Talk:Reservoir Dogs

Reservoir Dogs has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 9, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
May 5, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Film: Core / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is on the project's core list.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
	This article has an archived peer review.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Organized crime Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Organized crime task force (assessed as Low-importance).

California: Los Angeles / Southern California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as High-importance).

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

References to use[edit]

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

Harris, Adriene (2001). "Ah doctor, is there nothin' I can take? A Review of Reservoir Dogs". In Gabbard, Glen O (ed.). Psychoanalysis and Film. International Journal of Psychoanalysis Key Paper Series. Karnac Books. ISBN 1855752751.

Cleanup[edit]

The introduction to this article is far too long and definetly needs to be shortened. Your thoughts?

Removing the paragraph about Keitel's involvement as a producer and perhaps moving it down to the Trivia section would be my first recommendation. Of course, that would also entail re-naming the Trivia section once again... Keiran Horn 21:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that the "spoilers start here" is missing.

The Characters Fates section[edit]

Should this section be put in a wikitable?

Is the section even necessary? Keiran Horn 07:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Pink (POSSIBLE SPOILER)[edit]

I think it's intentionally left open as to whether he survives. In the final 3 minutes of the film, just before the police burst in on White and Orange, you hear a lot of yelling and some (possible) gunshots. I always intepret that as Mr. Pink being killed by the police task force just outside the warehouse.

I agree. After the shooting, Pink goes out the door. White then slowly creeps over to Orange, and we hear sirens all the time, suggesting that the police are still arriving. That'd give Pink time to get away. --Spug 00:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree, but I'm not brave enough to change the article just yet. According to the IMDb trivia page for this movie, Quentin Tarantino himself has said that Mr. Pink does survive. I know that the IMDb isn't always reliable, but when I watched the ending, I though that I could definitely hear the sound of Mr. Pink surrendering and being arrested. Cswrye 20:38, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

If the audio track of this scene is fiddled with, Mr Pink does say "I give up" after the shots have been fired by the police. Look at the "What happened to Mr. Pink?" link. JustADuck 02:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I concur... I've listened to the audio of that scene several times and Mr. Pink's voice can definitely be heard saying something to the effect of "I give up" after the shots have been fire. BinaryTed 16:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the audio might be tricky but i have found the script on the internet a this adress: http://www.godamongdirectors.com/scripts/reservoir.shtml and it clearly states that Mr.Pink surrenders before the cops start shooting him

I am not a user - 22:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I posted this before, but it got deleted, so here it is again:

One of the posters for the film bears the tagline: "One of these men is a cop. And by the end, all but one will be dead."

So, bearing this in mind, we begin the process of elimiantion for the survivor: Mr. Blue; dies during heist, exact cause unknown(thought it may've been elaborated upon in the game) Mr. Brown; shot in the head, dies(most likely from blood loss) after he crashes the get away car Mr. Blonde; Orange empties an entire clip of ammo into him Marvin Nash; shot by Joe Joe; shot by White Mr. White; shot by Nice Guy Eddie Nice Guy Eddie; shot, but it is not really known who by(however, we all know that Penn's squib and blood pack blew up early)

With that coupled with the evidence that BinaryTed posted, we can logically deduce that Pink lives.Pinkfloydfan 20:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this film called Reservoir Dogs?[edit]

I remember there being a line about dogs, but where does the reservoir come from?

This question is answered directly in the article, just above the table of contents. - Corix 22:05, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It appears to have been removed. - AWF

Hmmm. The whole au revoir/straw dogs thing sounds fishy to me. I distinctly remember back when this film came out reading an interview with QT (can't remember where) in which he explained the title: He said that near where he grew up there was a disused/dried up reservoir which was home to a motley pack of stray dogs. As a kid Tarantino used to watch these mean scrappy mean-looking animals hanging out and interacting, foraging, etc - the behaviour of the group of dogs included frequent snarling standoffs and occasional outbursts of violence, sometimes ending with one of the dogs dead at the hands (paws?) of the others. In the interview QT said that when writing the script the group dynamics of the characters reminded him of the pack of dogs he saw as a kid. Made sense to me.SidneyStratton 04:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the reference until a justified answer can be found.Keiran Horn 07:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added to the article that the origin and meaning of the film title is unclear. Maikel 13:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the article states that "The title "reservoir dogs" was inspired by a customer at the Video Archives, who mispronounced Louis Malle's 1987 film Au revoir les enfants" However Dale Sherman in his book "Quentin Tarantino FAQ: Everything Left to Know About the Original Reservoir Dogs (2015)" proves the inspiration to be inaccurate as the Louis Malle film was not available when Tarantino allegedly told it happened. Should we just erase the current sentence completely? Nitsugagmx (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Until a decision is made about the proper way to phrase it, I will edit out the current wording in the article. Any suggestion here would be appreciated. Nitsugagmx (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

original research[edit]

The Analysis section seems to me to be unencyclopedic and in violation of wikipedia's no original research policy. I'd argue it should be removed, maybe with an external link or two in its place (ie source-based research). As it stands, it's mostly one person's interpretation of the film. --Misterwindupbird 18:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody leapt to the defence of the section, I've moved it here. Go ahead and revert if you disagree, but please justify it in terms of the no original research policy. --Misterwindupbird 18:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis[edit]

As is stated above, the jewel heist itself is not shown; the majority of the film's conflict takes place between the criminals themselves as they attempt to sort out the events of the day, while the tension among them mounts. The jewel heist can be considered a McGuffin. The narration makes extensive use of flashbacks. For instance, at one point, the identity of the undercover cop, or "the rat" as the robbers put it, is revealed to the audience but not the protagonists.

The film quickly gained notoriety for the amount of profanity in the dialogue, and for the level of violence it contained. However, Tarantino has pointed out that there are actually very few scenes of overt violence shown: for instance, in the infamous "ear torture" scene, the camera focuses away from the actors at the critical point (instead scanning a wall on which the words "Watch Your Head" have been spray-painted).

By the standard of mainstream Hollywood action movies, the body count is quite low: there are 11 fatal shootings in the film. What is perhaps unusual about the violence in the film is the combination of gritty (and gory) realism with quirky touches, such as 1970s pop music, not least during the ear-slicing scene. The film takes place during K-Billy's "Super Sounds of the '70s" week-end radio marathon. Reservoir Dogs has been praised for its extremely creative usage of this during the story telling, using popular but completely context-inappropriate songs such as "Little Green Bag", "Stuck in the Middle With You" and "Coconut" during scenes where they should never have fit, and yet somehow manage to perfectly.

The film is a reversal of the traditional whodunit; instead of focusing on the police trying to figure out who committed a crime, it focuses on criminals who are trying to identify the police informer among them.

Although all of the men are career criminals, each has his own separate set of ethics. We see them debate the importance of tipping waitresses and avoiding civilian casualties, the morality of indiscriminate sex, as well as the ethics of life-and-death situations.

Characters die because they are loyal: either to a friend (White dies because he feels responsible for Orange), to the Cabot gang (Blonde dies because he is about to kill the cop who could have implicated them all if allowed to live, Eddie dies defending his father), or to the police (Orange dies because he refuses to call in assistance for his injuries, placing his orders to get Joe Cabot foremost). Mr. Pink, who believes that loyalty is a liability and that "taking sides" is unprofessional and childish, is the only character that could have possibly survived. However, he does get shot and arrested by the Police just before they burst into the warehouse. This can be heard in the background during the scene of Mr. Orange's confession to Mr. White, although the dialogue between Mr. Pink and the police is very quiet and gets drowned out in places. A full transcript of this off-screen activity can be found here: What Happened To Mr. Pink

Why is this article so painful to read?[edit]

Ie: what's witht he "Flashback:"s every line?

