Talk:Trading Places/Archive 1

Anecdote needs explanation

In the scene that starts with the "zeta chi" harmony, just prior to Winthrope entering, one of the girls is telling a story that end with the punchline "...and she stepped on the ball". I have heard that this story is a part of a rather well-kown anecdote in plebian circles (which unfortunately I do not remember the source thereof) and I would like to see it explained in a "popular culture" section of the article, should someone have the resources to do so.Radzewicz (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Found it.Radzewicz (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a reference to the film Auntie Mame. PurpleChez (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Explanation of climactic scene

The following statement is wrong and should either be corrected or removed:

"In actual markets, price limits – "limit up" and "limit down" – protect the clearinghouse from defaults and would preclude such a drastic price jump."

While it is true that most expiration months do limit the price up and down movement of a days trading, the "spot month" (meaning the nearest expiration month) is not subject to those volatility limits and may, in fact, swing as wildly as in the movie. Thus, such a drastic price jump is not precluded by the rules of the exchange when applied to the spot month, as in the movie, thus the statement is wrong, and the scene as presented is believable.Radzewicz (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The End of the Film

I would be grateful if someone could explain the ending of the film. I am not familiar with the workings of the commodities market and I have been trying to figure out what happened for twenty years. --Feitclub 02:11, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086465/board/flat/4331603 it explains it here.

Ha. I did some research on my own and added an explanation on the main page without seeing the requests on the talk page. If you still find it confusing, let me know (give me a shout-out on my talk page). Jkatzen 10:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The first bullet point in the explanation isn't true. You can short sell stock as well. Margins work differently, however.

Right, but "short-selling" a stock is in actuality a futures contract -- the name is deceptive, as shares aren't immediately sold by the "short-seller". Instead he agrees to sell shares in the future for the price on the current date. If the value goes down in the future, he could buy shares at the future (cheaper) time and then immediately sell them to his optioner for a profit. Jkatzen 02:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought about the description of the ending. The article states that it isn't clear how much Valentine and Winthorp made, but doesn't mention the Dukes' statement after they are faced with the margin call. He responds with "You know perfectly well we haven't got 394 million dollars in cash!" I'm not sure if that helps or not, but it at least shows how much they lost. --joshua orvis 04:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm still fuzzy about the end of the movie: Winthorp and Valentine start selling at $1.42, but what are they selling??? How do they have FCOJ to sell? I mean, the movie didn't show that they had ever bought any FCOJ, at least not until the price tanked after the report. So, I understand how the Dukes got ruined, but I don't understand how they made any money; they just bought a lot of OJ futures at a low price.24.168.65.131 00:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to actually own the FCOJ at the time of sell; just so long as you own it by the time you and the buyer have agreed you will give it to them. Thanos6 02:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

More precisely, they are trading contracts (the underlying terms of the contracts are to deliver goods by a said date). In the interim before that expiration date, the contracts can be purchased and sold. In this instance, Winthorp and Valentine sold the contracts first and bought them back to close the transaction thereafter, in effect a short sale. Really no different than a normal transaction except the buy and sell actions are reversed The differential in price between the the two actions is their profit. The Dukes are on the other side of Winthorpe and Valentine's trade, buying the contracts first and being forced to close out their contracts at a depressed price.

Ok, now it makes sense to me. I guess it didn't occur to me that you could sell something you don't own yet, but you're right; as long as you have the oranges to me on the date we agreed to, it isn't really my concern when you got them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.162.35 (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the most confusing thing for people watching the movie is that "buying" and "selling" a futures contract just indicates which side of the contract you are on. A futures contract is an agreement for delivery of a certain commodity for a specified price at a specified date. Technically the contract itself doesn't cost anything, although there is a margin requirement, which is why they needed Ophelia and Coleman's money. If you "buy" that means you are agreeing to buy the commodity at the future date, whereas a "seller" of the contract is agreeing to deliver the goods. Another way of saying this is that a buyer is going long the commodity and the seller is going short (being long means you expect the value to go up, short means you expect it to go down...just like with stocks). In reality, the commodities aren't actually delivered oftentimes, since you can close out a long position by taking a short position (and vice-versa) and settle the difference in cash. Winthorp and Valentine sold the frozen oj futures when everyone else wanted to buy. Then after the price started plummeting, they were able to close out by buying futures, and they'd be owed the (huge) difference. As others have mentioned, this is similar to short selling stock, but the mechanics is different. DudeOnTheStreet (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The explanation of the climactic scene was removed on Feb 5 by Treybien because of original research. I think these comments prove the value of that section - I replaced it, but I removed what I found to be the original research within it. 96.227.189.126 (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I really, really miss the section that explained the end of the film. I hope someone finds a way to restore it without violating policy. PurpleChez (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, maybe worth mentioning somewhere is that the entire setup of the end of the film with the stealing of confidential papers and stock manipulation is borrowed from (or perhaps an homage to) the beginning of the 1922 Fritz Lang silent thriller Dr. Mabuse, The Gambler. I can't imagine two more different films, but there it is. Banjochris (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

