Talk:Three Days of the Condor

Six Days of the Condor redirect

"Six days of the condor" redirects to "three days of the condor" with no mention of the book?

Someone has since begun an article on the book. MI6agent 22:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Copy edited the article and removed all trivia. When I first started editing articles I too included trivia, but now I realize how off-base I was. An enclopedia does not include trivia in articles. See: Britannica or World Ency. Luigibob 06:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

looking for evidence of sept 11-13

heard rumor.. that they're the 3 days Christ was believed to have been born at some time or another. 'Jack' refers to it, yet doesn't explain it. any help would be much appreciated. yeshfriends@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.99.136 (talk) 08:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

no frogman !

• The bright told story [ a plot implies shortness ] is filled up with remarkble fancies.

"Turner escapes..." with a magazine in his left hand. -and the latest scence wasn't visible either. Santa Claus has been cut off! May be Samatha Simpson has seen him. The thesis from Beaudrialled isn't connected to CONDOR, it#s real written bullshit! and no critics. Somebody who is reading books isn#t enough to legitimate such a zitat. Because the storylining of the Pollack film has been done well. There is lining in and no fragmentaric interpretation.Butler waits!--Danaide (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There should be a sequel

This is one of my favorite movies ... I would love a sequel ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.195.24 (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Copying Text

So, this article says:

The movie is a suspense drama set in contemporary New York City, and is considered an exposition of the moral ambiguity of the actions of the United States government following the Vietnam War and Watergate.

The article on the book says:

The story is a suspense drama set in contemporary Washington, D.C., and is considered an exposition of the moral ambiguity of the actions of the United States government following the Vietnam War and Watergate.

This kind of thing happens on wikipedia a lot, and it is deeply lame. I hate following a link to find that the subject I'm interested in learning more about in the new article is treated not only at the same level of detail, but with the exact same words as in the other article. I don't have any real suggestion for improvement, but this is annoying. john k (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently somebody's misguided idea of dealing with this is to delete the entire plot summary except for the first paragraph! First of all, this leaves a fragment of the summary that doesn't make any sense. Second, as far as I'm aware Wikipedia has no policy against overlapping content. If you believe that the summary is too long and detailed (as the pre edit tag suggested) then edit it down to something you consider more appropriate, but that still contains a complete and coherent summary. Simply deleting 90% of the section and leaving the introductory paragraph is really just vandalism. Lexington50 (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It hardly seems like a scene-by-scene summary of a movie is anything worthy of an encyclopedic entry, and not sure how this is value-added content. But if that's what you want, you've got it. Areback (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

World Trade Center as a prop

Is this the first movie to use the newly-constructed World Trade Center as a prop? Also, the scene where Faye Dunaway's character is in Cliff Robertson's character's office, the camera shot across his desk and out the window shows Brooklyn down below. It looks to me that they are actually filming in an office of the World Trade Center. Dli04b (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about when she is in Robertson's office, but while Turner is waiting during that, he is definitely in the WTC. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Names and addresses of places listed under Filming locations

Shouldn't there be consistency in whether the contemporary name or the current name of a place is used? For example, Reagan National Airport is listed but The New York Times Company has moved from the address shown. There's also the matter of 1 WTC and 7 WTC being destroyed and new buildings erected with those addresses. I say that using current names and including notes explaining changes is not preferable to just using contemporary names and addresses. --anon. 71.183.139.60 (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Set locations