Also, is it really useful to have such a huge plot summary? The thing is about 7 screen long. At this point, it's no longer a summary, it is the plot. --Misterwindupbird 18:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed regarding the excessive synopsis here. I know that people will scream bloody murder if we take information out of an article, but this seems unencyclopedic--what other movie or book around here has this much plot summary dedicated to it? SS451 07:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they should.

"It is often informative to include plot summaries (and other spoilers) in articles on works of fiction. However, please keep them reasonably short, as the point of Wikipedia is to describe the works, not simply summarize them. It is generally appropriate for a plot summary to remain part of the main article, not a lengthy page of its own." - Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Fiction in Wikipedia. -- Jeandré, 2006-02-06t20:12z

I completely re-wrote the plot summary, significantly condensing it and adhering the style to Wikipedia standard. Keiran Horn 22:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Painful" is a very POV word, you should use a different one next time. 98.238.188.211 (talk) 05:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are far too many lines with "it is revealed" (many of which were contractions, that I have since edited). Maybe someone feels like giving this the once over and improving the style a little bit? Steevm 23:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still way too long. Irrelevant minor details such as the fact that a character is drinking a soda do not belong in a plot summary. — Paul G 11:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, and "The officer begs him to call in the force in light of both men's serious injuries, but Mr. Orange refuses to call anyone in until Joe arrives." is wrong. Mr Orange does not have any way to call the cops, they are waiting to see Joe coming in.82.230.65.68 13:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, and wrong. Technically, Mr. Orange never says he has no way to call the police (though it's quite obvious that that is the case). What Mr. Orange does say, is that he won't call in the cops until Joe arrives- the fact that Mr. Orange is in fact not able to call them is irrelevant. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 16:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background radio play[edit]

Someone should explain what the "background radio play" is. Is there a transcript available? Where does it appear in the film? AaronSw 02:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Guy Eddie[edit]

"Tarantino (who had been working as a video store clerk in Los Angeles) was originally going to shoot it with his friends on a budget of $30,000 on 16mm with producer Lawrence Bender playing Nice Guy Eddie." Makes perfect sense to me. Then Keitel put up the money and they were able to hire Chris Penn (R.I.P.) to play the role. No?

I'm sorry. I misread the sentence. I suppose it's correct. Tskoge 01:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

: I was confused by it too. Perhaps it would better read:

At the time, Tarantino had been working as a video store clerk in Los Angeles. He planned to shoot Reservoir Dogs with his friends on a budget of $30,000 on 16mm, having the film's producer Lawrence Bender playing Nice Guy Eddie.

Dead as Dillinger[edit]

joe says this about one of the other characters...mr blue i believe. i think that should go under misc facts seeing as lawrence tierney played dillinger, if somebody can confirm which character it is -Lordraydens 06:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Joe says it about Mr. Blue, right before the shootout.2600:6C50:800:2787:8CBE:D8EE:1A53:3C35 (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's true.

Is it really a mexican standoff?[edit]

There are three men yes, but two are pointing at one. I think in order for it to be a mexican standoff it would have to be eqaul.

So you're saying that it would be a Mexican standoff if it were A>B>C>A? --Averross 16:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, the Mexican Standoff just says that it's when none of the participants can ensure victory, although there are two of them pointing at one they cannot assure victory. 79.68.170.210 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Actually, two weren't pointing at one. Notice Eddie is pointing his gun at Mr. White, Mr. White is pointing his gun at Joe, and Joe is pointing his gun at Mr. Orange, even after the shooting if you watch the movie over again you can tell Mr. Orange has a bullet in his chest. Because that's where Joe shot him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.134.11 (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know "Mexican standoff" or not, but I just watched it several times, including several in slow motion, and first of all, two are not pointing at one. Joe is pointing at Orange; White is pointing at Joe; Joe's son is pointing at White. In slow motion, you can see the shots (smoke columns) and they're in sequence. They're arguing and threatening, the son says something to the effect that "I'll blow your head off if you don't stop pointing that gun at my dad", and 1) Joe shoots Orange 2) White shoots Joe 3)Joe's son shoots White 4)White shoots Joe's son. Joe's mistake was shooting Orange, who was unarmed, first; he should have shot White first and either he, his son or both might have gotten out alive.2600:6C50:800:2787:8CBE:D8EE:1A53:3C35 (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Joe's son says "Larry, stop pointing that fucking gun at my dad", then it's like I said, except it looks like the son and White each get off one more shot after all that, before they all fall down.2600:6C50:800:2787:8CBE:D8EE:1A53:3C35 (talk) 05:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redundent?[edit]

If the article on Vic Vega is redundent then the article on Vincent is redundent as well. I'm going to ask user:Rklawton not to leave me messages charging me with vandalism. It is nothing of the sort. The fact that Wikipedia allows an article on Vincent is proof enough! --SacredVisions 00:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New cleanup tag[edit]

Someone sure loves going into excruciating plot detail on Tarantino articles. Most of the plot section should be removed, it's practically screenplay-length. Chris Cunningham 15:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't getting any better. I'm planning on axing a lot of this. Chris Cunningham 13:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still getting no better. Bah. Chris Cunningham 09:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names[edit]

In the trivia section - where did the real names for Misters Pink, Blue, Brown come from? They certainly don't appear in the film. 96T 16:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They have none. Billy Bishop 02:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be cleaned up -- names should consistently be the character's color names and perhaps the actors name to identify the characters in the beginning of the article. Couple more unidentified names in there (Hardaway for one) that are not referenced anywhere else in the article. Larsplaysthefish 23:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flashbacks[edit]

I saw an interview with QT (either on the resevoir dogs or pulp fiction dvd) where he said that he hates the term 'flashback' being used of his work. The scenes dubbed as 'flashbacks' in this article are more of an example of a broken narrative; Tarantino used the example where if you're reading a novel and a chapter suddenly starts telling of events twenty years in the past, that isnt a flashback, it's just the authors choice of when to relate these particular events. Althopugh the scenes in resevoir dogs are more easy to dub 'flashbacks' than - say - the broken narrrative in Pulp Fiction or Kill Bill, the point remains that they arent, and shouldnt be named as such. Maybe change? Just a thought.

Can you find out which DVD it was on? Dac 23:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not on Reservoir Dogs. Billy Bishop 02:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack[edit]

There is much mention of individual songs used throught the movie, but I feel that a section the detailing released soundtrack should be included, possibly with reference to the Steven Wright KBILLY Super Sounds of the 70's tracks. I believe additional songs that are not included are also mentioned within these tracks. (I would include it, but I unfortunately do not have the soundtrack.)--RedKnight 15:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the 15th anniversary DVD, not a single track is included with the K-Billy feature, but they do have him introducing different tracks and including humourous dialog. Billy Bishop 02:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Influence on Indian cinema?[edit]

One movie borrowing the plot of another isn't an influence on Indian cinema as a whole. I'd want a source for that statement, otherwise it should be changed to simply say that Kaante borrows this movie's plot. CarrerCrytharis 09:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infamous?[edit]

Is the ear cutting seen really infamouss? I'd call it famous, influencial, or controversial

It caused a lot of controversy at the time it was released. I'd say controversy is often synonomous with infamy. I'm sure there must be a lot of information out there regarding the controversy surrounding this movie, I was surprised to see none of it mentioned in the article. I know the BBFC considered it to be problematic, although they passed it uncut.

