Jump to content

Talk:The Departed/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

The X motif

As if this doesn't reference the deliberate scattering of Xs throughout the film as a sign of impending doom and a nod to Scarface. Source: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/reeling/2007/01/x_marks_the_spo.html — 123.243.204.44 (talk) 06:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I accept the possibility that Xs mark "impending doom" and are part of an homage. However this article says that Xs "mark characters for death". I find this claim to be unsupported. To support it you would have to show not only that an X appear behind every character about to die but also that no Xs appear behind charaters that live on. I took the time to read the source of the claim (http://miamiherald.typepad.com/reeling/2007/01/x_marks_the_spo.html) and found two comments worth noting:
1) "there are 3 scenes where Xs appear and the main character in that scene doesn't die.
when sullivan is talking to an old lady there are Xs on the door, when sullivan is talking to ellerby in the golf practice place there are Xs in the background. there are also Xs on the window of dr. madolyn's home right before bill walks in."
2) "After reading this I started looking around for X's in movies and everywhere else. What I found was...X's are everywhere ! The X is very common, just look around; saying that they were put there on purpose is completely ridiculous. If you look, you will see squares in most of the scenes also....I GUESS THEY WERE PUT THERE ON PURPOSE TOO."
So I don't say that the claim is false but that it's unsupported. --Denounce (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Frank Costello

There was a real life italian mafia boss named frank costello does this have anything to do with the film or is it just conicidence --Steinfeld7 (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

They may have selected the name because of that, but The Frank Costello character is based on Whitey Bulger, an Irish Mob Boss in Boston in the 80s. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

A section for differences between Infernal Affairs and The Departed

Either on the Infernal Affairs page or this page, do you think we should include a section indicating the differences between the two movies? Xatticus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.80.89.60 (talk) 05:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Best Picture

It says that this movie won the Best Picture Oscar, but it doesn't say WHO received the Oscar. Didn't the four producers each get an Oscar, according to tradition? If it doesn't say, then something has to be done about this. Jienum (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Debarted

Is it really necessary to have a link to the debarted simpsons episode at the top of the page? Do you think many people are really getting confused about this? Perhaps this could be turned into a section at the end of the article titled affect on popular culture or parodies? as i know the simpsons aren't the only show that spoofed the departed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.83.40 (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ray Winstone

Is Ray Winstone a big enough name to be mentioned in the initial part of the article? Well, I'm sure if you walked down the road of Hicksville, Wyoming and asked who Ray Winstone was you would probably get a negative response. But why does that matter when it comes to this article? He headlined the Beowulf film (above Hopkins, Malkovich, Wright Penn and Jolie), which opened at No.1 in the US chart and went on to take in $82million dollars. He is mentioned at the beginning of the article for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, has had major parts in other US based films and is a renowned, and award winning, actor in other parts of the world, especially Europe and Australia. Big enough star for an encyclopedia that is not supposed to be US centric? Yes. (Quentin X (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

Roles in other movies are irrelevant here. I have a hard time thinking any rational person would argue he "stars" in this movie, and that's how the lead is written. He doesn't belong. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sheffield?

It links to the one in England. The one in Mass is in Western Mass, right next to New York. This is more likely, but I still doubt it. Is Sheffield a neighborhood in Boston? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.163.68 (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Delahunt's Death

After re-watching the movie and going over the scene where Timothy Delahunt dies after suffering the gunshot wound, I'd like to propose a edit to the cast list to note that Delahunt was actually a possible Boston Police undercover officer, as referenced later in the movie; the scene where the 'gang' is watching television, and the announcement that the body of 'Sergeant Timothy Delahunt of the Boston Police Department' was found. While Costello's remarks of 'They are saying he's a cop, so I won't look for the cop' could be true -- however, this doesn't explain why Delahunt simply didn't make Costigan after he was shot, because if one recalls, Delahunt gave him the wrong address at where to meet the group in order to 'take out the rat.' After Delahunt realizes this, right before his death, he asks Costigan that question: why? Why didn't he tell anyone that he gave him the wrong address? His death afterward left the possibility open. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.153.193.228 (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, he doesn't turn Billy in, but that could just as easily be because he's seeking some kind of redemption after a life of crime- or maybe he just likes Billy. He seems confused about why he's doing it anyways- which makes it more likely to me that he's doing it because he doesn't want to get Billy killed.--JollyJeanGiant (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think Delahunt was an undercover cop, as mentioned above. There was a very sound reason presented earlier. I just want to add one thing: the movie has a kind of equilibrium on both sides, a spy in the SIU and a spy in Providence. Now there was a supporting spy of costello in SIU and so it makes sense if Delahunt was a supporting spy in providence. I think you would understand my point better if you understood the theme of the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theseriousjoker (talk • contribs) 20:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Delahunt was no cop - he was popping off rounds at the real cops - while not wearing a vest himself. No cop gets in a gun fight with other cops just to cover things up. And certainly while not wearing a vest. Also, as soon as shots were fired, his training would have kicked in and he would have ducked for cover. Also, Delahunt was clearly too dumb to have been undercover. It's axiomatic that a successful plant has to be very smart. That's the weakness in the whole movie. And Costello would have known this - only smart people (or extremely good fakes, which also requires smarts) can succeed in undercover work. When you work in close quarters with someone for years, you can tell if they are smart. Costello would have known this. There may have been reasons why Costello didn't want to suspect Costigan, so he overlooked the fact that Costigan is clearly the prime candidate. The weak investigation Costello did into Costigan (after feeding him the fake information) would not have satisfied Costello - unless he himself was not very bright. So, if you think Costello is somewhat dumb, then Delhahunt (who was dumb) might have fooled him. But a dumb Delahunt would never have fooled a smart Costello. Delahunt was no cop. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Plot summary needs elaboration

There is too much about the end of the movie and not enough about the beginning. The last 20 minutes is half of the plot summary. The end mentions details like Sullivan's last word but the beginning just says general things like "as both men infiltrate their respective organizations" to cover about an hour of the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.50.71.84 (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If anything, the plot summary should be shorter. We do not provide a minute-by-minute synopsis of the movie. If the end is too long, it should be trimmed. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Differences from Infernal Affairs

I removed the following as unreferenced and original research, and bring it here for discussion. Until reputable and reliable sources are found for this, it must remain out. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Despite the fact that this is a remake of the 2002 Hong Kong film, Infernal Affairs, there are numerous differences between The Departed, and Infernal Affairs

  • The most obvious is the fact that Infernal Affairs takes place in Hong Kong, while The Departed took place in Boston
  • The major "bust" in Infernal Affairs revolved around a cocaine deal, while The Departed focused more on the bust of a sale of microprocessors believed to be used for nuclear warheads (which were being sold to Chinese intelligence agents)
  • The character Dignam (Mark Wahlberg) does not have an equivalent in Infernal Affairs.
  • Dr. Madolyn Maddon is a composite of three Infernal Affairs characters: Yan's (Costigan) psychologist, Lau's (Sullivan) girlfriend, and Yan's ex-girlfriend. Dr. Lee, like Maddon, counsels Yan and later realized his true identity. Lau's girlfriend is another police officer, who like Maddon learns of her boyfriend's mob connection through a tape sent by Yan (Costigan), while the mother of Yan's child is a separate woman, unrelated to the other two.
  • Costigan has an unborn son, while Yan's daughter was born several years earlier.
  • Lau is kept alive at the end of Infernal Affairs and Infernal Affairs III , while Sullivan was killed in The Departed.
  • In the scene where Lau (Sullivan) meets Sam (Costello), they meet at a standard movie theater, while in The Departed, Sullivan and Costello meet in a porno theater.
  • In Infernal Affairs, Lau stops working for Sam due to a change of heart, and a desire to be "the good guy", while in The Departed, Sullivan stops working for Costello because it was discovered that he was an FBI informant, and he would have eventually given Sullivan over to the FBI.
  • In The Departed, Costigan tips off Queenan through text messages. In Infernal Affairs, Yan (Costigan) contacts Wong (Queenan) through morse code.
  • Costigan chooses to drop out of the academy to become a mole for the police. In Infernal Affairs, Yan is expelled from the academy; only after he is expelled is he offered the opportunity to become a mole for the police.
While this list seems to be quite accurate, the last item isn't: while Yan is expelled indeed, it's obviously a cover for his new identity, so there is no real difference between him and Costigan. --Denounce (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Didn't like the expansion or variation of the Wahlberg character at all. Unnecessary. And only one female lead for the two male protagonists ? The main problem with this version is that the two male leads didn't have enough of a contrast in personalities, as did Andy Lau and Tony Leung. Plus DiCaprio and Damon still look like "boys", whereas Lau and Leung clearly look and act like men. LiShihKai (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Impotence?

