids. Perhaps he thought that he had wronged his family or something and went back to the US to turn himself in. If he turned himself in, with definately a few murders riding against him, he might have gotten a lesser sentence than life or death.Sk8tuhpunk 18:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Connolly clearly states in the commentary to the Unrated Edition that his character is their father. Case closed.--Valin Kenobi 02:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian Mob Scene

In the scene where Connor and Seamus kill the Russian Mob boss, what is the Mob Boss saying to the underbosses? Sounded pretty spirited.

With all the cuts you can't get a full message. Basically he's trying to motivate them and tells them not to be lazy, or they won't get anywhere. Nothing that changes anything, since they die a short time afterwards.

- What? ... What? ... [on] your fucking faces ... If we do not set up a foothold here, in America ... sitting on our butts ... without even a cent ... clapping your fucking eyes

The guy is definitely a native speaker and his speech is 100% authentic to what would've being said by russian boss scolding his underlings.

Prologue or Prolog?

Earlier I changed it from the first to the latter based on the fact that this is an Amerincan movie. Any thoughts?Cameron Nedland 20:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've only ever seen it as prologue in movies. Do these headings come from the DVD or something? They're really...awkward. -- nae'blis _(talk) 22:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A general Americanization is to chop off the ue in words that end in ogue, like catalog vs catalogue.Cameron Nedland 22:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I've never seen "prologue" spelled without the ue in America. Same with "dialogue". American spelling goes both ways in this case. -- no user name, sorry!

Body Count

What should we add to this? It says the "number of people killed on screen, but we have to take this into consideration. The unnamed cleaner, that almost killed Rocco, killed an unknown number of people, possibly 5 or more, as you are able to tell by the gun flashes. Then again, we don't see Il Duce slice the mobsters neck in the masion, we only see his dead body. Rcpage2001 21:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cleaner kills four people and one dog, according to the original script. Two men, a child, and the wife. He also originally talked.Sk8tuhpunk 18:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this page, or any page for that matter, truly need a body count? This should be an encyclopedia entry, not a fanboy rant on what was loved about this movie.

Pleaes sign your posts with four of these: (~). I don't see how it would be a fanboy rant, I actually hate the movie but the body count would be interesting. Part of what makes boondock saints notable is the body count. I have no problem with putting a body count on the article, maybe somebody could watch and and also give a link to another page to corroborate it? I'd suggest that if for no other reason than to calm the editors who stick "citation needed" tags on everything.

Friendship hurricane 20:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to quickly count out everyone killed:

Chekov and Vladdy=2
Petrova and associates=11
Back at Rocko's=11 and a cat
Vincenzo, the drug dealer, and the pimp=14 and a cat
The Goodfellas and the bartender=17 and a cat
The "Cleaned" house=21, a cat, and a dog
The Cleaner's poker game=28, a cat, and a dog
Papa Joe's=32, a cat, and a dog
The trial=33, a cat, and a dog

So 33 is right, along with a cat and a dog. And a poor toilet.Sk8tuhpunk 01:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brothers' Speech

The speech at the end of the movie contains the line "For if you do, one day you will look behind you and you will see we three, and on that day you will reap it, and we will send you to whatever god you wish..." Note: Current revision says repent instead of reap it, a reference to reaping what you sow, a common Biblical metaphor. -MikeMac

Article ordering

It seems to me that the info about the possible sequel and the band should come after the plot synopsis but before trivia. Would anyone have a problem with this change? Stardust8212 18:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. Good idea. Sir Isaac Lime 21:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it "reap it" or repent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.246.196.1 (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veritas and Aéquitas

I think that the philosophy behind the use of these words: Veritas and Aéquitas or Aequitas and the use of the coins on the eyes of the dead have a perfect relevance to the Wiki pages and should be included. As in The Matrix Series there are several references through out the film to suggest a philosophical work of art. Particularly to the references of Greek or Roman mythology between the two characters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DNCamper (talk • contribs) November 1, 21:07.