Marcellus Wallace[edit]

Hi, I think I've found another reference to Pulp Fiction. While Mr. Orange is telling the "Toilet-Story" to the other guys in the pub, you see a coloured, bald man, back to the camera. He doesn't have a patch on his neck, but it does remind me A LOT to the Pulp fiction scene, where Marcellus Wallace talks to the boxer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.168.188.121 (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Reservoir Dogs was made before Pulp Fiction. Wikipedia isn't really the place for that kind of thing anyway.

Also, I've re-watched that scene after reading this post, and nowhere in it does anything remotely similar to what you're saying happened, happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.232.235 (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dimmick or Dimick?[edit]

I have changed all of the spellings of Dimmick in reference to Mr. White to Dimick because it is spelled out and written in one of the deleted scenes. Yet in a shoddily produced profiles section on the 15th anniversary DVD, they spell it Dimmick. I would personally sway towards the deleted scene because of the multiple references to the spelling. Billy Bishop 02:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scagnetti[edit]

Isn't Vic Vega's parole officer named "Scagnetti", and not "Koon"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kosmotheoria (talk • contribs) 08:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Warehouse?[edit]

It's actually a mortuary, as can one can tell by the caskets and embalming equipment. However, I'm pretty sure they refer to it as 'the Warehouse' in the film. Maybe no changes to the article are needed, but perhaps a mention?

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

Image:Reservoirdog.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 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 07:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Reservoirdog.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 23:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot length[edit]

The plot summary in this article is far too long. The problem we have at the moment is that it outlines all the aspects of the movie, pretty much point by point. This could constitute a copyright violation. We need to shorten it considerably - it should be a maximum of 600 - 900 words. I will have a go at doing this at some point, as I did on the xXx article, which suffered from the same problem.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Commentary Track[edit]

Peter Travers' film criticism is usually good and professional, but some of his commentary on the "Reservoir Dogs" anniversary edition DVD is embarrassing and in need of a good editor or fact checker. He seems to believe that the Netherlands is a Scandinavian country (during the scene in which Vinny is telling Jules about Dutch hashish laws). Travers also refers to the band George Baker Selection as Scandinavian (when "Little Green Bag" is heard). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.132.196.76 (talk) 11:12, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, try not taking Travers' editing to task when you may have similar issues. No scene with Vinny & Jules appears in Reservoir Dogs. Obviously I know you are referring to the Pulp Fiction DVD, but this is unclear from what you actually wrote. Not that I disagree with your thoughts on Travers either, just found it ironic that in criticizing his editing, you made an error. ROG 19 14:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cast[edit]

Why is there no cast table or list, as in many other film pages. T_saston ^{TALK PAGE} —Preceding unsigned comment added by T saston (talk • contribs) 19:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Pink's fate[edit]

While Mr. Orange confesses to Mr. White at the end, Mr. Pink can be overheard being ordered to get out of his car. We then hear gun shots and Mr. Pink saying he's been shot. Judging from that and the description in the DVD of the 10th Anniversary edition it seems to indicate that he died also. - Throw 19:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tarantino originally intended to begin the film with a caption claiming that "One of these men is a policeman...and all but one will be dead" or something similar. Mr. Pink survived.Vonbontee (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source?[edit]

"I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." I find it really hard to believe that he actually said that, I think we should either find a source or immediately delete it.--Dominik92 (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody stood up for the section, I'm going to delete it.--Dominik92 02:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr White shoots Mr Orange[edit]

Despite me being unable to hear Mr White pull the trigger as the article currently states (I can hear the report of what may be Mr White's gun as it fires but I don't hear the trigger being pulled) the claim that Mr Orange is dead is unsubstantiated by the film. Mr White's gun looks like it would fire through Mr Orange's brain but the shot is tight on Mr White's face and viewers cannot definitively see Mr White's gun fire. Waerloeg (talk) 06:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the movie could technically be interpreted as Mr. Orange not dying, it is widely accepted and has been confirmed by Tarantino, and besides isn't it really proof enough that the cops shot Mr. White right after we heard his gun fire?--Dominik92 (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik92, are you saying that Orange does or doesn't live? I had the impression that White can't bring himself to kill Orange, and the police kill him (White) as he sits stunned. -Phoenixrod (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old topic, but after reading the script, there is no doubt that White shoots Orange before the cops kill him. MFNickster (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

The amount of categories listed for this movie is just a joke. The most recent one , 'Films set in California' says it all. I suggest a major clean up of these categories Paul210 (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural References[edit]

The section is absolutely ridiculous, I've already deleted about half of it and plan to reduce it to nothing but direct references in major movies. Then either find a source and integrate or delete it.--The Dominator (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,its not my foult it was such a great film,what do you care if its big,its an enciclopedia its soposed to be big —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.24.105 (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it's not a great film. The cultural references section was unsourced. As per Wikipedia policy, encyclopedic content must be verifiable. I edited the section down from around thirty references to about eight or ten. I know it's fun looking up trivial details, but just because it's an online encyclopedia, doesn't mean that it should include everything, read some of the wikipedia guideline articles and you'll see that according to policy the entire section would be removed a long time ago.--The Dominator (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who kills who?[edit]

In the mexican stand off two guns are being pointed at one party. There is a single similtaneous gun shot, but all three die. White shoots Joe, Eddie shoots White. Either mr pink gets involved or eddie shoots himself? Therefore unnoticed by white pink shoots Eddie. Wolfmankurd (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what all the debate is about? It's pretty obvious, I saw it clearly the first time watching and confirmed in scene by scene, you know it is possible to fire an automatic gun more than once in 2 seconds, in fact I believe that Mr. White might have even got three shots of hitting Eddie twice, but what's significant is that Joe shoots Orange, White shoots Joe, Eddie shoots White, and White shoots again hitting Eddie, this has been confirmed. The Dominator (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three shots are heard but not far apart enough for Mr White to be shot drop turn his gun and shoot again, this is why the debate exists. Whilst there is enough time for Pink to realise that he could just shoot Eddie. Wolfmankurd (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is a slight choreography error, but it's in the script that White shoots Eddie and I've examined it scene by scene and it happens. The Dominator (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem as if White shoots Eddie, but if you look frame by frame, Eddie starts to fall back as if shot before White fires the second shot. I suspect that was not intentional. -Phoenixrod (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be backing away from gunfire myself.... Lots42 (talk) 04:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Filming locations[edit]

Can somebody adding where in LA it has been filmed? --Arthur 2045 (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Menu[edit]

Does anyone know thte name of the song playing in the DVD menu on the 10 year anniversary 1st DVD?Trusko (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GAN review[edit]

This is hands down my favorite Tarantino film and one of my favorite films of all time, so of course I've been eying this article at GAN for a while. :) Overall it's very well done; the prose is well written and formatted correctly for the most part; the info seems verifiable and the article itself is stable and neutral. I have suggestions for improvement before I'm ready to promote it to Good Article status, but I have faith that this can be taken care of easily enough:

Images:

DoneImage:Blonde-dogs2.jpg does not have a fair use rationale._{I have deleted the separate images from the article because they are unnecesary. I will add a more iconic image, possibly one of Mr. Blonde dancing around to "Stuck in the Middle With You" The Dominator^Talk_Edits 03:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
DoneImage:Reservoir Dogs soundtrack.jpg only includes Reservoir Dogs (soundtrack) in its rationale, but that currently exists as a redirect to this article._{I merged the content, forget to create rationale The Dominator^Talk_Edits 03:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

The lead:

DoneThe lead should be expanded a little per WP:LEAD. The soundtrack and video game, for example, are not mentioned.
DoneThe film has become a classic of independent film and was named "Greatest Independent Film of all Time" by Empire. Two things: independent film should be linked and "Greatest Independent Film of all Time" should not be italicized. Later on it's referred to as 'Greatest Independent Film ever made', which should be fixed to double-quotation marks per consistency.
DoneReservoir Dogs was generally well received and the cast was praised by many critics, though it never became a major box office success, becoming mostly popular after the success of Tarantino's Pulp Fiction. This should be cut into two separate sentences to reflect two separate thought processes. Maybe something like, "Although Reservoir Dogs was generally well received and the cast was praised by many critics, it did not become a major box office success, grossing only etc., etc. It became a cult hit (?) mainly after the success of Tarantino's 1994 film Pulp Fiction." The question mark is there because the word itself isn't mentioned in the article, but I always thought it was considered one; this should be explained. Ref four's title even states: "Cover Story; A Chat with Mr. Mayhem; Quentin Tarantino Quickly Acquired Quite the Reputation for Violence; His 1992 Film, 'Reservoir Dogs', was a Cult Hit, Now Comes 'Pulp Fiction'."
DoneIt is also often criticized for its amount of violence, and audience members reportedly walked out during the "ear-cutting scene". Some adjectives would help set the mood here; "high level of violence"? "infamous 'ear-cutting scene'"? Also, "ear-cutting scene" is written both with and without the quotation marks; pick one style and stick with it._{Chose no quotation marks, not really a direct quote of anything}

Plot:

DoneMr. Brown discusses his comparative analysis on Madonna's "Like a Virgin"; Mr. Pink expresses his anti-tipping policy until Joe forces him to leave a tip. Incorrect use of the semi-colon; replace with an "and".
DoneMr. Brown has been killed by the police; the whereabouts of Mr. Blonde and Mr. Blue are unknown to Mr. White and Mr. Pink. Same as above.
DoneJoe hands out the thieves' aliases (to which Mr. Pink and Mr. Brown object): this is a great scene in the film, but as it would take too much time to explain why they object ("Mr. Brown sounds like Mr. Shit"), the parenthetical aside is too ambiguous and off-topic in regards to the plotline, which is moving at a nice clip. I recommend removing it.
DoneThe remainder of the heist group (those still alive) return to the warehouse... "those still alive" goes without saying, I should think. :)
DoneMr. Pink, who stayed out of the shootout, takes the diamonds and flees, there is still confusion as to what his fate was, but some barely audible dialogue suggests he was subdued by the police. The tense discrepancies are confusing here: "he takes the diamonds and flees, but there is confusion as to what his fate is; some barely audible dialogue suggests he is later subdued by the police"?
DoneMr. White cradles Mr. Orange, who reveals that he is a cop, devastating him. add "in his arms" for specificity, and perhaps reword as "As Mr. White cradles Mr. Orange in his arms. Mr. Orange reveals that he is a cop, devastating the other man"?
DoneMr. White shoots him and is shot by the police, right before the end credits roll. In the video game he is voiced by Jack McGee: missing ending period.

Cast and Characters:

DoneIs it necessary to note who each character is voiced by in the video game? The game has its own article and this is a list of characters included in the film._{Included as a result of an AfD on the character pages that resulted in the content being merged here. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 14:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
DoneI'm okay with not having any references in the Plot section, but "Cast and characters" could use a few citations, especially in regards to the connections with other Tarantino films: "a possible connection to Jimmy Dimmick of Pulp Fiction" and "brother of Vincent Vega of Pulp Fiction", for example, need refs. Don't forget to italicize Pulp Fiction in that last example.
DoneHe also tortured a policeman for his own pleasure -- slashing the young officer's face, cutting off his ear and dousing him with gasoline -- only to be stopped from burning him alive by Mr. Orange, who kills him first. Per WP:DASH, those "--" thingies must be replaced by unspaced em dashes (—) or spaced en dashes (–).
DoneEddie did not take part in the heist and ...the only major character whose real name was never revealed... Present tense: "does not" and "is".
Done"metaphor for big dicks." Period goes outside the quotation mark.
Done"K-Billy's Super Sounds of the Seventies," Same with the comma.

Production:

DoneHowever, when actor Harvey Keitel became involved he agreed to act in the film and co-produce.[2] Harvey Keitel was then cast as Mr. White. With Keitel's assistance, the filmmakers were able to raise $1.5 million to make the film. Keitel doesn't need to be wikilinked here since he was already linked twice in both the plot and the cast list.
DoneI suggest combining everything from "Reservoir Dogs was, according to Tarantino..." to "...instead claiming that he does homages" into one paragraph, removing the blockquote formatting and integrating the quote into the rest of the prose. Blockquotes are usually only for quotes with more than three lines.
DoneHe has said that lets the viewer realize that the movie is "about other things". The "that" is ambiguous here; "He said the technique lets the viewer realize..." perhaps?
DoneAnother feature of the film was the choice of the soundtrack. The film uses music from the 1970s. Tarantino has said that he feels the music to be a counterpoint to the on-screen violence and action.[6] He also stated that he wished for the film to have a '50s feel while using '70s music.[6] A prominent instance of this is the torture scene to the tune of "Stuck in the Middle With You".[7] This could theoretically be moved to the "Soundtrack" section, since it's not technically part of the production.

Reception:

DoneReservoir Dogs opened in 19 theaters with a first week total of $147,839 domestically.[8] The film was never released to more than 61 theaters and totaled $2,832,029 at the box office domestically.[8] The film gained most of its success after the popularity of Pulp Fiction. However, in Britain: I'm assuming that the first part of the paragraph is referring to its domestic gross in America, yes? Make this explicit: Reservoir Dogs opened in the United States in 19 theaters.... The film was never released to more than 61 theaters in the country and totaled.... The film gained most of its success in America after the popularity..." etc.
DoneHowever, in Britain, the film was a success and gained recognition from its fans, hence the big push to put it into the Sundance Film Festival. This is confusing. What "big push"? By whom? Did it make it to Sundance after it had already premiered domestically?
DoneReservoir Dogs has also inspired many other independent films and is considered key in the development of independent cinema: no need for the "also" here.
DoneFilm critic Jami Bernard of the New York Daily News compared it at the film's release at the Sundance Film Festival: needs clarification and/or explanation. "Bernard compared Reservoir Dogs at its showing at Sundance to the 1895 French black-and-white film L'Arrivée d'un Train en Gare de la Ciotat..."?
DoneHe also complimented Tarantino's directing and liked the fact that he didn't often use close-ups in the film. I have a tendency to overuse "also" as well; it just takes a trained eye to fish them out. "He similarly complimented..."?
DoneKenneth Turan of the LA Times also enjoyed the film and the acting, particularly that of Buscemi, Tierney and Madsen, he said... change "he" to "and" for transition.
DoneRoger Ebert was less enthusiastic, he felt that the script could: switch comma with semi-colon.
DoneHe also stated that "[Tarantino] has an idea, and trusts the idea to drive the plot. Ebert...: missing ending quotation mark.
DoneOne particular scene that viewers found unnerving was Michael Madsen's ear-cutting scene, and Madsen himself reportedly had a great deal of difficulty finishing the scene especially after Kirk Baltz ad-libbed the desperate plea "I've got a little kid at home".[17] Many people have left theaters and Tarantino has said...: confusing tenses. We're speaking of initial viewers here, so let's make that explicit. "Many audience members left the theater during the film and Tarantino commented at the time", perhaps?
Donefifteen people walked out including, renowned Horror film Director, Wes Craven and Special Effects artist Rick Baker. Comma misplacement, move the first one to after "out" and remove the second one entirely.
DoneBaker later told Tarantino, to take the walk out as a "compliment"... remove this comma as well.
DoneHe, furthermore, explored parallels... no commas.
DoneCritic James Berardinelli was of a similar opinion. He complimented both the cast and Tarantino's dialogue writing abilities. Combine sentences with semi-colon; it's a continuation of thought (see what I did there? :))
DoneHal Hinson of The Washington Post was also enthusiastic about the cast also complimenting the film on its "deadpan sense of humor". Two "also"s. "similarly enthusiastic", perhaps, and just remove the second one: "...was similarly enthusiastic about the cast, complimenting the film..." etc.
DoneTodd McCarthy called the film "undeniably impressive" and is of the opinion... was of the opinion. Start with past tense, end with past tense.

