Talk:Ransom (1996 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plot summary too long[edit]

I added the 'plot summary' template because the current version [1] is way too long and detailed. Anchoress 18:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:RansomPoster.jpg[edit]

Image:RansomPoster.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) 03:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voice identification?[edit]

It’s a long time since I saw the movie, so I don’t know the answer, but there seems to be ambiguity in what is reported hear. The plot synopsis goes to some length to explain that the kidnap gang, especially Shaker took pains to disguise their voices or to use music to drown them out, so that the son will not be able to identify them. Yet it goes on to say that the son *does* identify Shaker by just his voice, but gives no explanation of how or when he heard Shaker speak in his on voice. I remember that that is indeed the point upon which the plot turns, but can’t recall the circumstances which made it possible. Jock123 (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brawley Nolte or Nick Nolte[edit]

It says Sean is playede by Brawley Nolte but the link is to Nick Nolte

Which is right?

85.83.42.75 (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Nolte's a bit old to have played Mel Gibson's son. :) According to Nick Nolte, Brawley is his son...but having Brawley Nolte simply redirect to Nick Nolte is obviously confusing and unhelpful. I'm not sure whether Brawley should be a redlink or whether there's a more appropriate procedure in this case, so I've delinked Brawley here but am leaving the redirect intact. I've also started a discussion at WT:FILM. Doniago (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per the WT:FILM discussion I've redirected Brawley Nolte to Nick Nolte#Personal life and consequently relinked Brawley here. I don't think it's an ideal solution, but it's at least less confusing, hopefully. Doniago (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full character names on plot summary of that movie[edit]

Full names and occupations should be on the plot summary of that movie, like the villains in that movies that TheOldJacobite keeps on deleting. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battleship asked for my opinion on this. I haven't seen the movie itself, but per WP:FILMPLOT if the full names and occupations are relevant to the plot then they likely should be included. The reverse also applies. DonIago (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not required.
The cast list (generally the following section) shows the reader more clearly than within the summary.
Reading the plot summary is fragmented when the actors' names are included.
To duplicate them in "Plot" actually makes "Cast" redundant.
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 09:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gareth, FWIW I believe the question was regarding the characters' full names, not the actors. DonIago (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The plot summary is already too long and needs to be trimmed, so the last thing we need is to add more unnecessary and irrelevant details. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@ DonIago, Thank you. Why on earth would that be required?
@ The Old Jacobite, Correct. Further detail such as their full names and their occupations is to be avoided at all costs.
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 16:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tell you something. The full characters and occupation in plot sections should be required because it helps readers understand them and it should've have to redundant. The plot summary in many sites, not just IMDb, have full names of the characters and Wikipedia should require to have full character names and occupation, no matter the word character size. There are already a lot of film articles that have plot summaries with full character names and occupations, which should be required, regardless of word size. The removal of that should be required, no matter how many editors, including TheOldJacobite, see that is redundant and providing extra information. We should add full character names and occupations, no matter if whatever film articles have cast sections on there. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FILMPLOT is pretty clear that non-essential details shouldn't be included, especially if they don't improve a reader's understanding of the film. In many cases a character's occupation is somehow pertinent, but I'm not really seeing it here. If you feel these details should be included in all cases, I believe you should start a discussion at the policy's Talk page and recommend that it be revised. DonIago (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ransom (1996 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ransom_(1996_film)&oldid=1209966759"