---

I've just made some edits to the main page, with all respect to the original author/s.

A couple of typo's were corrected, and a few scenes which were out-of-place were corrected.

For instance, the scene where the Dukes explain to Valentine just what they do doesn't take place in the car, but at the office, and Winthorp attempts to shoot himself AFTER the bus ride.

I used as much of the original text as possible when making the changes. I also added one or two extra bits for flavour.

Gardener of Geda 13:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright. The Dukes bought FCOJ because they expected the price to go up. Louis and Billy Ray sold FCOJ because they knew the price would go down and could supply it cheaply. I get that. But why did everyone else want to buy FCOJ after the crop report said it was worthless? The price plummeted after the report, so wouldn't everyone have gotten it cheap, diminishing Louis' and Billy Ray's profit with each buy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabuking (talk • contribs) 12:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Winthorpe Valentine

Why was the link to Winthorpe Valentine removed from the Trivia section? It's a working link, and it appears to be a legitimate site. Presumably its founders are fans of this film. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.2.124.11 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 12 December 2006.

Because the linked website has no relevancy whatsoever to the topic of this article. --Ezeu 00:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Plot summary too long

Do we really need a long form description of the entire move? I think a plot summary should be exactly that - a brief, general synopsys.

I agree. The synopsis was fine two or three months ago, but someone has gone in and done a "describe every scene in a blow-by-blow account of the film". I would suggest that the synopsis is reverted to what it was. Arthur Holland 13:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Spongebob

The reference may be obvious, but shouldn't there be a citation anyway? It's not like figuring out the character 'Dark Claw' is a mix of Batman and Wolverine... Lots42 11:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Money Clip

What about the money clip scene that was a total accident? Shouldn't that be in the trivia section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.215.251.214 (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Where was that film? What is the name of that building? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.64.138 (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Undocumented Scene Edit?

There's a scene where mr beeks, pushes a random person down, before planting the stolen money on winthorpe. in the background while he's pushing the guy down, the wall is strangely blurred, or appears to be. anyone else noticed that? i'm speaking of the current HBO version of the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.24.12.91 (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Bank Scene

The bank scene in which Winthorp has been told that the IRS has frozen his assests is bogus. His downfall starts with a phony theft which would only be a petty theft charge for $150- hardly worth of Federal attention. The subsequent assumptions about dealing drugs which would actually only be a charge for a small amount of PCP(?)possession- no evidence of sale. The IRS wouldn't even have had time or the intention or ability to freeze his assests after only an arrest.Dcrasno (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As all of what you say is true, it's also likely that, in the context of the story, the bank scene, that is, Winthorp's assets being frozen, was orchestrated by the Duke brothers. They're shown to be extremely influential in the New York financial world, both personally and by family history.

They do after all have to ruin Winthorp utterly and completely to make sure their little scenario gets played out according to terms of the bet.

Could they be so influential as to have an entire bank do their dastardly bidding, including blaming it on the IRS? Possibly a stretch, but it is after all a movie...Gulfstorm75 (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on "Explanation of climactic scene" section

Let's get some discussion going here before this boils into an edit war. I'm tending to lean towards Big Bird's edit logic; the section is very WP:OR-ish and poorly sourced. DP76764 (Talk) 18:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The section could maybe stand some editing, but it seems useful. I don't see an OR problem; it's just working through the strategies of the characters in the scene. Does it really need sourcing to explain that
sell-high & buy-low = make a lot of money; buy-high & sell-low = lose a lot of money?

