Talk:The Fugitive (1993 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled

I don't recall Nichols getting 'killed' with the pipe. At most, it was ambiguous. But I think he was just injured. 68.239.82.46 (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

MGS 3: Snake Eater

There's a part where Jack (Big Boss) escapes capture by jumping out of the sewers alá Harrison Ford. There isn't any similar dialogue; I'm not sure if this is a reference, a homage, or if possibly Hideo was just inspired by the film and it's not directly related. What does everybody else think?

It's not Russian

Does anyone know what language the landlord speaks to her son when Kimble is looking over the basement apartment? It's not Russian (according to my wife). Also, a translation would make a good addition to this page, if available. Thanks. proteus71 6 Oct 2005, 18:10 GMT

I had assumed it was Russian, but since you say it isn't, I dont know then. Astrokey44|talk 12:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

According to The Internet Movie Database, the family is Polish. Gillean666 15:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a linguist, but yes, as stated, it's likely Polish; as the Chicagoland area has quite a large Polish population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwichert (talk contribs) 16:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Bravo

There's an episode of Johnny Bravo that's a parody of this. Anyone have a link? 172.149.172.31 19:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Nichols: Dead?

I think it is safe to assume he is dead. All of the key players who survived are seen being escorted out of the hotel; the one-armed man, Kimble, the other U.S. Marshal from whom Nichols took the gun, etc. Nichols is never shown exiting the hotel. Besides, Nichols suffered a grueling beating from Kimble on the rooftop and in the presidential suite, and a fall through a skylight and an elevator roof. Two brutal strikes from a lead pipe could have easily killed him. But that's ok, I reached a compromise explanation. I wrote that he is "likely" dead, as it isn't 100% certain whether or not he died, but it is more likely he is dead than he isn't. If the filmmakers showed everyone else exiting the building, Nichols could have easily been shown had he been alive. Cheers! OettingerCroat 03:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No original research. Antaeus Feldspar 01:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Film's Inspiration

Wasn't this film inspired by a Supreme Court case called Sheppard v. Maxwell in 1966? MasonicLamb 23:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Short version: This film was inspired by the TV series of the same name. The producers always said they were not inspired by the Sam Sheppard case. But some people believe they were after all, and just wanted to avoid the legal complications if they admitted they had. Antaeus Feldspar 01:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this film's inspiration was Jean Valjean vs Javert from Hugo's Les Miserables. And by the way, who works forensics in Chicago? The Three Stooges? The killer's hair must have been all over the place, but no DNA? Dcrasno (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Fugitive movie.jpg

Image:The Fugitive movie.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fugitive2 tommy.jpg

Image:Fugitive2 tommy.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hotel

Does anyone know for certain in what hotel the climactic scenes take place? 68.154.254.17 (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It was the Chicago Hilton and Towers on South Michigan Avenue. Stryteler (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Insufficient context in opening line

Take a look at Film Style Guidelines. The opening sentence shouldn't contain "award-winning", but I noticed no other section outlines the awards the film won. When I get a chance, I will look at removing the "award-winning" phrase from the first sentence, and expand on the awards either in the lead paragraph, or in a new section. Tool2Die4 (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you F––king SERIOUS??

Nothing happened at Daley plaza. It happened at the police station, and he never said there was a "person in a blue topcoat". He said there was a "man in a blue coat." And he didn't say he was waving a gun "at a woman". He simply said he was "waiving a gun around." What kind of dumbass wrote this plot? It was obviously done from memory in a lame attempt to write another article to impress WikiNazis. This should all be fixed. 66.230.84.164 (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What Kimble says is "Officer, Officer! There's a man in a blue topcoat waving a gun and screaming ... at a woman!" (In the context of the film, we are led to believe that a prison facility occupies the location. Since Kimble just visited a prisoner however, the building is the Richard J. Daley Center.) Gerard's deputy Biggs says "He's heading east through the plaza". You can plainly see the Picasso and the hideous James R. Thompson center which is kitty-corner. Kimble then joins the parade on neighboring Dearborn St. The nearest police station is miles away on Racine. And the actual Cook County Prison is also miles a way on California Ave. Besides, would a police station be that big? And would all those private citizens just be wandering around the police station? What an ass. Way to 'correct' someone. You should be fixed. (Bwichert (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

Rewatch the movie with closed caption on. Mine says "at a woman" which he adds, as he's running and is nearly inaudiable. Here is however a mistake in the closing line. The closed caption said "I don't" not "I know". "I don't" makes far more sense to Sam's personanlity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.91.174 (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes it was Daley Plaza. I lived in Chicago for 12 years. Stryteler (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Note about a change in the Reception section

I don't mean to be rude, but a line has been added to the reception section reading:

"All this is a little surprising considering the many holes in the plot & unlikely script (like did nobody think a one-armed man handcuffed to the train was just a tiny bit suspicious?) especially in the all-action denouement, which tried to match the equally ludicrous ending of the original TV series."