The article makes mention of Sullivan's impotence and the lack of a sexual relationship between Sullivan and Madden. I completely missed this part of the movie after several viewings. Is the article correct? What about Madden's baby, is Costigan definitely the father?--Kickflipthecat (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay I get the Madolyn crying in bed and getting pregnant when she does Billy. Is that it? Just suggestions?--64.174.79.82 (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

He's not impotent. We can deduce this from the fact that she showed him the ultra-sound. If they had never done it, she wouldn't show that to him. Clearly he must have attempted (and succeeded) to have performed with her on more than just the failed occassion in the movie. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Costigan is the father

If Madolyn had the slightest suspicion that Sullivan was the father, she wouldn't have tipped off Dignam; it doesn't take a genius to know that the latter action will imply Sullivan's death or arrest, and she wouldn't want either for the father of her child, however sleazy and hateful he was.

Plus the way she cries in the funeral is indicative of a lot of things.

Plus look at the expression of surprise in Sullivan's face when he sees the ultrasound. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Controversy?

From the article:

The film evoked controversy in Boston. Michael Patrick MacDonald, author of the Southie memoirs All Souls and Easter Rising, wrote an op-ed piece for The Boston Globe[12] praising the film's ability to recreate the "strangulating" culture created by Boston gangsters, politicians, and law enforcement officials at all levels of local, state, and federal government — a culture of violent death and silence that led to years of young suicides and an epidemic of painkilling through heroin and OxyContin, the latter even shown in the film.

Everything except the first sentence makes sense, but it is never explained what the controversy was. 209.6.62.18 (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hong Kong co-production...?

This article states that The Departed was a Hong Kong/American co-production, and this article states it is American only. Clearly one of them is wrong, so it would be good if either this article or the linked one is corrected. I suspect the linked article is the incorrect one, but I'm only guessing. Manning (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Media Asia Films was one of four production companies involved in making this film, so, yes, it was co-produced by a company from Hong Kong. The company is listed in the infobox. It is still an American film, made in the US, with American actors, and an American studio. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 04:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Real life basis for main characters

"Damon's character mimics John Connolly". Where's the doubt? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The characters in this film are vaguely inspired by real people. It is inappropriate for us to say more than that. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Hence the term "loosely based"; adding "possibly" is pretty much an overkill. It's like we're saying "hey, here's a source but it's possibly bull$#!+". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Whitey Bulger and The Departed

Long and circular and ineffectual discussion

The connection between this film and Whitey Bulger is mentioned in the lede with a reference. We do not need an additional list of books that might mention this connection. Said list adds nothing to an understanding of this film, the inspiration the Bulger story may have provided to the filmmakers, or anything else for that matter. The recent Bulger trial is also not relevant, except to the degree that people mentioned that the film was inspired by him, which we already know. Unless there is substantive information, that paragraph should be left out of the themes section. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a co-edited paragraph with user:DocWatson and 2 editors have now indicated this edit's utility and usefulness. The text is fully cited and sourced with all references footnoted. WP:LEDE requires that material in the Lead section summarize text more fully developed in the contents of the wiki page itself. You have just indicated that the material in the Lead was important to your point, and now the Lead is documented according to wiki policy. If you have a new reference or citation then add it. AutoMamet (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
The Daily News article is sufficient to make the point, and the claim in the lede is already sourced. All of the rest of the material you added were merely titles of books, and that is not substantive, as I said above. The point that Nicholson's character was inspired by Bulger is made, it does not have to be repeated. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Your point of view is in disagreement with 4 published authors as well as the daily news reports on the PBS News Hour for the duration of the trail, all of whom have been recorded as defending the position that the Bulger history was a significant source for the production of the film. Your point of view is not germane to wiki policy on NPOV which requires both sides of published and cited sources to be included in wikipages. If you have a new source differing from them then add it. I am adding a further referenced citation. Pick any one of these books and read it, just like anyone else should be allowed to do. Your opinion of whether you like it or not is not germane to the responsibility to present published opinion which may not agree with your point of view WP:NPOV. AutoMamet (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

This has gone beyond ridiculous. You have now reverted two editors and you have violated WP:BRD WP:3RR. This article is not about Whitey Bulger, it is about this film, which is a work of fiction. The case has been made and supported that Bulger was an inspiration for Nicholson's character. It does not need to be reiterated or pounded into the earth. I am reverting your edits. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
By all means mention the link, particularly as it is sourced and verifiable, not something an editor has made up. However this is not the place for in depth analysis of its details, being as this is a general encyclopedia article about the film. Britmax (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment Two oberservations. We don't need to supply a list of books to corroborate the connection between the film and Bulger, provided the connection is not being challenged. It's a simple rule of thumb: the more a claim is challenged the more sources you need, but if the claim is not challenged then a couple at most will suffice (perhaps one authoritative book, and an online one for reader convenience. We do a have a guideline about this sort of thing: WP:OVERCITE. As for the second matter, Scorsese's comments about Bulger are not particularly relevant here; they should only be covered to the extent that they affect the perception of the film, and I don't see how Bulger's apprehension and trial have an bearing here. Betty Logan (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Post url link as requested: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/18/idUS86019615120110918
If you have not read any of the citations and sources for this edit (User:OldJ and User:Gareth) please refrain from further unconstructive edits. These edits are offered to enhance this wikipage and to give all users the ability to read these books as they may be pleased to do when informed of their existence. You are now both at 7RR on this edit page and have not offered any constructive comment on improving this wikipage for the benefit of others, neither for the benefit of WP:LEDE nor WP:NPOV. Be constructive. AutoMamet (talk) 06:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
@ Automamet, For someone who has only been editing Wikipedia since Jul 30, 2013 14:02:59 and has only 57 contributions in total — that includes talk page postings — I consider your behaviour apalling: you have been warned that you are not adapting WP:BRD and you are in breach of WP:3RR. Do not revert again! Wait until a consensus has been reached here.
If, by chance, it is that you do not understand BRD, you were the "BOLD"; a long-established, highly-respected, film editor carried out the "REVERT"; we are in the middle of "DISCUSS" ... is that clear?
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 11:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
There is absolutely no reason to "corner the noob" here when AutoMamet is properly doing his homework and supplies all the necessary requirements. I suggest dismantling the mob and moving onto real issues. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Your edit summary and this comment are completely inappropriate. Have you read any of the discussion above? The extra information is unnecessary, and mostly irrelevant, and the comments above are against its inclusion. AutoMamet has violated both BRD and 3RR and has not responded to the 4 editors who oppose his edits. This has nothing to do with singling him out for abuse, as you imply. Article content is a real issue. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