—WWoods (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As added again here, I feel that particular section is inappropriate for a film article. The addition of this section is simply an overly long addition to the plot section. The main source used to construct this section is the primary source, ie the film.

WP:PSTS states that "A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge" and that "any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." A detailed explanation of commodities trading and how to turn a large profit in a short period of time is not explicitly explained on screen. If this article is to support such an explanation, it should 1) come from reliable third-party sources that are knowledgeable and authoritative on the subject and 2) be shown how it provides further benefit to a reader of a film article. Without reliable third-party sources, we are either using a primary source in a way in which it's not meant to be used or we're engaging in blatant WP:OR violations thinly veiled by referencing a couple of blogs ([1], [2]). Additionally, WP:FILMPLOT advises "to avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, and technical detail"; the plot detail in question, to me, is a clear example of what's meant by technical detail.

Further, such detail is WP:CRUFT in its fundamental form. Having seen the film numerous times, there are many, many scenes that I find memorable and am fond of watching for the n-th time. What makes this one worthy of a detailed explanation as opposed to, for example, explaining in detail how it would be possible for animal handlers to not be able to differentiate between a man in a gorilla costume and a real gorilla? It is nothing but a fan-favourite. It in no way defines the film or is proven to be notable on its own. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is usually appropriate as part of this coverage." Wikipedia does not seek to expand on fictional works' plots to explain how something is possible to have happened. Using some FA-class examples: Fight Club (film) does't try to explain Dissociative identity disorder even though its one of the major plot devices lasting the entire length of the film; Little Miss Sunshine doesn't try to explain the technical details of Volkswagen Type 2 microbuses' gear boxes and how that particular problem can affect the vehicle only while starting to move but not while it is in motion. Certain story points are appropriate to be listed in a "Themes" section but, again, with proper sources and in proper context.

I started working on this article when it had no references and the plot section and "Explanation..." section took up the vast majority of the article length. I have expanded the lead section, trimmed the plot to make it compliant with WP:FILMPLOT, added further sections, expanded existing ones and provided over 20 references. My goal is to get this article to GA-class eventually but it can take some time finding appropriate sources for a nearly 30-year-old film, especially when it was never considered to be ground-breaking or genre-changing and not much new is written about it. GA-quality film articles do not have unsourced/poorly sourced/originally researched entire sections devoted to fan favourite scenes. This section does not provide an average reader with a further understanding of the subject at hand - the film. If someone does, in fact, think that this was a memorable scene when they saw the film and are now looking for an explanation on how this could have happenned, then they should be looking for it elsewhere because Wikipedia is not a directory and "a complete exposition of all possible details" nor is it manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've notified the members of WikiProject Films about the discussion in hopes of getting further input. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Removal based on provided reasoning. Doniago (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Agree with Erik's comments below. Doniago (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this section has potential, but I agree that it needs to be apart from the plot summary. With the section on its own, I think there are numerous enough reliable sources to justify an analysis of the climactic scene. The current citations are not reliable sources, but a Google Books Search for "trading places" "orange juice" shows this particular scene being discussed. Since plot summaries are basic descriptions of primary sources that people do not need specialist knowledge to understand, I think there is value in an analysis-type section breaking down this scene using the sources in the search results. Is there a reason why this section cannot be transformed accordingly? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Support a section rewrite as proposed, with better sources. Or at least a section detailing how the trading techniques used in the movie have been used as examples in the real world. DP76764 (Talk) 19:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My reasoning goes back to FILMPLOT advising to avoid "scene-by-scene breakdowns, and technical detail"; this section would touch on both of those items. Even if it can be sourced, I don't think we should be in the business of breaking down fictional plots and explain how something was possible because, personally, I see no value added to the article by doing that. Fictional works have their plot/story which we summarize and then add value by "discussing the reception and significance."

