Talk:The Sting

Incomplete Plot Summary

The plot summary is incomplete, and reads more like a long promotional blurb instead. - Matt 08:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you complaining that it doesn't give away the surprise ending? Wahkeenah 09:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree Matt, it needs more detail and needs to be NPOV. 156.34.216.68 19:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What POV problems do you have with it, specifically? Wahkeenah 23:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

All of this sets the stage for a memorable conclusion, including two major twists which amount to cons played on an audience accustomed to being on the inside of all of the characters' schemes.

This doesn't really reflect a neutral point of view and yes, the entire story should be given away. But, it's no big problem whoever wrote the plot summary, it's excellent. TeeHeeHee 22:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely - An Eponymous double entendre! I would also like to see Johnny and Loretta's dialogue ("You're just like me. It's 2:00 AM and I don't know nobody...") accurately quoted--OmarFirestone 14:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I gave it all away. Feel free to polish as needed. Spoilsports. >:( Wahkeenah 15:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have tightened up the language in the first half of the plot synopsis (tense, syntax etc.) but kept the same ¶s. I have also removed some adverbs/adjectives, "naturally", "clever" etc. for the sake of NPOV. Spoiler warning notwithstanding, I think Wahkeenah's original allusion to, rather than an explicit explanation of, the "double twist" is more appropriate. --OmarFirestone 14:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks a whole lot better now. LOL, Wahkeenah, it's not like someone who hasn't seen the movie is going to keep reading past the spoiler warning anyway! : D 156.34.209.84 05:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletions

• After Hooker's girlfriend Crystal comes offstage (in the foreground of the scene) from doing her burlesque act, Leonard goes onstage (in the background) and tells a joke to the out-of-sight audience. Hooker and Crystal mostly talk over the joke, so the film's audience only hears the punchline. The complete joke involves a man who had just bought a live chicken and then impulsively goes to a movie theater, hiding the chicken in his pants so the ticket-taker won't hassle him about bringing a bird into the theater. Once in his seat, sitting next to two women, he opens his fly so the chicken can stick out its head and breathe easily. In the darkened theater, the women misinterpret what the man is doing. Most of this part of the joke is heard in the film: "The first woman says to her friend, 'This man's fly is open!' The second woman says, 'When you've seen one, you've seen 'em all!' The first woman says, 'Yeah, but this one's eating my popcorn!'"
• A foreshadowing of what Lonnegan would be up against, if Johnny Hooker and Henry Gondorff were to be successful in taking a large sum of money from him, is revealed early in the film. Lonnegan's bodyguard, Floyd, tells him about grifters having conned one of Lonnegan's runners out of a few thousand dollars (as the audience knows, but as Doyle does not, Floyd is, of course, referring to Hooker, Joe Erie and Luther Coleman). Lonnegan tells him the grifters have to be dealt with quickly and harshly, because if word got out that he had been swindled out of even that small amount, Lonnegan would have to kill his childhood friend and business competitor along with everyone else who would try to muscle in on his racket.

I believe WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOR cover the reasons for the deletion of this unencylopaedic information. Can anyone really defend quoting an entire joke from the movie verbatim here? This isn't a fansite, it's an encyclopedia. The second para is original research. And the heading 'Trivia' is against WP policy, so I'm changing that to "Other production information".Michael Dorosh^Talk 00:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

From WP:TRIVIA " If the trivia are funny (at least, fun to more than one person), they can be included in BJAODN - or other divisions of the Department of Fun. No more than half-funny things are however often thrown out of there too."Michael Dorosh^Talk 00:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like you're on a one-man campaign to (1) pass judgment as to what's trivial/funny or not and (2) eradicate any you don't like, unilaterally. That is a wikipedia violation, son. Wahkeenah 00:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not your son, and secondly, unless you plan on actually debating the merits of the inclusion of this material - as YOU requested we do - I see no reason not to delete it, as I'll assume you have no reason to keep the material included. Now, did you have something constructive to say? If so, I'm happy to form consensus, but we can't do that if you're simply going to be insulting. So why do you feel the material merits inclusion?Michael Dorosh^Talk 00:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You didn't debate anything, you just deleted it. Put it back, then we'll talk. Daddyo. Wahkeenah 01:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Put it back if you like, but I'm going to make a WP:RfC if you insist on not being civil.Michael Dorosh^Talk 01:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, the see the guideline Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. One-man crusade indeed.Michael Dorosh^Talk 13:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have stopped watching the page. You have ruined any interest I had in maintaining it. Wahkeenah 05:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Now who's the spoilsport, Wahkeenah? :D Remember: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. Michael is only following the rules here, you could at least be polite to someone you don't know.156.34.239.11 20:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the aforementioned items as original research in accordance with WP:NOR.Michael Dorosh^Talk 20:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk about a total misinterpretation of policy. "And the heading 'Trivia' is against WP policy"...there is no such policy that says this, WP:TRIVIA is an essay and Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles is a guideline. The first word of the guideline should give you a hint, it doesn't say Do not include trivia sections in articles, it says avoid, two completely different things. I also fail to see how WP:NOR applies. --Holderca1 16:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Late to the game here, but, first, "avoid" means what it says. It doesn't say "prohibit", but clearly infers there needs to be a reason to include trivia/a trivia section, not that they - any of it - are prima facie welcome or defensible; and, second, the OR reference evidently refers to the 2nd item, which is an editors interpretation (using the term and concept of "foreshadowing") of plot developments, which by definition is OR.2601:196:180:8D80:2D02:FF88:3842:FB74 (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Speakeasy