User:OldJ is now deleting Scorsese's own comment and quotations about his own film in New Section. User:OldJ appears to have a pattern of moving from wikipage to wikipage and deleting fully researched material w/o reading any of the citations given. Please tell me that you are not vandalizing wikipage for Raging Bull w/o reading any of the citations given. User:OldJ is now at 8RR on this wiki page for The Departed against the opinion of five (5) editors who wish to see this material, to read the Scorsese quote about his own film, and to have the available list of fully cited reference books. AutoMamet (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You have clearly misread every comment here, other than you own, because there are not 5 editors who want to see this material. In fact, other than myself, there are three editors who have argued that the material is not needed. Also, an unwarranted accusation of vandalism is considered a personal attack. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Ugh? "absolutely no reason to corner the noob" what language is this? Surely I am not the only editor to grasp the fact that "User AutoMamet" is masquerading as a recent recruit and is undoubtably concealing his previous identity here.
Who are you?
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 18:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
This page happens to be on my watchlist, and I felt bad for AutoMamet's treatment here, so I decided to step up and say a kind word in defense of an edit, which I actually see as constructive. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), since you quoted me in connection with said user, you're obviously implying sockpuppetry, and so I am inviting you to conduct a full-on checkuser. After you find the absolute lack of connection, I'll have your bullying ass on ANI for this appalling implication. Do we have a deal? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
In your dreams, sunshine.
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 18:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
In that case, to paraphrase TheOldJacobite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s earlier comment, unwarranted accusations of sockpuppetry are considered a personal attack, and your demeanor during this discussion is sheer dickery. Just chill out and try some civility for a change. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Yet again we see an editor accuse another of a 'personal attack' whilst throwing in a blatant one of their own, eg. "your demeanor during this discussion is sheer dickery." -- Hillbillyholiday talk 21:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll have your bullying ass on ANI Hmm, a threat and a personal attack? -- Hillbillyholiday talk 21:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Let's just focus on the merits of the content here. Just because something can be sourced doesn't mean we should include it: we are editors i.e. we select what to incorporate into the article and what to leave out. The problem with the comment by Scorsese is that it is solely about Bulger, and not about the film. It's a passing observation. If he had stated he killed off Nicholson's character because he didn't think it would be believable that Bulger would be apprehended, or if Bulger's apprehension would have caused the film to finish differently had it occurred earlier then that would be worth mentioning. But as written, Scorsese's comments seem to be solely about Bulger and incidental to the film. Betty Logan (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Hillbillyholiday81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the fact that I called him a bully after his utterly bullying behavior and told him that I'll report him to ANI unless he ceases to bully does not constitute a personal attack. You oughtta get your priorities straight and check who you're rooting for here. Betty Logan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Scorsese's comment is directly pertinent to the film, since he (Scorsese) juxtaposes his making of the film (which is basically about Bulger) and his idea of the improbability of Bulger's eventual apprehension. Aside from minor cosmetic fixes and some ref improvements, I believe the inclusion is valid. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The film is not "basically about Bulger". Nicholson's character was inspired by Bulger, and this has been stated and supported by more than one citation. Nothing more needs to be said about it. We certainly do not need a long list of books that mention it, and we do not need a long quote from Scorcese about Bulger's arrest many years after the film. Multiple users disagree with you on this. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The useful comments above were from User:Hearfourmewesique, User:BettyLogan, User:Britmax (who requested the url link now included), and the co-editor user:DocWatson. The comment from user:BettyLogan indicated that the center of attention was the Scorsese quote, rather than the second sentence. The second sentence is now moved to the front of this new section for higher emphasis and to improve the section. AutoMamet (talk) 07:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The only editor you name who has expressed support for you is Hearfourmewesique. DocWatson has never said a single word about it. The other editors have stated that the information is not needed. Four editors disagree with you, which means you must stop. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 11:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for ease of editing

  • Comment: Happened to see this discussion. The disputed section of the article is speculation, opinion, and original research. It does not belong in the article. If the filmmaker(s) have directly stated the source of their inspiration, mention that in one sentence (for instance, in the lede), source it with something that has a direct substantiating quote, and leave it at that. Wikipedia is not the place for personal essays. It's possible that some books about the Bulger case could be listed in the "Further Reading" section. However, that also would need consensus. Softlavender (talk) 02:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC) UPDATE: I think the main problem with your essay is that you have failed to prove or cite the following statement, which seems to be your personal observation: "has pointed out the apprehensiveness which most had experienced in using his name before he was captured". Says who? This is an unfounded and uncited conclusion. The books probably came out because he was in the news and therefore the books would sell, and also because the case was closed so that no rewrites would be necessary and no future books would scoop later news thus making the 2011 books obsolete. There's also no indication or citation that Scorsese never mentioned his name [or did he? we can't prove a negative that Scorsese had never mentioned Bulger in connection to the film prior to 2011] because of any "apprehension". It's uncited conclusions like these that make your essay unencyclopedic. At best, information like this belongs on the Bulger article rather than here, but even then, you'll have to either cite or omit your statements, not just post opinions and speculations. Softlavender (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)



Welcome new User:Softlavender to this discussion. As a general comment, please note that it is generally assumed that no-one will use this discussion page to single out any of its users for retribution edits on wikipages unassociated to the discussion on this wikipage. The edit discussion here is presently widened to include 3 wikipages now covering The Departed, Raging Bull, and the Martin Scorsese bio page. The comments in this post are to summarize those three pages into a single place as they apply to The Departed. Admin has now required that the main edit being discussed here undergo a rewrite and redraft which is to include page references to any multiple citations which are made. This shall require scheduling a library day this week in order to recheck the specific book pages and transcribe usable quotes.

Several new facts have also emerged which were not known to me before this edit, which have now become known to me from sources outside of this Talk page discussion which influence the responsible direction for any new edit which is done. Although there is little expectation that anyone will take the 21-22 hours to read all four of the Bulger books previously footnoted, it has been pointed out to me that there actually exists an interview with the lead actors of the film discussing the Bulger influence on the film which was released in 2007 on a 2-DVD release of The Departed in a 21-minutes documentary on the second DVD only and not on the first DVD. If at all possible it would be useful, if you wish to participate usefully to this discussion, that you at least watch this documentary. It is not a substitute for reading the 4 books on Bulger, but would help the discussion here from straying into personal opinion without sources.

Third, two new films have been announced as characterized sequels to the portrayal presented by the Nicholson character in The Departed. One is by Levinson, Black Mass, and the other is a still untitled film announced by Ben Affleck with Matt Damon agreeing to play the lead character. AutoMamet (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

AutoMamet, I have to make a few corrections to your statements. First. this discussion is confined to this Talk page, not spread over several. Second, an admin never recommended that you recreated the Whitey Bulger section that has been deleted from this The Departed article. You seem to be confusing suggestions you were given about Raging Bull, not this article. Third, no one is or ever has made "retribution edits" against you. If you have a problem with someone's edits, discuss them civilly on Talk pages, and if you are still not satisfied, then seek dispute resolution. But don't sling accusations, especially not repeatedly. Simply learn what is or is not appropriate content on Wikipedia, and confine your discussion to that.
As far as your proposed additions or re-additions to this The Departed article, I'm still not seeing that any of that, except possibly the DVD interview, has any place on this article. All of that other content about the Bulger biographies belongs on the Bulger article, not the article on The Departed. I have no idea why you think it belongs here. This article is about the film, not Bulger. This article has absolutely nothing to do with any Bulger biography ever written, unless it was written before the film's creation and the filmmakers (not the biographers) have referenced it as influence. If you are planning to write an essay which includes personal research in post-2005 Bulger biographies and relating them to the film, then do not post it on this article. It will most likely be deleted. A post-2006 biographer of Bulger make speculate that various specific aspects of the Bulger case influenced the film, but unless one of the filmmakers is quoted as saying that, it's still just speculation and coincidence, no matter how close the parallels. Do not draw your own conclusions or post conclusions drawn by biographers. These are all reasons why such a section as you are considering probably belongs in the Bulger article, not in the The Departed article. Softlavender (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
My additional two cents: the Reuters article provided earlier in the thread makes an explicit connection: "The director also discussed another, real-life villain -- "Whitey" Bulger, whom Scorsese fictionalized in 2006's "The Departed" and who was captured this year. Asked if, when he made the film, he ever envisioned Bulger's apprehension, Scorsese admitted, "No, absolutely not; I really didn't. Who knew he was in California -- surprising, huh?"" Hearfourmewesique (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hearfourmewesique, the connection is not in dispute. It's already been prominently noted and cited in the lede for over a year. This is not news; it's been known since 2007 (Scorsese's featurette to the DVD). What is in dispute is that the article warrants an additional disgressive commentary about this written by someone clearly unversed in Wikipedia policies, standards, or citation rules and moreover prone to post personal essays and original research. Softlavender (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Update: I've just done a thorough GoogleBooks search on this topic, including "all four of the Bulger books previously footnoted", and there's nothing further to say from any book except that Costello is loosely based on Bulger, which we've already said in the lede. The filmmakers haven't said anything further beyond what was discussed in the DVD's 2007 featurette. I'm letting everyone know this in order to avoid a waste of time. Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
...except that they have, Softlavender: the Reuters article quotes Scorsese's remark from 2011 that mentions the movie in connection to Bulger's apprehension. How's that nothing? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 07:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
That said nothing substantively new about the film; it was merely a mention of Bulger's capture. Nor is it a book, which is what I referred to above. Softlavender (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreement with User:Hearfourmewesique. Here is another Url in support of this from Josh Rottenberg of EW: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20675356,00.html