Now, I'm not proposing an unconditional exclusion of the scene. I have been able to find some sources that mention the scene in a greater context of Reagan-era capitalism and how it contributes to the film's overall comment on that issue. As such, it might be appropriate to mention this scene as it would provide further significance of the film. But the section in place now seeks to simply explain one fan-favourite scene in a great amount of detail that offers nothing about the film's reception or significance. I find this no different than trying to discuss in-article the (im)possibilities of specific plot points in Star Wars films or Twilight novels.

Just to clarify, if the consensus is that the section stays, are we agreeing that it's acceptable to use the scene to expand on the issue of the film's critical commentary or are we saying it's acceptable to explain an individual scene in more detail if the scene is memorable and mentioned in other sources? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm running into some trouble saying exactly what I mean here...I don't think further analysis of this belongs in the Plot section. If there are third-party sources establishing that what occurs during the scene is notable, that should be discussed along with the mechanics of what occurs in the scene...but to me the Plot section should be as reader-friendly as possible. Please let me know if you'd like me to try to clarify. Doniago (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The subsection doesn't belong on this page. See WP:FILMPLOT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Please keep plot summaries short and control your urge to explain everything in minute detail. —Codrdan (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

On the one hand I'm not sure removing it while there's a discussion on the subject is appropriate, especially when the consensus appears to be to try to repair rather than remove. On the other hand, if nobody else has a problem with it, I'm not going to object. Doniago (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I may be a little dense right about now but I'm still not clear on what the consensus is. Sources and copyediting aside, are we saying OK to describing the scene in detail? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The way I was reading it (i.e. I'm not sure I'm right either), consensus was moving towards removing the explanation from the plot summary but include it on its own terms provided there's sourcing to third-party discussion and real-world context and such. In any case, my main concern was that the text had been removed while discussion was ongoing and consensus didn't seem to favor chopping it entirely. Doniago (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't like either Big Bird's or Vidor's approaches. Vidor's explanation is insanely long, and Big Bird seems to want no explanation at all. BB even deleted my short explanation in the summary. The orange-juice trade is the key to resolving the whole conflict, so there should be some kind of brief overview of what happened. It doesn't need a separate section, it needs to be shorter. —Codrdan (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I deleted too much recently; the scene should be mentioned in the plot section. I wanted to avoid speculation and presenting something that wasn't shown on screen but went a bit too far. Here I removed the sentence "The genuine report describes a plentiful harvest, while the forgery indicates a shortage" because we never see the content of the report nor is it ever explicitly discussed by any character what the report actually states. We can only infer what the report states based on the final outcome of the crop trading scene so I don't think we should describe something that never happened in the film. The rest of it needed some tweaking and I've reinsterted it with the adjustments. Does that look OK? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

> we never see the content of the report

Okay. I haven't seen the movie in a long time, so I was judging from Vidor's text and the two external links. Can we at least start the sentences about what the traders do with something like "[Using|Based on] the information in the [real report|forgery]"?

> Does that look OK?

Actually, I didn't notice the momentum effect of other traders following the Dukes' lead and V&W's refusal to buy from the Dukes after the plunge. If V&W didn't sell until the price was bid up, then my "Meanwhile" is incorrect. —Codrdan (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed "meanwhile" and noted that V&W sell at the "increased" price. Hopefully that looks OK but feel free to tweak any way that seems fit if it comes across as poorly written.