Critical analysis and rest:

DoneA notable motif in Tarantino's films has been accidents that move the plot further. "has been" seems unnecessary here. "A notable motif in Tarantino's films is the use of accidents to move the plot forward"?
DoneIn Reservoir Dogs, as Fred Botting and Scott Wilson said, the major plot event is also moved by an accidental occurrence; in this case the robbery going awry. Weird. No need to quote Botting and Wilson directly as it's cited to them, and again an unnecessary "also" used. "In Reservoir Dogs, the accidental occurrence is a robbery gone awry" or something to that effect? Then Botting and Wilson can be quoted for further points in the paragraph, but who are they, exactly? Critics? Best to tag them so they are known to be reputable.
DoneThey also compared the plot to various plot points in Pulp Fiction... and then in the next paragraph, A frequently cited comparison has been to Tarantino's second and more successful film Pulp Fiction... I suggest removing the first example and sticking with the strength of the second one; it seems repetitive to have both.
DoneAlso, the prominent theme of racism plays a big part in the films, specifically the relationship between whites and blacks. This is the first mention of this and little context is given to explain it. Any additional information available? Examples?
DoneThe "DVD release" section could use another ref later in the paragraph.
DoneThe "Soundtrack" section could also use a couple references.

Phew. Okay, that looks like a lot, but most of it is picky, grammatical stuff that takes more time to explain than actually fix. Overall this article is in good shape; concentrate on copy-editing and plumping up the lead and it'll be even better. I'll be happy to promote the article once my concerns have been addressed, but for now I'll put it on hold to give the main contributors time to work. If you have any questions or concerns, or need further clarification about any of my comments, please do let me know. Best of luck, María (habla conmigo) 14:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will get to work on it shortly. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 22:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far I have completed the edits that you have listed under the plot section, is it better? The Dominator^Talk_Edits 05:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. It may be easier for me to keep track of your progress, and for you to know what else needs doing, if you strike out the comments and add {{done}} under the bullet points. Like I said, most of it is pretty minor copy-editing. María (habla conmigo) 12:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About your last two suggestions in the "Cast and characters" section, this is from the article Quotation mark: The traditional convention in American English is for commas and periods to be included inside the quotation marks, regardless of whether they are part of the quoted sentence and since this is an American film we follow American spelling and grammar. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 05:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Dominik, I should have explained that during the review. Wikipedia's Manual of Style unfortunately doesn't always meet up with what is readily accepted in the world of academia. In any other circumstance you'd be perfectly correct. Wikipedia, however, follows a system called "logical quotation", which is explained at WP:PUNC: "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation". Song titles, for example, do not typically include periods or commas at the end, so the punctuation goes outside the quotation mark. María (habla conmigo) 12:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I like that style better anyway, but I always thought that Wikipedia used both, just like with American/British spelling, OK. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 13:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having some computerntroubles this week and I might not be able to complete everything in the 7 days. You think you could do some of the simpler grammar fixes? Please? I'll let you know if I get my computer running, thanks. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 14:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, never mind. I should be done by tuesday. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 17:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry for not responding sooner, but my RL has been a little hectic as of late. Take as long as you need, absolutely no rush. I don't like to enforce a strict seven day On Hold period, so if you need further time, just let me know. Great work so far! María (habla conmigo) 17:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm done, does it look better? Let me know if you have more concerns. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 21:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great; I believe you addressed all of my concerns, so I'm very happy to promote this to GA-status. Congrats! Do let me know if you need help with it in the future, say, if FAC is on the horizon. :) María (habla conmigo) 21:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Female Dialoug[edit]

No woman has any dialogue in this movie! At All! 151.203.24.88 (talk)

And what is your point, exactly? -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that it's weird and someone should write it in the article.96.237.129.203 (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And my point is that you need to learn how to spell dialogue properly, and not insult editors personally on a whim. Colds7ream (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the debate is missing the point. Not one person made an argument for inclusion or against it. Personally, I don't think it's that significant and is a rather trivial detail. Yet, I have heard people mention the no female dialogue thing before and think that it's not worth arguing against, if you wish, be bold and add a sentence saying that there is no female speaking role. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 19:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead and add it. And I'll immediately delete it, since it's completely irreleventVonbontee (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- How is it not relevant? Why you would you "...immediately delete it..."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Blonde 666 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the lack of (speaking) female actresses/characters was unique to this one film or was typical of Tarantino's films generally, then it would warrant mention for its curiousness on the one hand or its idiosyncrasy on the other. As it is, neither such criteria are met, so to point it out would be pointless.Orthotox (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was Mr.Brown really killed ?[edit]

Well i don't think Mr brown was killed by the police, it was just Mr.White who said that because he was fooled by the blood on Mr.Brown's face, recall Orange:'you're not blind you just got blood in your eyes ' he had blood before and then he collapses and it was caused by the shock in the the car —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.132.255.252 (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you saying? That he was killed by the impact? I doubt it- they were going 20 kmh at most. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 06:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no i'm saying he is not dead at all! actually i'm pretty sure about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.132.255.141 (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Find a reliable source discussing that (including other theories such as Mr Pink. shooting Mr White., Mr. Pink being shot by the cops etc.) and maybe we can start something like a "Interpretation" section. Until then, your personal speculation has no place in the article. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 05:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look man i'm just trying to improve the article with something i find obvious, reliable sources? where will i find that? the only thing i can do is watch the movie again here are more arguments: Mr.white shoots the cop before they can do anything (watch it again if you're not sure) then he asks is he dead (about brown)? no response from Mr.Orange (he was shocked) then he looks at Mr.brown and deduce that he is dead... but we saw that the blood was there before the scene ok i want argument if you have, but saying no, not like that is unfair i could say the same... you could put on the article that the death of Mr.brown is not clear... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.132.255.193 (talk) 02:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately we can't add every theory come up by every fan since the movie was made. Please read WP:OR and WP:RS. This article has been acknowledged as a Good Article and everything is adequately sourced. It is up to the person making the claim to find some back up for it (i.e. a reliable source confirming this speculation, otherwise it is original research). The Dominator^Talk_Edits 04:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ever watched the movie? anyway look like it's no use —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinity217 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't MATTER how many times either of us have watched the movie, because coming to a conclusion based on that is ORIGINAL RESEARCH which is against OFFICIAL WIKIPEDIA POLICY. It is commonly accepted that Mr. Brown was killed because it is stated in the movie, hence it is implied in the article that we are using the movie as a reference and the movie clearly states he is DEAD. Anything to the contrary would have to be confirmed by an outside source. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 01:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i just want to state that i am not a freaking fan or anything i just don't like wrong things for people to read, and i think the fact that Mr.White saying something wrong and later audience discovering it, is quite imaginative from Tarantino it is really great, like when nice guy say "you shoudn't have taken him out of the trunc in the first place" and Mr.white reacts showing that it is Mr.Blond fault is very funny and guess what! in the french translation they didn't even notice it so no voice for Mr.White, isn't it a shame? i think saying that Mr.Brown is dead really spoils the masterpiece Reservoir dogs is.Infinity217 (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the character is obviously wrong, it is fiction Infinity217 (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i am not requesting you to say that Mr.brown is not dead but just highlighting that his death is not clearInfinity217 (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His death is clear. It is stated in the film that he is dead, and nothing is ever said to the contrary. If you find reliable sources- interviews with Tarantino, professional critical analysis etc. a section can be created describing different theories about the character's fate. Just because one person develops a theory, doesn't mean we need to include it in the article- that's why WP:OR exists, so a theory is only included/mentioned when a reliable source is provided. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 02:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old topic, but the script clearly says that Brown is dead by the time Freddy replies to him. MFNickster (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actor Links in the Cast Section[edit]