We've been through this. Mentions of unrelated upcoming films do not belong in this article. This The Departed article has already prominently noted in the lede for over a year that Costello is loosely based on Bulger. This is not news; it's been known since 2007 (Scorsese's featurette to the DVD). Softlavender (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The GoogleBooks preview pages for the 4 books referenced in the New Section are limited to small excerpts which are not representative of the books as a whole. If you read the preview only then you have not read the books. They are only previews and of limited value. Realistically, there seems little chance that anyone else would devote the 21-22 hrs needed to read these 4 books, and the option of watching the widely available twenty minute DVD doc of The Departed mentioned in the previous post above would be more realistic and constructive to this discussion. AutoMamet (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

AutoMamet, you obviously do not understand how GoogleBooks Search works. But if you want to waste your time poring over those books only to have whatever you try to post on this article from them deleted, then be our guest. But at least you have been advised. Softlavender (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Softlavender, while AutoMamet's source is indeed irrelevant, my question still stands. Please address it. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I did above, H. Please look under each of your comments. Softlavender (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Your statement from above: "The filmmakers haven't said anything further beyond what was discussed in the DVD's 2007 featurette." The Reuters article quotes Scorsese saying in 2011 that he had no idea at the time of making The Departed that Bulger was in California. How's that not anything further if it was a comment made in light of events that happened four years after the DVD featurette??? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
H, you asked this above, and I answered it, as I mentioned in my latest response to you. If you ask a third time, that will constitute disruptive editing. Softlavender (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
You said that it's not a book, which has nothing to do with my question, and you also stated that it said nothing new when it was a direct comment from the chief filmmaker that stated something that was not – and could not be – stated prior to the real life event. Those are not answers. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Last time I'm going to say this or respond to you. Please read my answer, not the afterthought. Please do not make inaccurate accusations and hurl insults when you have not accurately read the answer I gave. Please stop your disruptive editing. Softlavender (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I read your response: "That said nothing substantively new about the film; it was merely a mention of Bulger's capture. Nor is it a book, which is what I referred to above." Stop taking me for an idiot. You're still circling around instead of giving a straight answer. It wasn't merely a mention of Bulger's capture, it is a quote from Scorsese about how he had no clue of the 2011 event at the time of filming The Departed; therefore, your reply is not answering my question, but is just a misdirection. And yes, "nor is it a book" is a red herring in this case, because that may have been your back-and-forth with AutoMamet, but I'm just trying to establish something we may all agree upon. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


Agreement with other editor on User:SoftL not following the understanding of the Scorsese quotation. She/he appears to be under the impression also that doing a google keyword search on a book is the equivalent of reading a book. It is not, wiki articles if anything list the book references often to encourage users to occasionally actually read them. In the process of doing further research into this edit, it was discovered in the deep history of The Departed edit history that there was a previously existing section discussing the sources of the film and the degree of its adaptation from the film trilogy Infernal Affairs which went through a push button delete some two years ago by User:RepublicanJ (is this the same as User:OldJ, similar name?). Both of these sources (Infernal Affairs, and where Nicholson's character coming from Bulger) are related to give a accurate view of the sources for The Departed and its characters in this wiki article, and perhaps someone can comment on reviving the old Infernal Affairs section with its proper attribution to the books which have large similarities and discuss The Departed: The Boston Mob Guide: Hit Men, Hoodlums & Hideouts, Page 140-2, isbn=1609494202, Beverly Ford, ‎Stephanie Schorow, and, Andrew Lau and Alan Mak's Infernal Affairs - the Trilogy, page 3, isbn=9622098010 by Gina Marchetti, 2007. The old delete is actually part of the discussion in the other sections above on this Talk page. User:Hearfourmewesique mentions the need for finding common points to build on and it is only by doing this that this wikipage has a chance of getting into something better than its perpetual "C" class page rating. Be constructive. AutoMamet (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


My comment left on another page that AutoMamet copied here; other than the general sentiment, it's not particularly relevant here, so collapsing

AutoMamet has been asking for my advise regarding some of the events that have occurred here and at The Departed. While I have expressed to AutoMamet some concerns about her/his approach, I do have to say that some of the requests above go significantly beyond Wikipedia policy. Encyclopedia articles are not literary criticism: they do not require quotations and references for every single sentence. Quotations, in fact, are only really required on talk pages (except in special cases, like really strong claims or BLP issues), and you should only require quotations if you actually believe the editor has falsified information or is incorrectly interpretting it. The section does require some more detailed information, so I do think that if AutoMamet wants to include that, we need some more specificity to the references (definitely page numbers, definitely more parts of the text cited); I share the concern that this section may be crossing over into WP:OR (or, it's sub-problem, WP:SYNTH). But I also think that it wouldn't have been horrible to tag the section rather than outright delete it; there was clearly a good faith effort to provide useful information, and sources were provided, even if they were not complete. We even have templates that specifically mark something as needing a page number or quotation. Furthermore, TheOldJacobite should not have edit warred to keep the information out (nor should AutoMamet have edit warred to keep it in).At this point, I've suggested that AutoMamet draft a new version, with more specific sources and more in-line citations. Probably the easiest way is to do that in a sandbox, and then that could be brought here for discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC) AutoMamet (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted your addition to the article because you were asked to draft the section at Talk:The Departed/sandbox first. Several editors have opposed the section, so it should not be added until you have obtained support to add it to the main article. Betty Logan (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


There is no WP:OR in this edit for either section. You can see the large number of citations given for this extensively researched material. Have you read a single one of the citations? There are presently two active participants on this Talk page, myself and User:Hearfourmewesique, who have been trying to explain the Scorsese quote to another editor who has apparently left. Your opinion above appears isolated as the previous commentators have left the discussion over a week ago. The instructions from Admin were to mark carefully researched material using templates to request clarification or further cites. You have not done so. Please follow the indications made by Admin. AutoMamet (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Also unclear is whether you have even read the Talk page discussion since your departure last week. Admin suggested sandbox as one option for the rewrite, and the edit was short enough that it can be serviceably edited with templates for clarification of citation as it appears and as needed. Citation templates are a strong option available for you to apply. AutoMamet (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

As you can see above only a single editor supports your position while many editors have multiple concerns with your edits. If you keep restoring the material I will request admin intervention. You do not have a consensus to add this material, and so it must remain out until one is reached. I have assessed countless film article, and I can tell you now that a large amount of your text is unsourced, WP:Original research and WP:SYNTHESIS. I strongly suggest you draft out your additions first in your sandbox and then you can place a request for the community to your review your work. If you continue to restore this content then it will either result in the article being protected again (meaning you will be unable to edit the article) or you will be blocked (meaning you won't be able to edit at all). Betty Logan (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
AutoMamet, since I am the one who's been supportive of you, I'll tell you this much: the sandbox suggestion is your best – and only – move at the moment. You should really take advantage of it. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Draft

During the last day I have received news outside of this Talk page that one of the references which I had included needed to be corrected. DLehr is actually the author of two books on Bulger, one from 6 years before The Departed (titled Black Mass, 2000) and one from 5 years after the film (titled Whitey's Fall, 2011). Previously, these were not listed as separate books. All of the last 3 users commenting on this Talk page (Admin, User:Betty Logan, User:Hearfourmewesique) have made voice-of-reason comments before and have caused me re-read the indication made by Admin. The indication was to rewrite the original paragraph from last week which appeared as the last part of the existing Theme section. The edit below is rewritten therefore from last week's version for inclusion in the existing Theme section with no new section added; it is half the size of yesterday's version which is now bracketed and removed. The rewrite represents the agreement of four established book authors from four reputable publishers who agree on the status of this material. The rewrite is as follows for acknowledging Admin's indications to mark it with templates as needed:

Following a large number of books written about Whitey Bulger after his capture in 2011 and conviction in August 2013, Scorsese's access to Bulger's biography for the film script has been directly questioned. On 18 September 2011 Tim Kenneally writing for Reuters[1] in his essay titled, "Martin Scorsese on Whitey Bulger and the Lure of the Bad Guy,"[2] asked Scorsese to respond to the growing number of books[3][4][5] [6] and mass media coverage of the Bulger case after his arrest. The result of this growing number of books on Bulger has had the effect of polarizing opinion regarding the true source of the film as being either, on the one hand, the Mak film trilogy Infernal Affairs, or, on the other hand, the direct adaptation of Bolger's biography as related to organized crime in Boston (over six books have appeared on Bulger after his capture).[7][8][9] [10] Kenneally writing for Reuters reported Scorsese's quote as follows: "The director [Scorsese] also discussed another, real-life villain -- "Whitey" Bulger, whom Scorsese fictionalized in 2006's "The Departed" and who was captured this year. Asked if, when he made the film, he ever envisioned Bulger's apprehension, Scorsese admitted, 'No, absolutely not; I really didn't. Who knew he was in California.'"