Is this in reference to this page, or to the Veritas page? The fact that they have tattoos, and a brief mention of the influence of mythology, could certainly use a mention here in Trivia (or its own section if it is well-written and inclusive enough), but not on the Veritas or Aequitas pages. You don't need to mention the philosophy behind the words here, that should be done solely on the Veritas or Aequitas pages.Sir Isaac Lime 21:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Summary

Please remember that the plot summary is supposed to be a summary, not a play-by-play. Just the large details, in broad strokes. Sir Isaac Lime 15:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed re-write to article...

I've copied the text of the article to one of my user sub pages and I've made a few changes to the article, I wanted to get some input on the changes before adding the new text to the article space. The main changes I've made are: I've changed the way the article was referenced from < ref > [URL] </ref> to < ref name="ff"> - [URL title] URL last accessed 2006-11-28 </ref>.

I've also changed the section entitled "Movie information" to "Development" while adding information on how the script was bought, the orginal budget for the film etc. I've removed the sub-section about Duffy's band and integrated the information into the development section. Anyhow I'd like for any and all who care to look over my changes at User:KnowledgeOfSelf/Experiments where I have made the changes and let me know if you think it is acceptable to be moved to the article space. Due to no response I've already gone ahead and moved the re-written text to the article and blanked my sub-page. Thanks. KOS | talk 19:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no comments, I went ahead and made the changes. Cheers. KOS | talk 18:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also reduced the size of the plot, and I think it needs to be reduced more. Any thoughts? KOS | talk 23:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* i also think the reviews are a bit biased. i m sure someone must have wrote a positive review. atleast all the user comments on amazon/imdb are positive. opinions?

Removal of image

Does anyone else think that the image of IlDuce should be removed? That makes 4 fair use images in the article, and I feel out of the 4 it is the least interesting and least important to the article. My logic behind this being that the movie poster gives an image that illustrates the entire film's look. The image of the DVD cover goes with the DVD release section, and the image of Connor and Murphy is of the main characters and it seems to me that is more relevant than the image of IlDuce. Any thoughts? KOS | talk 08:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed the image. KOS | talk 04:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metascore description

No it's not strictly "relevant" to "The Boondock Saints", but I do not feel that argument necessarily applies because of where it is in the article. Because it is in the "Reception" headline, a quick description of what a Metascore is does help the article. Just because Metacritic is linked does not mean the explanation of what it is should be removed. KOS | talk 01:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a quick description, I would have less of a problem with it. As it was, it seemed like a total digression. In case anyone isn't sure what we're talking about, it's this:

Metascores are achieved by the weighted average of all of the scores assigned by individual critics to a film. Metascores are considered weighted averages because the assigned significance, or "weight", is greater depending on the critic and publication. This includes the overall stature and quality of the critics and publications.<ref name="MC2"> - [http://www.metacritic.com/about/scoring.shtml Metacritic.com - About Metascores] URL accessed [[2006-12-12]]</ref>

The first sentence is more than enough to explain what a metascore is, but even that much seems to be unnecessary. I considered rewording it as: It also received an overall Metascore, the weighted average of all of the scores assigned by critics to a film, of 44/100. but it seemed a little clunky. If it needs to be explained how metascore is weighted, it should be done in a footnote (although again, there's a link to the Metascore page, where there is a full explanation of how it is weighted). It is not integral to the main point of the paragraph: Boondock Saints was not well recieved.

But again, saying it received an "overall Metascore" says that Metascore is some sort of combined score. There is no more reason to explain further than there is to explain, on an album's page, what the All Music Guide is before it shows AMG's star rating.