I am about to change the word "speakeasy" to in the section The Set-Up to "tavern". "Speakeasy" usually refers to an illegal tavern operating during prohibition. The Wikipedia article (although clearly in need of work) describes it this way. In 1936, prohibition was long gone. Although one may argue that the term could still be applied to an unlicensed establishment operating after the end of prohibition, there is no clear indication in the film that this description applies to the business depicted. It is unambiguously a tavern, but only possibly (probably not) a speakeasy.

Comments please. Steven J. Anderson 00:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Speakeasy is still used today to refer to an illegal drinking establishment. "Blind Pig" is the only term I'm aware of that is no longer in use for such establishments, although that might be a west coast term. bobanny 06:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes in plot summary

Reference is made that not having previously met Hooker, Lonnegan is unaware "at first" that Hooker and Kelly are the same person. In fact, Lonnegan is NEVER aware they are the same person, first or later. I removed that phrase.

Also, Hooker and Gondorff are described as exiting the alley way "with the large sum of money left by Lonnegan." In the film, Gondorff asks Hooker if he's not going to stick around for his "share," to which Hooker replies, "Nah, I'd only blow it." I took this to mean that the two con artists, in leaving together, plan to start from scratch, leaving the loot for the remainder of the company. Correct me if I'm wrong here. ElizabethD22 03:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

We just cannot tell. The ending is left completely open. Gondorff may come back for his share or have Billie pick it up for him. Or he may just ignore it since he had more than monetary reasons for joining the caper. Hooker in the only one that states he won't pick up his share.--J-Star 07:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Somebody (Gondorff?) says that they should meet at Duke's at some later point to get paid.Gusssss (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Gondorff instructs his minions to "take this place apart fast" and that they'll meet later to divide their winnings. He then leaves with Hooker, who says he's not going to take his share of the winnings, as he would only spend it all foolishly. That way they can "walk off into the sunset" (or at least the iris-out) together. Regarding the earlier comment, no, Lonnegan never becomes aware that Hooker and Kelly are the same guy. He has his assassins looking for Hooker, but obviously Lonnegan never sees a picture of Hooker, or he would have put 2 and 2 together quickly, and Hooker would have been dead meat along with everyone else playing the con. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

None of you guys noticed that each one was carrying a large suitcase as they walked away ? A suitcase large enough for all the cash ? Given the way the rest of the movie went, I think we were intended to wonder who got what in the end :-) 210.22.142.82 (talk) 05:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stingredfordnewman.jpg

Image:Stingredfordnewman.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hooker

It's a little known fact that "Hooker" was also an alias. His "natural" name was Roy Hobbs, and after this sting, he resumed his former career, as a baseball player and led the New York Knights to a pennant. You could look it up! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

6 parts

The current plot sum up shows 4 parts whereas I'm currently watching the movie, part 4: The Wire, which plot is roughly the second half of current summed up part 3: (maybe that is because of some version cuts, although I strongly doubt it..)

Also, I believe it is inappropriate to express the part number (part 1 ,part 2, part 3...) as they are not displayed in the movie. Staarkali (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have watched it all and there is definitively 6 parts (with The Shut-Outas part 5). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staarkali (talk • contribs) 14:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Listing the specific minutes, while interesting, might get challenged on the grounds of "original research". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The plot summary is way too long. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Production

The production section is pathetic. Surely, something has been written about the making of this important film, yes? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hickey is a con man

Regarding recent changes to the plot section by Ferrierd, there is no reason to change the wording to reveal that FBI agent Polk is actually a con man named Hickey. This is revealed at the end of the plot summary, just as it is in the film. We need not make a point of saying "He's a con man" when describing Hooker's first meeting with Polk. That just seems silly and unnecessary. Anyone have any thoughts on this? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

David F (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC) - Characterizing someone's contributions to Wikipedia as "silly and unnecessary" is silly and unnecessary, and it is unhelpful to assert there is "no reason" to change the wording of a Wikipedia article.