References

  1. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/18/idUS86019615120110918
  2. ^ Kenneally, Tim, Reuters writing for The Wrap, Sep 18, 2011.
  3. ^ Matthew Connolly (2011). Don't Embarrass the Family.
  4. ^ Johnny Mortorano (2013). Hitman: The Untold Story.
  5. ^ Dick Lehr, Whitey's Fall, (2011), also Black Mass, (2000).
  6. ^ Thomas Foley (2012). Most Wanted.
  7. ^ Matthew Connolly (2011). Don't Embarrass the Family.
  8. ^ Johnny Mortorano (2013). Hitman: The Untold Story.
  9. ^ Dick Lehr, Whitey's Fall, (2011), also Black Mass, (2000).
  10. ^ Thomas Foley (2012). Most Wanted.

AutoMamet (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. There are so many problems here we need to go through this sentence by sentence.

  • Following a large number of books written about Whitey Bulger after his capture in 2011 and conviction in August 2013, Scorsese's access to Bulger's biography for the film script has been directly questioned.
What exactly does "Scorsese's access to Bulger's biography for the film script has been directly questioned" even mean? Questioned in what way? Do you have a source that explicitly does this "questioning" or is this your own phrasing?
  • On 18 September 2011 Tim Kenneally writing for Reuters[1] in his essay titled, "Martin Scorsese on Whitey Bulger and the Lure of the Bad Guy,"[2] asked Scorsese to respond to the growing number of books[3][4][5] [6] and mass media coverage of the Bulger case after his arrest.
In the Reuters article you have referenced, I do not see Scorsese asked anything about a "growing number of books". He is simply asked if he foresaw Bulger's apprehension.
Neither do I see any mention of the books you have included in citations. This looks like WP:SYNTHESIS. Sure, there may be a growing number of books, but you are the one making the connection between Scorsese and these books, not Kenneally.
  • The result of this growing number of books on Bulger has had the effect of polarizing opinion regarding the true source of the film as being either, on the one hand, the Mak film trilogy Infernal Affairs, or, on the other hand, the direct adaptation of Bolger's biography as related to organized crime in Boston (over six books have appeared on Bulger after his capture).[7][8][9] [10]
Looks like more synthesis to me. Do any of these books cited explicitly tackle the question of the film's authorship? Given the preceding problems I would like to see quotes from the books cited backing up the claim that the film is a fictionalized account of Bulger's biography.
  • Kenneally writing for Reuters reported Scorsese's quote as follows: "The director [Scorsese] also discussed another, real-life villain -- "Whitey" Bulger, whom Scorsese fictionalized in 2006's "The Departed" and who was captured this year. Asked if, when he made the film, he ever envisioned Bulger's apprehension, Scorsese admitted, 'No, absolutely not; I really didn't. Who knew he was in California.'"
That may be interesting trivia, but how exactly does it relate to the film? This is an article about the film not Bulger so it is not pertinent information in this article.

There are huge WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS problems here; in short nothing seems to be salvageable. It is riddled by AutoMamet's own theories and analysis drawn from a disparate selection of books. Once you remove the problem text there is literally nothing left. Betty Logan (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


Update: In response to the four points of User:Betty Logan. This is an item by item answer for your four points. The quotations from the books I am providing directly as you are the first person to ask. My point continues to be that four established authors from four reputable publishers are presenting a consistent account of the relation of this material. Here are two quotes which were at hand (the other books are at the library) and though not the best ones are indicative of many, many others that I can list;

From Whitey Bulger by Kevin Cullen and Shelley Murphy, 2013, WWNorton, p. 5-6:

"In the sixteen years that he was on the run, Whitey's place in the public consciousness seemed to grow less, not more, nuanced. Popular culture cluttered public perception, as it evolved in his absence. Myth overgrew reality. Frank Costello, the venal, scheming Southie mob boss (was) played by Jack Nicholson in Martin Scorsese's film The Departed..." [The text then goes on to discuss how well Nicholson actually matched the real person with no mention of Infernal Affairs at all.]

From Whitey by Dick Lehr, 2013, p. 342-343:

"...theater that was showing director Martin Scorsese's new film, The Departed, starring Jack Nicholson. The movie was a remake of a Japanese crime thriller but because Scorsese set his version in Southie (South Boston), most viewers concluded it was Whitey's story." [DLehr, a reporter for the Boston Globe, is here elaborating on leads about whether Bulger went to actually see the opening of the Scorsese film when it came out apparently in response to being told that the film was about him. DLehr believes that his "most viewers" were correct.]


Both of these are consistent accounts with the many other Bulger books, the count is now up to eight since the capture, which make a perfunctory note about Infernal Affairs (if at all) and then elaborate on Bulger as played by Nicholson as representing the main noteworthy issue of the film.


On your second point, there is no WP:OR in the paragraph I have presented. Previously (last week) you said it was WP:OVERCITED with no room for original research, now (yesterday) you are saying that it is original research needing further citations. I can respond to the one question or the other, but not both at the same time. Which one is the primary concern?

Your question #1 is answered by the Reuters quote which comes in sentence #2. It is the reason I included the url for the Reuters quote. (It is also covered in detail by User:Hearfourmewesique above in the Talk section here.) Kennelly answers the question himself. He titled his article as he did as an emphasis of what he thought was his article's most important and noteworthy material. A simple google search of the key words (Scorsese+Bulger+Departed) offers at least two dozen (over 24) reports confirming this even further. The Reuters url was chosen because of Reuters general verifiability and reliability. If you wish a list of the other many articles for further collaborations, they can be listed at length.

WP:NPOV indicates that wiki present a fair rendering of general agreement when it is well-documented and especially when it is from four established authors writing for four reliable publishers that Scorsese had Bulger in mind from the start far more than Infernal Affairs. At present the general agreement of these four established authors discussing current views on The Departed is not presented on the wiki page. User:Betty Logan had previously disengaged for a week from the Talk history above when I had announced the discovery of the 2-DVD Departed release in 2007 with the South Boston 21-minute featurette on Bulger. Please note that there was no featurette on Infernal Affairs, only the featurette on Bulger. This is the exact opposite of the normal relationship of films which are remakes or adaptations, where a featurette of the original film would have been expected and included. There is no WP:OR in the edit presented above, it is the general agreement of four established authors from four reputable publishers. It should be represented accordingly. AutoMamet (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

You have been completely evasive and indirect in addressing the points I have raised, and I doubt your responses will satisfy anyone else involved in this discussion. At this point I am withdrawing from the discussion until you explicitly tackle each of the concerns I have in a direct fashion. If you reinstate the material without obtaining a consensus from the other editors here or from the wider Wikipedia community I will remove it and report you for disruptive editing. I am sorry it has come to this, but you are not having a positive impact on this article. Betty Logan (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Could I remind you that this is an article about the film "The Departed". It needs a paragraph that says:
The film has been described as partly inspired by the career of Whitey Bulger, an organized crime figure from Boston, by (a reliable source).
It does not need much, if any, more than that. No matter how well researched it is. If we cover every film's inspirations in the frightening detail shown above every film article will take twice as long to load as it needs to for no real benefit. Britmax (talk) 07:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


Welcome back to User:Britmax who was here at the start of this discussion last week. Unless I am misreading the content of his very last comment, it appears that the distance between his one sentence version of the edit and my 4 sentence version of the edit is much closer than he may think if there were an Infernal Affairs subsection somewhere on The Departed wikipage. Given that Scorsese has said that the film had a connection with Infernal Affairs, no-one has ever written a subsection for Infernal Affairs which looks like a remarkable oversight for an Academy Award winning film which deserves better.