Also, this page has come a long way in a few months: from drooling fanboy rant to Featured Article. Good work to everyone. Sir Isaac Lime 03:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I must admit that you have convinced me, though I still do not think it is wrong or hurtful to the article to include it. Thanks for the nod, the FAC process nearly gave me an upset stomach, it was most nerve racking. Anyhow, thanks for the reply and cheers. KOS | talk 16:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Credits trivia

Here's a bit of trivial trivia: I notice that in the end credits, the filmmakers offer their thanks to a huge list of people and organizations, including "Tony Montana" and "Lisa Simpson" (and "Holly Wood"). I wonder if those are the famous fictional characters, or just coincidences. Unfortunately, it seems impossible to verify one way or another without directly asking the filmmakers. --Quuxplusone 22:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Della Rocco

as current: "Believing they are on a mission from God, the brothers with friend and former mob errand boy David Della Rocco — who is referred to as the "Funny Man" throughout the film — set out to rid their home city of Boston from the Russian mob and Italian Mafia."

I propose to change this sentence to:

"Recruiting a former mob errand boy "The Funny Man", played by David Della Rocco, and believing they are on a mission from God, the brothers set out to rid their home city Boston of the Russian mob and Italian Mafia."

cleaning up grammar and word order to make the sentence more look like a definition. Fegor 05:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it! :) But before you do, note: (1) Your new sentence is missing some kind of punctuation or linking word between "mob errand boy" and "The Funny Man", since Rocco's nickname was not "The Funny Man" as in, "Hello, The Funny Man, how are you today?" (Contrast "The Dude".) (2) "David Della Rocco" is both the actor's name and the character's name, as seen on screen when he's introduced; therefore, your edit changes the meaning of the sentence (albeit without changing its truth value). (3) Rocco's nickname is totally irrelevant and can be removed, thus strengthening the sentence without requiring any complicated rewording. I'm going to do that now. --Quuxplusone 05:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality/Vandalism

I'm unclear as to why a previous edit to include the fact that the FBI agent in the film is both gay and homophobic was marked as 'vandalism'. It's a fact of the movie - the character is seen sleeping with another man, kissing another man, and using derogatory homophobic insults towards other characters (including one he just slept with). If the addition was inappropriate for whatever reason, so be it, but marking it as vandalism seems like a mistake since it's merely an attempt to expand the article in a minor way. Fimbria 03:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IT was a mistake by whoever was patrolling for recent edits. It's like a false positive with a spam filter; if the word "gay" is in a new edit, especially a small one, 99.9% of the time it's vandalism. Wasn't this time, and I let the editor who was accused of vandalism know as much on his talk page. I didn't revert the edit just because it didn't seem super necessary.Sir Isaac Lime 18:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to check and see if the the title/summary box on the right hand side of the screen needs to contain such a colorful exposition of the quality of the movie? Labeling it as, "AKA the best f*ckin movie ever...." doesn't seem to be a balanced statement, and reflects poorly as this is supposed to be a featured article. I'm sure it qualifies as vandalism, but I will leave the fixing to those wiki editors out there who are more talented and more trusted than I.

Christian Mythology?

Doesn't this movie lean heavily on Christian mythology, at several points? If yes, why isn't this addressed in the article? --Peter Knutsen (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely because there weren't any reliable sources that mentioned it. Reliable sources are hard to come by for a movie like this, that didn't receive a large box office release. If you are able to find something it may be worth noting in the lead section. I doubt you'll find enough to warrant a section for itself. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 15:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Theology of Their Actions

As much as this film needs some serious ethical reflection, original research is not the way to do it. I'm not involved with this article, but are there any objections to cutting this section? As the earlier post commented, there's unlikely to be any sources for such as discussion. TrickyApron (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. I have removed the section. Tabor (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian "Il Duce" is not to be translated "The Duke"

Correct translation of Italian "Il Duce" is "The (war) Leader", same as the Latin word Dux (bellorum). Pls. also refer to related Wikipwdia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duce Albeit the word Duke is a cognate (deriving from the same Latin word "dux") the modern sense is different. The Italian form for "duke" is "duca". If nobody objects I am going to edit the text 24 h from now. 93.144.90.237 (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]