David F (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Added Dramatic Irony subsection

No, that was not appropriate. The plot summary says what happened in the film, without drawing particular attention to one aspect or another, and certainly without offering commentary on said events. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

David F (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC) Why "not appropriate"? Dramatic Irony lists numerous Wiki plot summaries that contain similar "commentary on events".

That is irrelevant. The plot tells what happened in the film, in the order that it happened, period. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Creating a separate section is overkill of the obvious. Keeping it within the Plot section is quite sufficient. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Parodied in Community Season 6 episode

possibly add to Popular References section? Barry.carter (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Has a source made mention of it? DonIago (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

edit war ! yay !

Look. If people disagree with removal of a trivia section, fine. BUT READ THE DAMNED REASON FIRST !

Un-removing a removal just because you feel someone was "rude" is not intelligent. And the first reversion of my removal was ignorant. The editor DID NOT EVEN LOOK at the cause. He just claimed there was "no explanation" (which was untrue) and put the section back, without even bothering to find out why. Or think about "was this edit positive or negative ?"

If this is all going to be a club for stupid little yuppies to pat each other on the back about, then the whole place is useless.

Twelve year olds should not be allowed to edit wikipedia :( 116.231.75.71 (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

How about providing the reason here? It is not apparent from the page history. Travelbird (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

They did. It is big as day at the page history: Revision as of 03:44, 3 March 2018 116.231.75.71 (talk)

→‎Production: Pointless and stupid, adds nothing to the article, every story on the planet resembles another story, humanity has had writing for 6,000 years, we've already done every story there is.

2601:196:180:8D80:2D02:FF88:3842:FB74 (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Maurer mention in intro

I see that in the intro, it is asserted that the film was inspired by Maurer's book (and the specific historical figures he wrote about). There's no citation for this; and later on in the article, it is explained that, according to the screenplay author (even subsequent to Universal's settlement with Maurer), Maurer's plagiarism claims were unfounded. It isn't clear from the article that Maurer's influence on the book was necessarily of primary importance, even in a nonplagiaristic way. Is there indisputable evidence that it was? If there is no indisputable evidence that the screenplay was inspired by Maurer's book (and his specific subject matter) in particular, perhaps the assertion in the intro should be removed. Jcejhay (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Faked shooting deaths and Butch Cassidy ending

Was the trick ending in The Sting, where the original audience would briefly believe both protagonists to have perished amid gunfire, deliberately conceived as an "Oh no, not again!" moment for audiences who remembered the ending of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid--with the happy ending then unveiled so as to "make up for" the sad ending of the earlier film? I imagine it had this effect, and it's hard to imagine it wasn't intentional. If anyone has evidence of this phenomenon among audiences, or its intentional staging with that in mind, perhaps it deserves mention. Jcejhay (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

That seems like speculation and has no place in the article. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Certainly, if it can't be documented it naturally has no place. I just thought maybe someone who's more of a cinema scholar than I am (or more of an expert on The Sting in particular) might have a lead to a director interview or film-studies source that documented it. Jcejhay (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Coming back to this a couple of years later, I've found a source that supports the point--but I'm not sure the source is up to Wikipedia standards. Details below. Any opinions as to whether this source is reputable enough for our purposes? To be clear, it's not the content I'm questioning now, but the source qua source.

"And audiences in 1973 would have been especially uncertain of this ending, since George Roy Hill had just made Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid in 1969 with actors Paul Newman and Robert Redford and—huge spoiler alert—Butch Cassidy ends with the likely deaths of both men. It's safe to say that an early '70s movie-goer would have anticipated the worst and then been overjoyed when Johnny's eyes pop open in the end and they realized that the whole thing was just part of the plan." https://www.shmoop.com/study-guides/movie/the-sting/analysis Jcejhay (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Joplin's music in The Public Enemy

I wouldn't go so far as to say Joplin's music is "featured" in The Public Enemy. There's just one scene where an unseen pianist very slowly plays his or her way through Maple Leaf Rag, very much as one would do while still learning to play it. Pithecanthropus4152 (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Anachronism

"The film is noted for its anachronistic use of ragtime, particularly the melody "The Entertainer" by Scott Joplin"

No. Joplin died in 1917, this film is set in 1936, so it's not an anachronism. See anachronism. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

It is, a subset of anachronism detailed at that article, parachronism. 2601:196:180:8D80:2D02:FF88:3842:FB74 (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Performance of "The Entertainer" on Billboard 200 and Kent Music Report

A music expert has informed me that your information about the performance of "The Entertainer" by Marvin Hamslisch on the Top Forty charts may be wrong. "The Entertainer" went to #3 on Billboard. Your information about "The Entertainer" reaching #1 on the Australian Kent Report may be wrong also. Eligius (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT? Though, do you have a reliable source that can be used to correct the information? DonIago (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)