I agree that it's acceptable (maybe desirable?) to state something about the reports at the start of the scene summary. Again, I would limit what's being stated to what was shown on the screen. We know the Dukes read the forgery because we see them do so in the parking garage so something like "On the commodities trading floor the Dukes, after having read the false report, commit all their holdings..." We don't see V&W read the report (again, we can assume that they do but we're only summarizing what we see) so we could say something like "Valentine and Winthorpe, who possess the genuine crop report, sell the futures..." Those sentences are roughly sketched and could use some tweaking or maybe even thorough rewriting but it hopefully gets the idea across. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 00:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be quite that strict about WP:OR. It doesn't prohibit the use of ordinary common sense. I'll make some changes myself, but feel free to revert anything you don't like. —Codrdan (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion on this point is a prime example of Rules vs. Logic run amok. Regardless of the rules, or theories of why this site "should exist" ect, the fact remains that if someone decides one day to look up this film and/or to find out about the ending, this is, and maybe even should be, their first stop. Yet even though this site is supposed to be at the end of the day the definitive source for reliable info, an explanation of the ending is now not even listed. And why is that? Because people want to argue about things like sources or length or some other minute point. Isn’t' the whole purpose of this site, to educate, as long as actual laws are not being broken? Is it not better to explain to the masses first, and then work out the exact context and rules second instead of doing nothing? This debate is a prime example of governments that don't work. We need to feed the starving, but not until we spend ten years arguing how, while millions die. We need to clean up the plant, but not until we spend a hundred years arguing how, until it's too late. How about we explain the ending, as we all know it really should be here as it is clearly relevant and more to the point wanted and needed, and then argue about better ways to do it or change it. Right now the whole above reads like nothing more than a bunch of idiot bureaucrats run amok. All of you could easily find jobs and fit in with the US congress. It's sad and shameful. Think of the people need to know first, and your own supposed smartness for the rules and preferences second. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepintexas (talk • contribs) 00:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not everything to everyone and never will be but this is not the place to discuss the goals and purposes of the entire project. Also, please try to focus your comments on the subject matter rather than on the editors. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that even after reading that section I still forget what is going on in the ending but it is PURELY DUE TO THAT SECTION that I understand what they were doing in the ending, I think it is a very useful and important section for this particular movie and I'm sure it would be useful to many people in the future since there is no in-movie exposition regarding that scene, it can be difficult to know what is going on. Properly written and cited, I see no reason for it not to exist in the articleDarkwarriorblake (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the preceding discussion? Are there any arguments for inclusion with which you agree or any arguments against inclusion with which you disagree? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Support keeping I agree with the sentiment that it could do with a rewrite and better sourcing, I went and looked it up and it is somewhat lengthy and could be probably be explained efficiently in half the length. I do believe wholeheartedly though that it would be very useful and notable for this particular topic. As I stated above, I rewatched it this weekent which is what prompted me to come here and notice the section missing. I had a rough idea what they had done (Valentine and Winthrope) but only because of prior readings of this article and I can see that ending being confusing for many people as no exposition is given. In many years time, I feel it would be essential for people who come here when there is no reasonable alternative location for an explanation to be found except maybe IMDB and IMDB is not a particularly useful place to find a well-researched and articulated answer. So my vote would be for supportDarkwarriorblake (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

Please feel free to re-add this material into the article, with appropriate sourcing. It was tagged for the better part of a year. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Production

==Production== Most of the film was shot on location in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Portions were set in New York City, at the World Trade Center and the New York Board of Trade exchange floor at 4 World Trade Center. Additionally, many of the interior office scenes of Duke and Duke were filmed within the historic rooms of the Park Avenue Armory. Mill Neck Manor, in Mill Neck, New York, stands in for the setting of the Pennsylvania Main Line mansion of the Dukes. The scene in which Winthorpe is arraigned takes place in the New York City Police Department's 45th Precinct Police Station located at 2877 Barkley Ave in the Bronx. The brass capped metal fencing in front of the big desk is still polished every week. Additionally, the room in which Winthorpe is ordered to undress while the police list his valuables is the room where the police officers from the 45th Precinct attend roll call. The exterior of the precinct is that of the Community College of Philadelphia, formerly the headquarters of the Philadelphia Mint. The final scene was filmed in Saint Croix, in the United States Virgin Islands.

I have no problem with the deletion until sourced. I've tried sourcing that section before but came up empty; maybe others can fare better. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The unsourced information does need to stay out until someone can source it. Someone added information today that does not seem to be in the Production list Doniago put here, and I don't understand why Doniago deleted it. It appears to be simply a description of plot elements in "Coming to America" that are related (directly) to "Trading Places." First, the information is not something that needs to be sourced, as the movie itself is the source (much like the plot section), and second, I thought information like that was to be tagged for citations first? Deejaye6 (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Production

==Production== Ralph Bellamy and Don Ameche reprise their roles as the Duke brothers in the next Landis and Murphy collaboration, Coming to America in 1988. In this film, the two men are now homeless and living on the streets. Akeem gives them a paper bag filled with money, which they gratefully accept and exclaim "We're back!" A portion of the Trading Places score can be heard during the Bellamy-Ameche cameo. Trading Places is again referenced as the royal entourage leaves the Waldorf-Astoria in the final New York–based scene in the movie: the driver of Akeem and Semmi's limo is played by the same actor who played the Dukes' driver in Trading Places, from whom Billy Ray Valentine (Murphy) seeks counsel when the Dukes pick him up after bailing him out of jail.