If someone could step up and write a short subsection on Infernal Affairs for this wikipage then I have every reason to believe that a compromise between the one sentence version offered by User:Britmax and my 4 sentence version re-write posted above would be very near at hand. User:Britmax is after all the person that usefully asked that I supply the Reuters url link at the very start of this Talk page discussion.

In case anyone can do the short Infernal Affairs "remake" subsection which is presently lacking from The Departed wikipage, here is the first sentence from Ebert's book on Scorsese who is more than aware of the issues pressing upon the discussion of Infernal Affairs in the context of The Departed:

Ebert on Scorsese, p.256, after stating that the relation to Infernal Affairs in on the surface only,

"...that would only involve the surface, the plot and a few philosophical quasi-profundities. What makes this (The Departed} a Scorsese film, and not merely a retread, is the director's use of actors, locations, and energy -- and its buried theme... That's always true of a Scorsese film."

Given the energy level of almost everyone of the previous participants on this Talk page discussion, it seems that anyone of you if able to devote half the energy shown above on this Talk page into drafting a short Infernal Affairs subsection would be capable of completing it in the blink of an eye. My own version of it would likely be swatted at immediately regardless of quality otherwise I would have offered it myself.

In the presence of such a short subsection being offered and added into The Departed page, I have every reason to think that a "middle ground" between User:Britmax's one sentence version of the Bulger material for the Theme section and my 4 sentence version of it could be readily obtained. After all, the last sentence of my edit is really mostly a Scorsese quote, so its down to Britmax's one sentence version and my three to four sentence version. User:Hearfourmewesique is the one who has commented most on the Reuter's url provided for Britmax and possibly he has a comment to add. AutoMamet (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/18/idUS86019615120110918
  2. ^ Kenneally, Tim, Reuters writing for The Wrap, Sep 18, 2011.
  3. ^ Matthew Connolly (2011). Don't Embarrass the Family.
  4. ^ Johnny Mortorano (2013). Hitman: The Untold Story.
  5. ^ Dick Lehr, Whitey's Fall, (2011), also Black Mass, (2000).
  6. ^ Thomas Foley (2012). Most Wanted.
  7. ^ Matthew Connolly (2011). Don't Embarrass the Family.
  8. ^ Johnny Mortorano (2013). Hitman: The Untold Story.
  9. ^ Dick Lehr, Whitey's Fall, (2011), also Black Mass, (2000).
  10. ^ Thomas Foley (2012). Most Wanted.

RfC: Discussion of Lead Section comment on film sources neglectfully or inadequately discussed in main article

Extended content
I'm completely bewildered seeing AutoMamet both supporting and opposing in this RfC, and responding to their own comments. If anyone can explain that, please do. Ahem, anyway. Closing per request at WP:ANRFC. Consensus is pretty much dead-set against a 4-sentence addition in the lead due to concerns over synthesis across sources and undue weight lent to certain, less-relevant details. I don't think much else needs to be said here. I, JethroBT drop me a line 06:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two week old discussion between multiple editors is at loggerheads and standstill somewhere between a one sentence version of a proposed edit and a four sentence version of the edit. How much of an expansion is needed to adequately and responsibly support claim on film sources made in Lead section? (See Talk Section immediately above.) AutoMamet (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Survey

I concur. It establishes a hard connection between Bulger and the film (which I think is what AutoMamet is attempting to do albeit in a very confused manner), but most importantly it does it in a way that is directly relevant to the making of the film, and does not go beyond what the source explicitly says. I hope this will satisfy AutoMamet and bring this dispute to an end, and I hope he studies it carefully and appreciates why his version was not acceptable. Betty Logan (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: While a survey or RfC isn't a vote, per se, it's not appropriate for AutoMamet to make it look (probably unintentionally), like there are 2 editors supporting inclusion of this text. So I just made a slight formatting adjustment so that both of AM's points lie in the same bullet point. With thanks to Qwyrxian (a) for spotting the similar editing on Talk:Raging Bull earlier this morning, and (b) for borrowing the content.
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 10:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: In posting the RfC, the original pair of Support-Oppose headings were not listed for the purpose of posting a comment but only for the purpose of providing banners for the two categories so that participants could begin to list and append their comments. When I posted the two banners I was not making any statement of my own comment and nor did I in any way mean to suggest that I Oppose the inclusion of the 4 sentence edit being recommended even though I signed it following the format instructions for starting an RfC. The initial post of the pair was as banners pro and contra to which participants would then append their own comments. Two days later, I posted the sole position of Support next to the banner to date, and my reason for it. The two-banner format is the standard one recommended on the RfC start-up page for all editors. AutoMamet (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
You inadvertently copied the examples of what other people are to write, both in this Survey section and in the Threaded Discussion section. (You're not supposed to tell people how their votes or comments should look; we don't need that as we've all been on Wikipedia long enough to know how to respond to a Survey, RfC, Threaded Discussion, etc.) No 'banners', as you put it, are supposed to be here. You're supposed to ask a direct question, and let people respond with yes or no (support or oppose). And let them discuss matters in the Threaded Discussion (which is where I probably would have placed my Comment about the new Production section had it not been occupied by what's now there). Softlavender (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I suggest that this RfC be closed, as there is clear opposition, and given the fact that Softlavender has changed the terms with his production section, which brings in all the relevant information. I believe no further discussion or debate on this tedious matter is necessary, and has gone on for quite long enough. Let's not belabor this any further, please, and certainly not with an amended RfC, as some people are proposing. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Hear, hear! I wholeheartedly second that.
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 19:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Opposition is unanimous; nothing further to say or discuss. Softlavender (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Almost every editor commenting so far is an involved editor--someone previously involved in the discussion and disagreement. The whole point of an RfC is to get outside opinions; otherwise, a minority party in a dispute would never have any way to try to get a wider perspective. Let this run for thirty days, and then if the consensus is still obvious (as it is currently), then fine. The only time we would ever close an RfC early is if it was procedurally faulty, such as if it were not neutral, if it were canvassed, etc. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion


  • Update (21 September): As of yesterday, another user has posted a new section in response to the above discussion which is clearly a turning point for the content of this discussion. The new Production section must be recognized as changing the context of the original RfC here. Rather than start a new RfC which would be problematic, I am adding this thread to clarify the intention of the original RfC post which was meant to explicate Scorsese's main source for The Departed. I do not believe that this is possible without a section acknowledging the Mak Infernal Affairs trilogy as the start point for any responsible discussion of The Departed. Therefore I did a cut-and-paste of Presently-Existing-Text about Infernal Affairs on The Departed page into a single integrated section which appears below. I am posting this new Support-Oppose thread only because another editor unexpectedly posted a new section without telling anyone in advance, and I also believe it would be circuitous to start a new RfC for the inclusion of an Infernal Affairs section. That said, and realizing the previous 'oppose' count, this new edit is being presented as a constructive improvement;


The cut-and-paste reorganization of the new section would look like this (constructed from material already on The Departed page, with one new intro sentence added to block it (the Ebert quote.) The addition of this new section would presuppose the removal of the scattered sentences as they presently appear on the Page, if there is any convergence of viewpoints of participants:


(Subsection: The Hong Kong film trilogy Infernal Affairs as a source for The Departed)

Roger Ebert in his book titled Ebert on Scorsese, after stating that the relation to Infernal Affairs in on the surface only indicated, "...that would only involve the surface, the plot and a few philosophical quasi-profundities. What makes this (The Departed) a Scorsese film, and not merely a retread, is the director's use of actors, locations, and energy -- and its buried theme... That's always true of a Scorsese film."[1] Andrew Lau, the co-director of Infernal Affairs, who was interviewed by Hong Kong newspaper Apple Daily, voiced his own opinion and said, "Of course I think the version I made is better, but the Hollywood version is pretty good too. [Scorsese] made the Hollywood version more attuned to American culture." Andy Lau,[2] one of the main actors in Infernal Affairs, when asked how the movie compares to the original, said, "The Departed was too long and it felt as if Hollywood had combined all three Infernal Affairs movies together."[3] Lau pointed out that the remake featured some of the "golden quotes" of the original but did have much more swearing. He ultimately rated The Departed 8/10 and said that the Hollywood remake is worth a view, though "the effect of combining the two female characters in the [later film] into one isn't as good as in the original," according to Lau's spokeswoman Alice Tam.[4]

