Talk:After Hours (film)

Plot Outline Needs Work

The plot outline needs a lot of work. The last paragraph is poorly written, and it's missing the last 1/3 to 1/2 of the film. I have corrected a character error in the last paragraph: The bartender was "Thomas 'Tom' Schorr", performed by John Heard. There is a lot more work needed than I am willing to commit to, however. Good luck! --beeboo 07:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Plot summary

I've removed the plot summary. It was assembled by one single editor in a number of edits during early 2006, and at 2,000 words constituted an almost blow-by-blow account of the film's plot. I suggest that, rather than try to edit that down to something useful, it would be better to start again, and provide a brief, encyclopedic summary of the plot. --Tony Sidaway 19:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Depois-de-horas-poster01.jpg

Image:Depois-de-horas-poster01.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) 21:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Two things

1) This phrase: "A mob of homosexuals"... what is this 1950?

2) "giving it a happy ending" Well, he wasn't torn limb from limb by the mob, but I didn't think that ending was particularly happy. That was what I would call an ambiguous ending.

74.232.105.162 (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It was made and set in the 1980s. Not sure what relevence this has to the mob of homosexuals, and why you changed it (incorrectly) to "punk rockers". 109.176.209.128 (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Two of the guys in Tom's apartment building who accused Paul of being the burglar did look like homosexuals (i.e., the guy in the sleeveless shirt, and the other one with the mustache in plaid), but I agree if whoever added this calls them all "a mob of homosexuals" based on that, they're being an idiot. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Error in Plot Summary

"When he returns the sculpture to the apartment, he finds Marcy has committed suicide while Kiki and a stout man named Horst (Will Patton) have already left to go to Club Berlin, a nightclub." This is incorrect. When Paul returns the sculpture to the apartment, Kiki and Horst have NOT left yet. The only reason Paul gets into the apartment is because Kiki throws down the keys with her mouth (she is tied up). He gets into the apartment to find Kiki and Horst role playing/in bondage.--Tabbboooo (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Tim Burton

Is there actually any source for Tim Burton bit? Did he actually was about to direct this film? 13:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Oliwia Rogala (talk)Oliwia Rogala

The issue has also been raised in the Tim Burton Talk section. LaraGiux (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Bollywood reference

Could not find a single thing about Bollywood reference, does anyone have any source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliwia Rogala (talk • contribs) 13:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Oliwia Rogala (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Oliwia Rogala

Surrender Dorothy

In the production section of the article it says "The original title of the circulating screenplay that was read by Scorsese and the producers was Surrender Dorothy". The reference provided does not actually cite Surrender Dorothy, instead it refers to a previous sentence. The names I found for the original script are "Lies" and "Night in Soho". LaraGiux (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Good detective work. You should change the article to reflect that. Don't forget to cite your sources when you do so. I did a quick look through a few Google searches, and I didn't find anything about "surrender Dorothy" other than quotations. It was added in this diff and did not cite any sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Although I could not find any evidence of the "Surrender Dorothy" screenplay original name, I did come across an interesting sentence in "The Cinema Of Martin Scorsese" about why this could have been the name. "Surrender Dorothy the orgasmic cry of Marcy's sometime husband prefigures Paul's change from hunting to hunted and his consequent obsession with going home. By invoking The Wizard of Oz, that quinsistentially American statement that there is no place like home, the cry may echo Paul's subcontious wish to return uptown even before downtown became threatnening." Although so far I havent yet found any evidence to back my statement up, I do believe somewhere in my readings I came across that that was believed to be the first title of the screenplay (which afterwards evolved into Lies and other titles...). I believe I read somewhere that it was thought to be a good idea because just like Dorothy wanted to go home, so does Paul, hence the appropriate and funny name. Anyone have any clues on this? I am continuing my search! Aya9896 (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarism and law suit claims

Claims about alleged plagiarism and subsequent law suit, in both Joseph Minion and here, based on: one blog entry by Andrew Hearst, who says this in intro:"(t)he bare details have been mentioned online, but only in passing, and as far as I know the scandal has never been officially reported anywhere.", whose claim is recycled by another blog used here and/or in our film's article, then Gawker unsigned short entry based on these hearsay blog claims and on our article (!?), further on Salon article which says nothing about the claims, and book refed as page=151-154, which only points to a chapter titled Joseph Minion, without specific page where the claims are suppose to be affirmed. These edits are in clear violation of our guidelines on WP:BLP in Minion's, and in clear violation of WP:RS (and in relation, of WP:OR) here - read it now, and don't revert unless you can find WP:RS.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Joe Frank said he was not consulted before the film was made[1]. I've added a quote. - Palpable (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)