See WP:NOTSTATSBOOK which, I assert, does apply. A complete listing of sets/locations is utterly trivial: there is no reason why these tidbits ought to be included. A couple of them might be made relevant (like the NYT article), but this list itself is ridiculous. In addition, this is simply not a reliable source, and that the DVD booklet has the information doesn't mean that therefore it is relevant to an article on the film. Drmies (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you normally ignore WP:BRD in your interactions with other editors? You know, where one editor makes a bold edit, another reverts, and then they discuss. In your original edit summary you cited WP:NOTSTATSBOOK as justification for deleting most of the filming locations section. I reviewed that guidance, and it clearly does not apply to a list of film locations for a movie notable for its use of New York film locations. Now you've added to your deletion justification that the content "lacks reliable/secondary sourcing"—referring to a website dedicated to New York film locations and the film's director commenting extensively on those locations—while leaving those very sources in place in your edit. Obviously, the identification of film locations is not the most important component of a good film article, but where, when, and how a movie was filmed should be included, especially if the locations played a prominant visual role in the film. Including locations in film articles is fairly common practice, as you can see in Casino Royale, Pride & Prejudice, Transformers, Sense and Sensibility, American Beauty, etc. While I recognize that the presentation and format of the locations in this article could be presented differently within the context of appropriate commentary, there is no reason to delete it simply because the section is not fully developed, or because you find it "utterly trivial". I don't find it trivial. We disagree. WP:BRD is a method for reaching consensus when two editors disagree, right? Let others editors comment, and perhaps another approach will be identified that will improve the section and the article. That should be the goal, after all—to improve the article for readers. Bede735 (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for linking those sections: they are well-written (they are prose) and well-referenced, and each location mentioned has a particular relevance, as indicated by the reliable secondary sourcing. Yes, that is how things should be done. What we have in this article is nothing but a list of locations, lacking all the things that make the examples you linked relevant ("prominent role" can easily be argued for some of the locations in our article, and you'll note that I left some for which such an argument can be made if the sourcing is available). What those articles have are not STATS. It's not just some inappropriate presentation--it's that there is nothing to present but bare facts that in themselves appear to have no relevance at all, and how that services the reader, I couldn't tell. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Serious plot hole worth mentioning in the article?

Although I admire this movie very much, it always struck me that there is a major plot hole in it. When Higgins is briefing the CIA brass about the incident at the hotel alley where Turner is supposed to be brought in, he relates that Wicks made just one statement before being taken into the operating room: “Condor shot us both [Turner’s friend Barber and himself]” which they seem to accept at face value. In acrtuality, Wicks is shot by Turner with a .45 while Barber is shot by Wicks with his own gun. It’s going to shortly be obvious that Wicks lied when they do the ballistics test on Wicks’s gun and recover the bullets from Barber’s body and from Wicks. Yet, throughout most of the movie it seems they still suspect Turner as some sort of rogue agent. Can this be mentioned in the article? It seems a glaring plot hole. (Someone please correct me if I missed something, though I’ve seen the movie several times.)HistoryBuff14 (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

It's only a plothole if you think Higgins (or Atwood) has no control over how the final ballistics test will look like, who will receive it, etc. For example, the police may be telling the press for the 6 o'clock news that it was a harmless shooting between insurance agents, and the CIA (or the "CIA within the CIA") may immediately seize the case after that to be doing all those tests on their own. --2003:EF:13C1:6892:207A:662C:C71F:E84D (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. It’s a worse error on my part than that, I’m afraid. In fact, I was just about going to take the note down until you answered. I don’t feel right about deleting someone else’s input, and I can’t take mine down without yours as well.

I saw the movie again and Wicks, while preparing for the rendezvous with Turner, asks for a .45 from the agent in charge of armaments. He presumably did so deliberately as he knew he was going to kill Barber as well as Turner and Turner had told “the major” that he had his coworker’s .45 pistol. Since both Turner’s gun and his were the same caliber, this eliminates or at least mitigates my point. I know little about guns, so I ask: are all bullets of the same caliber identical? Can a ballistics test tell that a bullet came from a particular gun? If so, then I guess my point was still valid to some extent. Also if so, I guess Wicks, since he obviously didn’t know he was going to be shot himself, of course, figured there wouldn’t be a ballistic test after he told the CIA brass that Turner had shot Barber, possibly missing himself (Wicks).

Still, this was careless of me. Thanks again for your much appreciated input. By the way, your point would be stronger if you eliminate Higgins as being able to control the results of the ballistics test, while leaving Atwood in place. The former wasn't in on the “CIA within the CIA” plot; the latter was the head of it. Atwood would have had to hide the real results from Higgins or Higgins would have gone straight to the director. When the truth finally did come out, you know what happened to Atwood.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)