I would like to change the author names to links in the cast section. When I went to edit it there was a tag indicating the names should not be linked because they had been linked once previously in the article and stated that "redundant overlinking helps nothing."

First I would like to point out that this isn't a hard and fast rule. "In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. This is a rule of thumb that has many exceptions." (Wikipedia:Linking#Repeated links).

Second, rather than helping nothing, I think there are solid reasons to link them. There is a lot of text prior to the cast section and it's cumbersome to try to search back through that text to find the link to a specific actor. It's a new section and the names are bulleted, if you go right to that section it's not necessarily clear that the names are linked previously. But perhaps most importantly, some of the actors listed are linked, because they were not previously mentioned. The effect of having some names linked and others not is to give the impression that the unlinked names either do not have articles or are unimportant and do not warrant articles, which is the opposite of what is actually the case.

For these reasons, if there isn't something I am missing, I would like to change all the bulleted actors to links to their own pages in order to make the page easier to use and clearer. --Tlosk (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Making links now. --Tlosk (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cast Section[edit]

The cast section is crammed full of completely redundant information elsewhere in the article. Lots42 (talk) 05:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed- it's a magnet for every editor who comes by this page to add some useless unsourced piece of trivia. I'm doing my best to try and maintain this article, but film articles really do get a lot of trivia. Go ahead and clean it up if you want, but it's going to go back to its former state in a couple of days unless you vigilantly revert every day. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 06:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

City of Fire Connection?[edit]

One topic that has come to my attention recently is the growing popularity of claims that Reservoir Dogs lifted several scenes and much of the story of the older, more obscure, HK film City of Fire in addition to The Big Combo. It would not be considered a homage as the original movie is hardly known and was poorly received, not to mention that it was never given credit for a homage. Now, regardless of the veracity of these claims, I think a section of the articles should focus on it, as it has been brought to the spotlight by Rotten Tomatoes and others. If you can refute this, please do so. --69.107.74.100 (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

??? We cannot add a section accusing the movie's producers of plagarism. At least not without SERIOUS citations. Lots42 (talk) 08:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several references here that comment on both Reservoir Dogs and City on Fire. It's not an invalid claim. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He says that it inspired him in his biography " Shooting from the Hip". I think he also may have said that it was an inspiration in an interview. Ill verify. ProudHuman42 (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why insult Ebert?[edit]

Why do you say Ebert "claimed to enjoy the film"? Ebert seems like a critic with integrity. Who are you to imply he lied? He likes Tarantino films. His criticism sounds sincere to me. You should say he "stated that he enjoyed the film" or "said that he enjoyed the film". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.151.150 (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt "claimed" is used in a sceptical manner here, it's just another way of saying that he said so, in order to keep the prose fresh. GRAPPLE X 22:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it sounds as if it's questioning him, and I think it should be changed in order to better maintain Wikipedia's neutrality.--71.72.151.150 (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Novelist?[edit]

In Production it refers to Tarantino comparing RD to a novelist. Which novelist? We need to confirm it or give it the axe. ProudHuman42 (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a specific novelist, he compares the way the heist is described and not seen to the way a novel writer, not a screenwriter, would describe an event. GRAPPLE X 22:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AHHHHHH, now I feel stupid. Thanks for clearing that up. ProudHuman42 (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Character Development[edit]

Roger Ebert's issue with the film's lack of character exploration is mentioned, but the article cites nothing that might belie this. Specifically, the rather bizarre bonding, perhaps unique in Hollywood crime drama, that we see developing between Mr. White the perp and Mr. Orange the cop. Someone has noted here, no doubt impertinently, the article's failure to discuss Dogs' complete lack of female voices, but could it be that such an absence in the film was rather a "presence of the absence" strategy calculated to heighten the meek, intimate, and, in the final analysis, even feminine dependency of Mr. Orange upon Mr. White? Orthotox (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UK video release ban[edit]

The only reason that this film grossed so much money at the box office in the UK was because it was banned from video release, ergo the only way to go and see it was at the cinema.

I'm personally convinced that had it not been for this ban, the film would've disappeared without trace and Tarantino wouldn't have been the name he is today.

He should thank the BBFC for that. Seriously.

^[1]

80.218.211.54 (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but how do you want to incorporate that into the article? That's a bit objective to say that you're personally convinced. Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 19:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_banned_in_the_United_Kingdom

The last sentence in the plot section[edit]

The word 'apparently' is confusing me. Either something happened or it did not happen. 'Guessing' shouldn't be here. Were there sounds? Were there gunshots? State what can be verified. I would, but I forgot the vital information. Lots42 (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is correct.

The camera zooms in on Mr White's face. Nothing is seen, but the gunshots are heard and the fact that he shoots Mr Orange in the face is implied by the shot of him holding the gun to his face immediately prior to this. Still, the shot is implied rather than seen and there is some small reason to doubt that he actually fires. --86.42.87.122 (talk) 10:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genre in lead[edit]

We used to have a citation for black comedy, which I think came from QT himself in an interview. Regardless, I'd think maybe if we settled on something basic for the lead, like "crime thriller", that'd be fine. I don't think we need any more than that to identify the film. The other stuff, such as neo-noir elements and black comedy, can be described outside the opening sentence. The genre tends to get really cluttered with tangential cruft in postmodern films. Something like this chapter of The Philosophy of Neo-Noir would be a good source to use to describe how the film uses postmodernism to blend genres. Or I guess it could go in the critical analysis section if people don't like the idea of themes and genres in the lead. Honestly, I think this article could be expanded quite a lot if someone were willing to do the work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flashbacks[edit]

I'll like to add the flashbacks from the film to the "Plot" section. However, when I tried, my edit got removed, because it made the article too confusing. Could someone explain in depth why my edit was confusing and give a suggestion on how I could word it better? That way, I won't make the same mistake again. Thanks. BrianBerta (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, thanks for posting here. The first issue is that the plot summary can't tell the whole story of the film, it would just be too long, so we have to choose what's most important. Honestly, most of the details of the flashbacks aren't essential. Second, relating the flashbacks requires too much explanation of the shifts in time, further belaboring the story.

So, let me ask you: which parts of the flashbacks do you think are most important to the overall story? Let's figure that out here and then we can figure out the best way to add them to the summary. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 03:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have to do this, but just in case someone hasn't seen the film yet...