A useful rule of thumb for adding material to an article is to ask yourself if the additional material provides the reader with a better understanding of the article at hand. If the answer is yes, add the material with proper sources. In this case, I think that plot points from Coming to America do not provide the reader with a better understanding of Trading Places. The reverse may be true, Coming to America readers may benefit from material related to this film but even then I'd be cautious not to overdo it.

We should always minimize our reliance on primary sources; in film articles, that means restricting the use of primary sources only for a basic plot description. Making comparisons of plot points between multiple films qualifies as interpretation of primary sources and WP:PRIMARY states that "any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". Such material could also be considered as falling under WP:TRIVIA and then again it would be preferred that it has secondary sources. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The Beggar's Deceit

Does anyone know whether The Beggar's Deceit was the inspiration for the scene where Eddie Murphy's character is introduced? It seems too similar to be a coincidence but I have no sources for it. danno 18:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It definitely seems plausible; I'll see if I can dig up something. Thanks for the heads-up! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Turtles Experiment

This real-life experiment, and its clear - if coincidental - relation to the film has, I would argue, at least as great a claim to inclusion as the mention of the associations to the fictionalworks of Mark Twain etc

Do any of the sources involved with the Turtles experiment reference Trading Places? If not, I would argue that they are inappropriate. The Mark Twain information may also be inappropriate, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; just because that's here doesn't mean the Turtles stuff should be as well, it seems equally likely without reviewing the article that the Mark Twain stuff shouldn't be. Will review shortly. Doniago (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the Twain information has references that clearly connect it to Trading Places, so I ask whether the same can be said for the Turtles references. If yes, there may be an argument for inclusion, but the text should more clearly reflect the connection. If not, then I don't see grounds for inclusion. Doniago (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Agree: As written and sourced, the turtles mention does not merit inclusion (WP:TRIVIA?). We're not in the business of documenting ever coincidence out there. Now, if a better source is found, that's another matter. DP76764 (Talk) 16:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Too bored to argue WP: YEAHWHADDEVER Robma (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

A Yahoo search did turn up a number of sources (not necessarily reliable) that draw a comparison between Trading Places and the Turtles experiment, so there may be something to work with here. Doniago (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Slightly more detailed explanation of the climax

I've provided a very brief expansion upon the explanation of the climax scene, an explanation in line with what was semi-consensus in the 2010 discussion above, but TheOldJacobite and Doneaga have been reverting it without discussing themselves. How is what I've added a problem? Must the 2010 discussion be rehashed? Jkatzen (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Per BRD, you should have started a discussion when you were reverted the first time. Instead, you reverted twice more, then accused me of violating 3RR, indicating that you do not understand that policy. Your edit summaries indicate there are numerous other policies you do not understand, including OR. And yes, a two-year-old discussion should be revisited when a majority of editors disagree with your edits. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It's good that you've started a discussion about this. To be honest, I don't really feel the extra exposition you are providing furthers a reader's understanding of the plot. We should perhaps be trying to tighten the plot summary rather than expanding it. As per WP:FILMPLOT the recommended length for a plot summary is 400–700 words; it currently stands at 683 words (just within the limit) whereas your edits are taking the length up to 740 words. It's not a complicated film, so it doesn't warrant going over the limit. Betty Logan (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not clear on where the "leverage" part in the edit comes from, all I recall is them telling their man on the floor to start buying and keep buying. Not really committing anything, they were doing what Winthorpe and Valentine were doing, betting with nothing because they thought they had the situation rigged but instead were left with a big bill. So that part at least is OR as Jacobite says. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

@Betty I can understanding having to violate that limit slightly for the ending (though I don't think it is necessary, I think its easy to tigten up earlier parts of it) because the ending is very confusing for the uninformed. Not having watched the film in a while I again found myself coming here for clarification. In fact I'm watching it now and still getting lost :P so for the uninitiated, thats probably the most important part of the plot in this article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the plot summary, as it currently stands, is clear and free of unnecessary details. Darkwarriorblake's recent edits were an improvement. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Improving article

I don't think this article is too far off a GA pass and I don't know if anyone wants to help with that. I don't mind writing it up, at the moment I'm going to be focusing on general copy editing and improving the references, but if anyone can provide any production or casting information that would be useful. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Title Wordplay

The title Trading Places refers not only to the swapped roles of Winthorpe and Valentine, but also to the 'places of trading' portrayed in the film. The commodities exchanges are literally 'trading places'.