AutoMamet (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Coming from the Raging Bull talk page....AutoMamet, what edit do you think you have consensus to add? The one directly above this, posted on 21 September? If so, no, you obviously don't; the fact that no one replied to this specific post doesn't mean that it's suddenly accepted; obviously all of the objections voiced in the "survey" above still hold. There's no consensus just because everyone hasn't responded to your third version of essentially the same points. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


Answer to User:Qwyrxian question. There was no comment at all on the threaded edit which you have correctly identified above (neither consensus nor non-consensus). Since this threaded edit on Infernal Affairs did not include one single mention of any of the Whitey Bulger references disputed, it looked sufficiently independent that it could be posted. I cannot post it in the presence of your comment, though I was not claiming any consensus or non-consensus for it. It has been in a "no comment" situation for over three days and posting it as a simple edit (of material already previously in the article only reformatted) would have allowed the normal edit process to start. Nothing more than this was suggested. AutoMamet (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Unexpected return of editor with new section added

The unexpected return of an editor with a new section added on Production appears as something of a turning point in this general discussion and the specific edit under discussion in this RfC. After the sharp exchange with User:Hearfourmewesique, I did not know if this return was possible. After my posting of the WP:Lede observation, User:SoftL has apparently spent the day repairing the flaws and trying to improve the Page as a whole. As I type this response, User:SoftL is apparently continuing the day long edit of this new Section. The sources and citations she is using are her own, and do not match up with the ones which I have been recommending on the basis of the 4 books on Bulger which have similarities to some of what was accomplished today with the new Production section. I hope that this is not meant as some sort of competitive wager claiming that your cites are better than my cites. My own view is that all reputable sources and citations deserve care and respect.

The new Production section appears largely accurate for what I can see so far (it is still being edited as I type now). The minor point is that the rights were purchased for the "film trilogy" and not only the first film. The larger point remains material and has now been changed to one of what credence to give to the one claim as opposed to the other. Namely, after the transition now described in the new Production section took place from the film being a simple retread, up to the entry of Nicholson and his demands for substantially enhanced participation, which influence was the dominating one? Or, were they of equal influence? Did the Nicholson characterization come to dominate the production of the film, or, was the film trilogy Infernal Affairs the dominant vehicle.

Some days ago, I provided the Ebert quote in the previous Talk exchange as proof that Ebert did not believe that The Departed would be a Scorsese film in any distinctive sense without the Nicholson and Boston connection taking over the lion's share of influence in the making of the film. The four books I keep citing make this plain. It is not a 50-50 break down, and if you have a proportion in mind (as an accurate ratio) as to how much the percentage breakdown really is, you should be aware that the 4 books I am citing are in agreement that a disproportionally large influence is coming from the Boston and Bulger side of the argument.

If User:SoftL is taking over the task of trying to get a Page upgrade for The Departed to a "B" level wikipage, then this deserves support. Unless you have read the 4 books I keep citing, you cannot readily come to understand the origin of the Irish character "Delahunt" in the film, and nor would you be able to understand why the planned sequel described on The Departed wikipage would involve a Senator (of all things) in its early planning stages as mentioned. Do you have any sense from your on-line research why either of these two items just named are essentially relevant to the larger question being discussed (if you have not read these books or watched the featurette)? AutoMamet (talk) 05:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

We don't have to "understand" the characters here. This is a general encyclopedia article about the film, not a detailed critique. Britmax (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


Update: To keep this direct answer on the short side, no one to my knowledge has any interest in a detailed Critique large or small. My most recent surprise after discovering the no-one was going to read the related Whitey Bulger books, was that no-one was going to watch the 21-minute featurette either. After that I began to suspect further that no-one was reading any of the Scorsese books about this film either. (No-one on this Talk page knows why the name "Delahunt" was essentially important to Scorsese to making this film because no-one else on this Talk page has actually read any of the Scorsese books.) My edit on this page has become to recommend the inclusion of a three-sentence subsection on Infernal Affairs which is presently absent on this wikipage. This would continue to help improve the page from its dreary and demeaning low "C" class rating, which is a blemish to the wiki film community for what is considered one of Scorsese masterpieces by the Academy Awards and others. No-one wants an extensive Critique article, but an attempt at the improvement of this encyclopedia article to a "B" class wikipage is worthy of at least some attention. The three-sentence edit for the Infernal Affairs subsection is worthwhile and constructive in this direction of enhancing this demeaningly low "C" class wikipage. AutoMamet (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

You're very wrong about B Class vs. C Class ratings. As detailed in the banner headings atop this Talk page, the only criterion for a B Class Film article not met by this article when assessed in June 2010 was "Referencing and citation". As the article has since been fully referenced, it would now pass a B Class appraisal. Softlavender (talk) 04:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


Update: Just idle boasting is uncalled for in any way. If you can get the "B" rating now then do it without making exaggerated claims. User:Hearfourmewesique has tried to explain to you with more patience than I thought was humanly possible that your understanding of the Scorsese quotes is deeply flawed and in error. Until you can get the "C" rating changed here, your words are "filled with sound and fury signifying nothing," WS. AutoMamet (talk) 11:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

AutoMamet, you are the one wanting the B Class upgrade; no one else here has brought it up except you. If that's your desire, all you have to do to get that is post an assessment request at [1], stating that the article has not been rated since June 2010 and has been fully cited since then. Until you understand Wikipedia procedures and policies, it's best not to make judgments about another editor's comments on procedural affairs. I have no idea why you think my post was "idle boasting" in any way, shape or form; I have not been the one adding references to this article since June 2010. And beating your tired drum which has been refuted by all editors on this RfC does not help your case at all; it only adds to the roster of disruptive editing and misrepresentation that you have been accumulating for nearly two months now. Softlavender (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

  1. ^ Ebert, Roger. Ebert on Scorsese, p. 256.
  2. ^ "My Infernal Affairs is better than Scorsese's says Lau". Guardian.co.uk. London: The Guardian. 2006-10-10. Retrieved 2006-10-10.
  3. ^ "Andy Lau comments on The Departed (Chinese)". 2006-10-06. Archived from the original on December 16, 2006. Retrieved 2006-10-06.
  4. ^ "Andy Lau Gives 'Departed' an 8 Out of 10". 2006-10-07. Archived from the original on December 16, 2006. Retrieved 2006-10-07.

Based on Infernal Affairs: the first film of three, or the whole trilogy?

Long screed by now-idef-blocked editor

User:AutoMamet wants to tell the reader that The Departed is based on the Hong Kong film series Infernal Affairs, that is, based on the whole trilogy including Infernal Affairs II and Infernal Affairs III. His source so far has been inadequate to settle the matter. It was actor Andy Lau joking about how The Departed was such a long film that it seemed like a remake of all three Infernal Affairs films. Every review I have seen only mentions the first film of the trilogy as being the basis for The Departed. I would like to see a conclusive source supplied before this article can be changed to tell the reader in absolute terms that the source of The Departed was the whole trilogy of Infernal Affairs. Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The film credits only the first Infernal Affairs, as you can see at [2]: SCREENPLAY BY: William Monahan. Based on the motion picture "Infernal Affairs," screenplay by: Alan Mak. Felix Chong. Betty Logan (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


It appears that neither of you have actually watched the Infernal Affairs trilogy. The love triangle portrayed in the film only derives from installment #2 (IA2). Here is a review from 2010, i don't know how much detail you need since it appears neither of you have seen this trilogy: The trilogy presents, 