Spoiler Warning

Good points. I see where you're coming from. Anyways, I think that 2 flashbacks are important enough to include. The first one is the scene which shows Mr. Blonde's origin. That scene mentions how he did 4 years for Joe, and that is brought up later in the plot summary so I think that it's necessary to be included. The second flashback shows the death of Mr. Brown and Mr. Orange getting injured in the getaway. I feel like that flashback is also important, because it reveals 2 major plot points (how one of the criminals were killed, and how one of them had a major injury). Thanks for taking your time to help me. BrianBerta (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay, not sure how I missed this post. Yes, I agree that those two flashbacks are important. Especially the one about Mr. Blonde, which is referred to later. Go ahead and add those. Thanks for your patience and cooperation. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Currency conversion and worldwide box office.[edit]

Here is the box office list as it currently is in the infobox.

$2,832,029 (USA)
£6,306,205 (UK)
AUD 767,176 (Australia)
$350,000 (Germany)
€23,500 (Italy) ( 2012)
ESP 89,354,518 (Spain)
SEK 11,583,795 (Sweden)
Worldwide box office:
US dollar total here.

Reference: Reservoir Dogs at IMDb. International box office.

It might be useful to convert the box office numbers by country to US dollars in 1993. And then add the total below the countries. See bold "Worldwide box office" above. I found a currency converter that can do that here:

Currency converter in the past with official exchange rates from 1953.

It is not considered original research. See WP:CALC.

"Worldwide box office", and separate country totals. That way others can see both how the movie did in other countries, and can see the source numbers in their original currencies. Also, people can check the calculations. We are assuming the online currency site I found is accurate. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IMDb is not a reliable source. It's user-generated and generally can't be cited on Wikipedia. Sources you can use for box office gross include Box Office Mojo, The Numbers, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline.com, etc. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Reservoir Dogs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120807002342/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/30/year/1992.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/30/year/1992.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://yubarifanta.com/index_pc.php?ct=archive.php&langue=21002
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.empireonline.com/500/1.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110208103310/http://www.salon.com/music/sharps/1997/12/22sharps.html to http://www1.salon.com/music/sharps/1997/12/22sharps.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014153606/http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/reservoirdogs/ to http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/reservoirdogs/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reservoir Dogs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120611080655/http://www.rattlerecords.com/artist.htm to http://www.rattlerecords.com/artist.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plot corrections[edit]

TheOldJacobite I'm a little surprised at your reversion, given that I fixed up an actual error in the plot and explained it in the edit summary. Vega is not offered a position on the heist as a reward for keeping Omerta during his prison sentence, Joe & Eddie offer him a no-show job at the Long Beach dockyards as a reward. Vega then says "I really appreciate what you guys are doing, but I'd like to know when I can come back, and you know - do some real work."

Joe & Eddie exchange looks and Eddie states that he'd like Vega on the team. This is an important differentiation - not only is it because the current plot is wrong, but it changes the heist team from five to a six man job - earlier during Mr White's back story it is specified that it is "a five man job - busting in and out of a diamond wholesaler".

I'm ambivalent about the final change - as I say hidden comments are all well and good, but it's also plot relevant (and not original research or opinion) to clarify that despite gunshots being heard it is unclear who - if anybody - is actually shot.

The first part however is a straight plot error correction, and in no way "Not an improvement". Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The part about Mr. Blonde's job offer doesn't concern me. It's a minor detail that I don't think needs clarification, but it's not a big deal. However, the change at the end is not acceptable. We can't talk about what we don't see. As the shots are heard off-screen, of course it is not clear who has been shot – but we don't need to comment on it. Shots are heard, that's it. The ending of the plot has been rewritten more times than I can recall, and we reached a consensus on what can and cannot be said, hence the hidden comment. I see no reason to change it. I'd like to hear from other editors on this, though. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 11:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first change may not concern you, but I'm personally against a plot containing inaccurate information. I don't mind missing out info for plot brevity, but there is no excuse to actively promote keeping plot errors just because you think it a minor detail. Minor possibly, but still wrong.

We can talk about something that happens off screen when what we are specifically talking about what happens off screen, and making it clear that it's ambiguous. (And yes, I appreciate the irony in attempting to clarify ambiguity!) The distinction is necessary because the plot should make sense to somebody who hasn't seen the film, and give them an overview. Those who have seen the film know that the results of of the gunshots are unclear, but to someone who hasn't seen the film "Gunshots sound" is a leading sentence - what, they will ask themselves, was the result of those gunshots?

Additionally, I've had a look through the talk page and article history, and I don't see quite so many changes as you imply, the "Gunshots sound" was added here, way back in Jan 2017 to correct your own interpretation of "White kills Orange and gunshots sound". After that there have been many changes to the plot, but not so many to the ending of the plot. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Gunshots sound, but it is unclear who has been shot." is personal interpretation (unclear to who?) and unnecessary. Popcornduff (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and just for the record, "gunshots sound" has been in the article since at least January 2016. Popcornduff (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, I'm confused now. You'll have to clarify the subtle difference between describing what happens in the film, and making that description a personal opinion. Even Jacobite agrees with the interpretation - "of course it is not clear who has been shot". If you feel that it is a personal interpretation, do you feel that it is an inaccurate interpretation? Or does it accurately describe events that happen in the film - are gunshots heard, but it is unclear who has been shot?

Why is it unnecessary? What about people who haven't seen the film, so don't know that it is unclear who has been shot? There are multiple possible results from "Gunshots sound":

Nobody is shot
Somebody is shot
We don't know if anybody is shot

Each are equally valid assumptions from somebody who doesn't know the film.

Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Each are possible outcomes in the film, too. In the film, the only information you get is the sound of gunshots, so that's the same information we put in our plot summary. Anything else is unnecessary. Popcornduff (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that it's unclear who, if anybody, gets shot? Pretty much what I was saying? I'd just like to be clear that you are both now agreeing with my plot description, even though you don't want it added:

Jacobite: "of course it is not clear who has been shot"
Popcornduff: "Each are possible outcomes in the film, too"

Anyway, it's quite clear there's going to be no movement on this, but what I am going to change is the plot description surrounding Vega and his recruitment - this is not "intepretation" but a straight up error. It may be considered a minor point, but that doesn't lessen the fact that it's wrong. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serious point - not a facetious comment:[edit]

The plot currently states, near the end "All three fire; both Cabots are killed, and White and Orange are wounded" This isn't the best description I feel - Orange is already seriously wounded. Current wording suggests not - ie he's only now been wounded, which obviously doesn't make sense. I can't think of a better description right now, but it's poor wording. "Hit", not "wounded" perhaps? Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No comments, so making the change. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia copy-pasted from IMDb[edit]

The line about "All those scripts were fighting with each other for attention as dogs" is copy-pasted from the film's IMDb trivia. First, it can't be added here in those exact words. Second, websites that quote IMDb trivia are generally not going to be usable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seem like it happened here, but sometimes people have copied Wikipedia passages to submit as trivia to the film's IMDb page. I seem to recall an incident of not being sure which came first, and comparing the Wikipedia article's page history with the archived IMDb page can help resolve these things. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Wayback Machine can be useful in that circumstance. Sometimes you can see which website had the text first. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I noticed that my entries to the article have been completely erased from the View history tab, making impossible to any wikipedia contributor to check what NinjaRobotPirate is talking about and also making impossible for me to check what can I correct from the information that I added. Is there any way to recover that erased information?