From what I understand about Wikipedia's policy, statements like this are a little too opinionated; so I'm going to revert this change. Hamish Morrison (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The house in "Whiting"

U.S. Marshals go to the house in "Whiting" to apprehend the 'other' fugitive. Whiting is just across the state line in Indiana, bordered on the north by Lake Michigan and on the west by Chicago's East Side neighborhood. Where was that house actually located? Also, where was the actual house located where Dr. Kimble was renting the room from the Polish immigrants? Bwichert (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Scrubs Connection

The fact that the television show Scrubs depicted their character as starring in a bit role in The Fugitive is trivial and has no place in this article. Neil Flynn's role in the movie was very small and probably does not even warrant a place in the article. Regardless, what happened on Scrubs is not relevant here. 174.27.28.59 (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

troll. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 18:56 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice justification of your position. 174.27.28.59 (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the troll smartass, you are. Refusing to acknowledge several warnings and persistently undoing my edits without solid reasoning means you are only out to vandalize. So do yourself a favor and stop. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 19:15 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Please, quit altering what I wrote. You do not have the right.

Please explain how a brief scene on a 2000s television series Scrubs is relevant to the cast list of this 1993 movie. 174.27.28.59 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Suggested edit. Looking at Scrubs (season 3) and the synopsis for "My Friend the Doctor", it seems that link between Flynn's characters is trivia. It should not be in the cast list in any case. It arguably should not be in this article at all; if it were to be mentioned, it would need to be in a pop culture suggestion. I suggest leaving the mention in the Scrubs article as-is but removing the mention from this one. Does anybody have objections that they can back up with Wikipedia policy, guidelines, or project standards? —C.Fred (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I happened upon this at the RPP page, but I just wanted to throw my two cents in that I whole-heartedly agree with C.Fred's suggestion. I think the Scrubs bit would be questionable even for a Cultural References or something section, and not at all appropriate for the Cast section. It belongs in the Scrubs article as is. — Hunter Kahn 01:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
    • HunterKahn & CFred have it right - this is minor trivia that might belong in the Scrubs (season 3) article (or individual article, if one exists), but not this article. And the edit-warring that went on over this in downright embarrassing - seriously, one of you was at *eight* reverts? You need to read WP:OWN again. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Marshals

U.S. Marshals are not agents. They're deputy marshals, regardless of what it says in the Cast section of the movie. It should be Deputy Marshal, not Agent. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

What were they called in the movie? It's the movie's version of the agency, not the real version, that guides what they should be called. —C.Fred (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

One forensics specialist called Gerard a "Deputy" during the scene where Kimble was at Syke's house. BattleshipMan (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

To my mind, these are simply unnecessary details. We should list their names and be done with it. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 17:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No, they are not unnecessary details. It's their job and rank, and it's not expanding plot details. That's it. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

In reviewing the references, I can find nowhere that the characters are referred to as Agents. They are either referred to by their character name or as Deputy Marshal. While it may be seen as trivial, Agent is not correct. EricSerge (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I knew U.S. Marshals are not referred to as Agents. I knew what I was doing when I edited them as Marshals, but my edit was undone. I will fix that now and I hope it doesn't get undone. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, it just seems like unnecessary details to me. All we need in that section are their names. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 04:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Explanations of my edits

To Whom It May Concern:

• In this edit, I removed the word "then". You see, use of "then-", such as in "then-President Reagan", or "then-quarterback Bart Starr", could, if used in the manner that this editor has used it, be used for every single mention of any person who is no longer in the position they once held. It's a common enough mistake by those who seek to add a touch of (pretentious) style to their writing, but in fact it should be reserved for those instances where the clarifier is actually needed to avoid confusion. Such instances are rare but real. Not only was this not such an instance where it was needed, the foolishness of its use is shown by the fact that, in the very same sentence, Richie Daley is not called "then-mayor of Chicago". (I rather resent having to write all of this out when I think my edit summary made the point rather more succinctly.)
• In this edit, I've added what is I believe is generally known as a wikilink. Its purpose is to provide the reader with immediate access to the article for a term with which they may not be familiar. The insertion of such links does not generally require an edit summary, as the purpose of the edit is self-explanatory. Now honest people (as well as people of varying degrees of intelligence) can disagree as to whether a particular wikilink is 'portant or pedantic'. I have myself removed some links that I felt were the latter, and I have had some of mine removed by other editors for the same reason. But while insertion of a wikilink does not necessitate an explanation, removal generally does, and I provide one when I do so.