"the love triangle of The Departed to the side story-esque love stories of Yan and Ming in the Infernal Affairs trilogy. The love story between Yan and the psychologist adds absolutely nothing to the plot of Infernal Affairs 1 OR 3! She plays no role in the struggle between the police and the Triads. As soon as she comes on screen, you can expect loud and especially cheesy romantic music, bad acting from Kelly Chen, and a whole lot of smirking from Tony Leung. They may as well have put a big flashing “love subplot” overtitle onto each one of these scenes. In Infernal Affairs 3, this subplot is even more excruciatingly bad than in 1, as the character is brought in to expand upon a relationship that didn’t amount to much in the first place!
Furthermore, what I find ironic about the gripes of Infernal Affairs trilogy fans in regards to the love triangle of The Departed, is that in Infernal Affairs 3, the psychologist character eventually becomes the same type of link between the two moles! I’m presuming neither of them had sex with her, but both of them obviously had feelings for her and she had feelings for the both of them as well (if this isn’t true in regards to Ming, I have a hard time understanding why she and Ming were spending so much time together in 3). In her heart of hearts though, she ultimately chooses Yan over Ming; especially after learning the truth about Ming (similar to how the psychologist chose Leo over Damon in The Departed).
The psychologist character in The Departed and her connected subplot condenses the love stories of the Infernal Affairs trilogy into a much more tense and complete whole. Her connection to Damon showcases both the charm he uses to advance himself in the police force and the coldness and meanness he exudes as a mole and person in general (here, the personal life legitimately builds and expands on the public life of the characters). The psychologist’s connection to Leo showcases not only just how scarred this guy is on the inside but also shows us why he is truly worthy of being the hero of the story.
Aside from all of this male-dominated discussion in what the psychologist DOES FOR the male characters in The Departed, her affair with Leo actually gives HER character some direction, we can root for HER, she does stuff, she has a STORY, and this is what makes it great for her to find love she’s been looking for with Leo and give the “he’s the mole!” moment of truth some impact. The only compelling female character you can find in the Infernal Affairs trilogy is the Mary of Infernal Affairs 2. All other female characters do nothing but react to the male characters.
To conclude this talk of love subplots and female characters, and their relationships with male characters, Infernal Affairs 1 and 3 offer up Ming sleeping on the psychologist’s couch and then starring, dreamy-eyed at her, thinking about what could be if he ever ended his stint as a mole, as the peak of romance. Ming and the psychologist never “do the deed.” I don’t think they even ever kiss! This is sweet, pure and sad. However, if you compare this to the passionate “we shouldn’t be doing this” type of sex between a mutually desperate Leo and the psychologist in The Departed, you’ll find another reason why I choose the love triangle of The Departed over the relationships of the Infernal Affairs trilogy any day!
I prefer Damon’s take on the mole as someone who is completely sure in what he’s doing (unlike Lau’s turn in the Infernal Affairs trilogy as a conflicted villain/hero). Damon’s a bad guy, he knows it, and we know it. To see Damon subvert his hero persona created in other films is refreshing and actually makes for a more gritty and real movie in my mind. I’m given enough reason to care about the Leo/Damon stand-off because even if Damon is a villain, he’s a charming villain, one who brings you into his world, and I’m interested in what power-plays this character could have made with Nicholson out of the picture and his “hero” status in the police force still intact.
Some people argue that Wahlberg’s Dignam was a completely unnecessary character, I beg to differ. In Infernal Affairs 2 and 3 there are characters who are incredibly similar to Dignam in their relationships to the other characters and the roles they ultimately play in the story: Superintendent Luk, Superintendent Yeung, and “Shadow” Shen. Once again, The Departed succeeds by condensing multiple characters into one to provide a tighter and more logical story. Also, what the reviewer mentioned here is also key to the unique success of the inclusion of Dignam: Walhberg provided great comic relief as the foul-mouthed hot-head of The Departed. This kind of laugh-out-loud humor is missing from the entirety of the Infernal Affairs series.
While many complain about the “Hollywood ending” of The Departed, they fail to compare it to the eventual discovery of the Ming character as the mole (and what may-as-well-have-been his death!) in Infernal Affairs 3. It’s hard to imagine anything more anti-climactic and completely unsatisfying. I couldn’t have cared less whether or not Ming died as he entered his final stand-off with Yeung and Shen. In contrast, the shocking exposition of violence and retribution for the murders of Leo and Sheen, achieved by the quick execution of Damon by Wahlberg in The Departed, brings about a completely satisfying sense of closure.
Were I to omit Infernal Affairs 3 from this judgment of endings, and instead chose to focus solely on Infernal Affairs 1, I would be left with Ming’s survival and what seems to be his decision to begin himself anew as an honest cop. However, this still doesn’t add up to the glory that is Damon’s execution. It could be that I’m just a violence-obsessed guy, or perhaps Infernal Affairs 1 failed to convince me that turning a new leaf was genuine a possibility for the mole.
Another success of The Departed that I would like to mention here is the fantastic job Scorcese does of delving into Boston, and Boston-Irish culture, especially. People accuse this film of simply being “Infernal Affairs… with White People” but that hardly does this aspect of the film justice. If you pay attention to some gems of lines from Nicholson, Damon and others about their identitiy as Boston-Irish, and how they constantly come into conflicts, both big and small, with characters who are NOT Boston-Irish, you’ll see that this isn’t just the background of the film or just an excuse for actors to put on an accent, but it is an integral part of the film itself and its message.
Make no mistake, the Infernal Affairs trilogy clearly is a series of films that deals with the particularities of culture as well: there are telling interactions with people from Thailand, numerous references to Buddhism, a distrust of “mainlanders” from China, and perhaps most importantly, the changing from British colonial rule to “one nation, two systems” with China that serves as the backdrop for Infernal Affairs 2."

AutoMamet (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You just quoted a wordpress blog entry [3]... That kind of source fails WP:RS. Please bring a reliable source to bear on the question. Binksternet (talk) 04:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


To User:Betty Logan; The above passage was included for anyone who had not watched the full three films in the trilogy to give a ready overview of their contents. The love triangle in The Departed could not have come from anywhere else than IA#2. Similarly, the female part of the triangle was a composite; Dr. Madolyn Maddon is a composite of three Infernal Affairs characters: Yan's (Costigan) psychologist, Lau's (Sullivan) girlfriend, and Yan's ex-girlfriend. Dr. Lee, like Maddon, counsels Yan and later realized his true identity. Lau's girlfriend is another police officer, who like Maddon learns of her boyfriend's mob connection through a tape sent by Yan (Costigan), while the mother of Yan's child is a separate woman, unrelated to the other two.

The common error made was that many reviewers of The Departed wrote their reviews for major newspapers on the basis on seeing only the first installment of the trilogy, and writing their reviews of The Departed on the basis of having viewed the first film alone. Wiki however does not have to follow that limited perspective, and should follow only the reviewers who actually watched all three films.

The authority worth quoting is Prof. Gina Marchietti's book specializing on the Infernal Affairs trilogy, which although it does not deal with The Departed other than glancingly, does provide a description of the love triangle as it appears in the Infernal Affairs trilogy, which was the only source for The Departed remake of its portrayal of this love triangle. AutoMamet (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

That description is exactly what we call a violation of WP:No original research. It is you who connected the dots, not Marchietti. Binksternet (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


Organization, striking

Could everyone please stop striking other people's comments, undoing them, etc.? Binksternet's hatting was just within the bounds of acceptability, though it wasn't really necessary; having that note here wasn't harming anything or confusing anyone. But striking someone else's comments is not called for. Could everyone please just focus on the actual topic of the article and not other editors? The section above this regarding the film vs. trilogy issue is an example of a productive discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Q, this is an RFC, which will be visited by editors who do not realize that the paragraph was moved from a completely unrelated and very different discussion on a completely unrelated Talk page and has been re-posted here. Not only is that confusing and completely misleading (and further muddies the organization of this long and unwieldy page), it's completely against Wikipedia policy. If we can't strike it, then can you please delete the post (which is your own post, moved here by AutoMamet)? Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 07:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I've collapsed it; I had thought it was just an off topic comment, not one copied from another topic page. I hope this solves the problem. AutoMamet, if you ever do copy over someone's comment from another page in the future, please do be sure to be very clear that you copied it, probably putting it in a quote box or something similar.Qwyrxian (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Sequel

The "Sequel" section is problematic in a number of ways, I think. It's old, outdated, from dubious sources (the last bit at least), and completely unconfirmed. For all those reasons, and per WP:CRYSTAL above all, I think it should be deleted. Softlavender (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Concur. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 11:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Departed/Archive_2&oldid=1142314050"