It would be gratifying to see this wordplay mentioned in the main article. Jarvitronics (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

We'd need to have a reliable source take note of it before we could include it; otherwise we'd have a case of original research. For that matter, there's the difference between a third-party making note of the wordplay, and evidence that it's intentional. For the record, I fully believe it was intentional, but we should have a source that says so. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

race? Suggestion

i believe someone should write something on the subject of race in the film. it is not just the pauper and the prince. it clearly marks the dukes (and also winthrop) as being partly motivated by racist prejudices. also Akroyd is wearing blackface ("impersonating" Lionel Joseph, in a scene full of "African" stereotypes). i believe the film is terribly interesting with respect to race, as it is not at all straightforwardly either racist or anti-racist, but lots of both. however, i feel not really qualified to give it a good treatment. if someone steps forward, i would appreciate it. Lommes (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Coming to America

I'm proposing we add the following text into the "Legacy" section:

Don Ameche and Ralph Bellamy reprise their roles as Mortimer and Randolph Duke in Coming to America (1988), and a segment of the Trading Places score can be heard during their scene.

100% agree one of the great cameos/inside movie jokes of all time! The article is incomplete without this reference. Vegaswiki (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

in the same way that all cameos by characters from movies are mentioned in the legacy (or similar) section, e.g. "Spaceballs" is mentioned in the "Alien" article Damiantgordon (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a minor scene, no more than a cameo, in an otherwise unconnected film, and is the very definition of trivial. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I would note that the Alien reference in Spaceballs is presently unsourced and consequently fails WP:IPCV; I've tagged it accordingly. I've never heard of Eeggs.com and the AVclub article is a review of both films; I'm not currently convinced that either link consequently raises this above the level of trivia, though I'd yield to a consensus in the other direction. I'd be more impressed if there was any indication that CtA was intended to be any sort of sequel to TP, versus this essentially seeming to be a wink to the audience. DonIago (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Hunt Brothers

We'd need a source, but I wonder whether the Duke Brothers' attempt to corner the frozen orange juice market is at least in part inspired by the Hunt Brothers' attempt to corner the silver market in the late 1970s (that took several years but left them ruined). See Silver Thursday. It's forgotten now but would still have been widely remembered in 1983 when the film was made.Paulturtle (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Trading Places/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk · contribs) 14:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Assessment

Another great article, really a thorough job. I have just a couple of minor questions:

1. The "Performance analysis and aftermath" section: isn't there too much space spent on the biographies and later careers of actors like Aykroyd, Curtis and Ameche? It kind of seemes strained and out of the article's scope.
2. Ref no. 24 seems to have an incorrect format that needs to be fixed. Ref no. 32 as well ([Classic FM (UK)|]).
3. Some of the Washington Post articles have a weird title. For example, no. 16 just goes "MURPHY &". But I guess we cannot know if something is missing from the title if this is their official webpage.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion

The issues were resolved, I am promiting it.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Responses

• I've tried to trim down those particular actors. I get your point and have tried to be less ...elaborative about them. I think it is important to note certain things, as it can be directly tied to Trading Places that Ameche then got work in Cocoon and won what is in acting terms their highest honor, that Aykroyd's career was on life support but after the film he made Ghostbusters of all things and also got an academy award nom, so his career went from dead to live, and Curtis managed to breakthrough the stigma of basically being a B-Movie actress to get into other things. Hopefully the trim I've done is enough but if not let me know.
• Fixed the ref.
• Yes, some of those WAPO things have broken titles. I assume they used some sort of automated process to transclude them to the website and it cut off at the "&".
• Thanks for taking the time to review another one of these. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)