I have now invested far more time than is warranted in explaining just two of my edits. I think it's clear that I actually think about what I am adding, and for the record, I also think about what I remove. I don't care how big of an asshole a given editor is, if his edits improve the encyclopedia, I leave them in. And if (I will acknowledge, as has happened-albeit rarely) I rashly remove a good edit by someone who I mistakenly mistook as a vandal, when that person leaves an edit summary insisting that their edits are good, I actually read their edits before deciding whether or not to take them out again. I'm not saying everyone else has to uphold my standards. I'm just pointing out that, for some of us, the standard around here is good writing, and not whether or not someone called someone else a mean name or snapped someone's head off. But I chose to come to this playground, so I guess I can't complain. 74.178.230.234 (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I said in my first edit summary that your edits were unnecessary and unhelpful. The burden is upon you to explain your edits without insulting other editors. I do not care that you do not regard making said explanations to be a good use of your time. You are obliged to do so. If you do not want to make said explanations, you are free to stop editing Wikipedia. But, do not come to the talk page and act as if you are doing anyone a special favor. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 21:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not I make such explanations is obviously irrelevant to you, since I have provided them in elaborate detail above, and you have again reverted such edits without making even the weakest attempt to engage me on the issue of their substance. I challenge you to find an administrator who will agree with you (not on the issue of civility; I ceded that ground from the moment I came here) that a) my edits were not an improvement, and b) my reasoning above is so weak as to warrant completely ignoring it. Then have them revert the edits I am about to return to the article, instead of reverting them yourself with nothing more than the trite phrase that they are "unhelpful".74.178.230.234 (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I will need to seek the assistance of an admin. is to have you blocked for your continued personal attacks, which, despite having been warned, you continue to engage in. Given your attitude, I have no desire to discuss the matter any further with you. If, from the beginning, you had shown even the slightest degree of civility, we would not be at this impasse. But, such is life. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 04:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

While I have acknowledged the fact that I am not the friendliest bloke, at least I am not a vandal-which is what YOU are if you insist upon reverting to an inferior version of the article. You have NOT ONCE discussed the merits of my edits, despite my repeated attempts to engage you in intelligent discourse. It is now YOU who are being uncivil (and, quite truthfully, it has been you who has been uncivil since at least this edit, when you ignored my attempts to explain my edits. 74.178.230.234 (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems like there's a non-trivial amount of OWNerism on this article. I'd remind both sides to remain civil and work for an equally amicable solution instead of continuing WP:WARring over the article. Q ^{T C} 05:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, WP:OWN is not the issue at hand here. As for me, I was just casually passing by here the other day, and made some edits, and RJ objected (understandably, I will say) to the tone of my edit summaries. All I've been trying to do since then is to get him to actually discuss my edits on their merits, but he refuses to do so. All he does is revert me, no matter how often I try to explain my edits. I can't tell if he doesn't understand my reasoning, or rejects my reasoning, or truly believes that a bad edit is preferable to a good edit by a misanthrope. I suppose it could be that WP:OWN is an issue on his part, but I hadn't considered that until just now. 74.178.230.234 (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, well, well, Lord Q, you may be on to something. According to this, my buddy RJ here is the #1 contributor to this article-in fact, he has more than triple the edits to The Fugitive (1993 film) as the #2 contributor. So maybe WP:OWN is at least a partial explanation for his unwillingness to discuss the matter. Very interesting. 74.178.230.234 (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Given the limited number of total edits to this article even a few reverts will skew those numbers. Q ^{T C} 06:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

He has 60 edits to the #2 user's 18 edits. Take out the reverts he's done on me, and he's still sitting at about triple the edits of #2. Of course, you could have a point if most of his edits are reverting everyone who tries to touch up his pet article (if, indeed, he sees it that way). Regardless, I am more concerned about his unwilliness to even discuss my explanations for my edits. 74.178.230.234 (talk) 06:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's just talk about the edits

The anonymous editor has made an edit which does two things: it changes "then-Illinois Attorney General Roland W. Burris" to "Illinois Attorney General Roland W. Burris", and it wikilinks "novelization".[1] I endorse this edit.

Regarding removal of then-,I took a look at another article, People's Park—it's pretty far afield from movies, so it should be a barometer of how our Manual of Style recommends dealing with such things. I found this sentence: "Governor Ronald Reagan had been publicly critical of university administrators for tolerating student demonstrations at the Berkeley campus…" There was no qualifier like Then-governor, so it seems consistent to refer to officeholders by the office they held at the time of the relevant events.

As for the wikilink, I think it's an uncommon enough term to warrant a link. —C.Fred (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)