Please let me know. Thanks Nitsugagmx (talk) 11:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The line "All those scripts were fighting with each other for attention as dogs" is a direct quote from Quentin Tarantino. This quote was refered by Adrienne Tyler in his article "Reservoir Dogs Theory: What Tarantino's Movie Title Really Means" published in November 17 2019 in www.screenrant.com . Being Tarantino quite popular is not rare to find some of his quotes given in a number of interviews during the last 30 years at different sites like IMDB and others. Nitsugagmx (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to find references that reliably source the origin of the quote, so it can be sure that it hasn't just "appeared" on IMDB, and then been picked up by other publications as fact. In fact, that needs to be the case for all trivia - reliably sourced info is a good yardstick to keep the trivia out of the trivia... Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So the quote that was refered by Adrienne Tyler in his article "Reservoir Dogs Theory: What Tarantino's Movie Title Really Means" published in November 17 2019 in www.screenrant.com is not a reliable source? She clearly says that "This explanation fits with the origin Tarantino initially shared, in which he said he got the title while visiting a production company where they had a pile of unsolicited scripts labeled as “reservoir dogs”, as all of them were “fighting with each other for attention as dogs trapped in a reservoir tank”." If that source is not reliable which are the reasons that made it unreliable? Thanks Chaheel Riens !! Nitsugagmx (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the source URL, rather than just talking about an interview. You want it included, you have to convince us - not the other way round. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I will do that as soon as NinjaRobotPirate answer us about if it would be possible to recover somehow all the additions, informations, quotes, urls and citations that I added in my entry that has been deleted from the view history. I think that would also help Erik and Chaheel Riens and any Wikipedia contributor to understand what we are talking about. What do you think NinjaRobotPirate? Do you think that be possible? Thanks! Nitsugagmx (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources that were rev-deleted as the text removed was a copyright violation:

Tyler, Adrienne (November 17, 2019). "Reservoir Dogs Theory: What Tarantino's Movie Title Really Means". Screenrant. Archived from the original on April 17, 2022. Retrieved April 17, 2022. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; February 11, 2015 suggested (help)
Sherman, Dale (2015). Quentin Tarantino FAQ: Everything Left to Know About the Original Reservoir Dogs.

That's what you asked for. Those were the two sources were part of your edits. --Jayron 32 16:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks Jayron! Do you remember the part of my entry that used the Dale Sherman source contradicting and giving evidence against the current assertion that "The title "reservoir dogs" was inspired by a customer at the Video Archives, who mispronounced Louis Malle's 1987 film Au revoir les enfants."? Do you think it could be un-rev-deleted user:Jayron32? I am understanding this ok if I assume that the Dale Sherman book is a reliable source and unrelated to the origin of the rev-deletion?, Please, let me know it. Thanks! Nitsugagmx (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again user:Jayron32 ! Do you think it would be possible for you to answer the two questions from the previous paragraph that I asked you a little bit more than a month ago? It certainly would be very much appreciated! Thanks! Nitsugagmx (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add information about the 12-minute Reservoir Dogs short[edit]

This is the 12-minute short film Tarantino directed in 1991, made with the help of the Sundance Film institute, and served as a proof of concept for the feature film. It featured Steve Buscemi as Mr. Pink, David Jensen as Joe Cabot, and Tarantino as Mr. White. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6493238/reference/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77rbAzLZUiw

I think it would be appropriate to add a reference to this as part of the first paragraph of the "Production" section. Thoughts? Nizamarain (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Are you gonna bark all day, little doggie, or are you gonna bite?" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Are you gonna bark all day, little doggie, or are you gonna bite? has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 15 § Are you gonna bark all day, little doggie, or are you gonna bite? until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive detail in plot[edit]

Moving here to Talk section to get consensus from page editors. Re: expansion of plot section

Comparing previous version with new edits by @Ariadne000

(a) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reservoir_Dogs&oldid=1212679909

(b) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reservoir_Dogs&oldid=1213315613

Even though the suggested additions fall within the word limit prescribed by MOS:FILMPLOT, the content falls into territory meant to be avoided, such as "avoid dialogue and scene-by-scene breakdowns". For a film as lean as this, I feel the additional details are too much and weigh down the summary, falling into MOS:PLOTBLOAT. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There was a lot of unnecessary information in the plot expansion. The 700 word count is a rough guideline. It's not a red line measure of whether a plot is or isn't too detailed. _signed,Willondon (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. The 669-word version of the article adds only 122 words and is not a scene-by-scene breakdown. (The 547-word version is actually a "scene by scene breakdown".) The 669-word version includes elements that enhance the stakes and describes motives without being verbose:

- Orange begging to be taken to a hospital is an important element of the ruthlessness of White, who later acknowledges that Orange will probably die to another accomplice.

- The police arriving too quickly on scene is what makes Pink suspicious that there is an inside mole. Not a minor detail in the plot.

- Blonde overreacting "raising the stakes of the capture" is also an important element, since it incriminates all conspirators to a murder charge, not just a robbery charge.

- The Steelers tune "Stuck in the Middle with you" is pure Tarantino, adding to the chilling effect of the scene (I can no longer hear the song without associating it with this movie). Note that the article currently has a caption to a photo describing "Little Green Bag" by "George Baker" when the characters are introduced. Music is very important to Tarantino films.

- The rationale that "Orange was wounded during the heist and is not a police officer" is an important detail to describe the standoff--a hugely important plot element.

- "Nash reveals that he is aware that Orange is a police officer." Is important because Nash has been protecting Orange even while he is being tortured. Again, not a minor plot detail.

- The current article stands at 669 words--under the 700 word limit. This is a strong rationale for it NOT being "excessively long" or giving "excessive details". (I see that originally the description exceeded 900 words and THAT would have been grounds for trimming.)

- The 547-word version is too sparse for such an influential and popular Tarantino movie. When I read it, I thought it too dry for Tarantino--no motives or stakes implied."

- The changes that I made are factual, enhance the description, and are well within the limits.'' I don't understand why they are somehow unacceptable.

I only attempt to enhance when I don't believe the article does justice to the film. The 547-word version is too dry and lacks important details. Would you rather read an article that reads A shot B, who shot C, or one that gives a MOTIVE for the shooting and some insight into the characters--within the guideline limit?

NOTE: If you are going to insist on the 547-word reverted version, at least fix the grammatical errors:

- "Sometime" is one word.

- "Blonde is grateful, but insists that he wants to get back to "real work", and they recruit him for the heist." Either take out the comma or add "he" before "insists." As it stands in the 547-word reverted version the grammar is incorrect.

- "He is about to execute Orange, whom he suspects is the traitor behind the setup..." "Whom" should be "who". "Whom" is used with an indirect object. There is no indirect object in this sentence. (To whom should I direct this bullet?) Ariadne000 (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ariadne000 Many of your points include subjective analysis, such as "ruthlessness" or "raising the stakes". Another example is the inclusion of a character's supposed "reasoning that..." Whether any reader/editor agrees or disagrees with these interpretations, this is clear WP:NOR.

In addition, we are addressing excessive details. Ref: WP:NOTEVERYTHING -- "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details". An example in your proposed edit is the inclusion of a song name in the interrogation scene.

Regarding spelling/grammatical errors, these edits are of course valid. However, the article maintains "Good Article" status, so drastic plot edits are not required.

-- GimmeChoco44 (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The additions bloats the summary and adds personal interpretation. Popcornfud (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with your points:

- I did NOT include the word "ruthless" in the article. I did not include MY "subjective analysis". I included a BRIEF DETAIL that exposes the character's ruthlessness--his refusal to take a comrade with life-threatening injuries to the hospital despite Orange not knowing the names of White, Pink, etc. Again, motive is very important in a Tarantino film. This is in compliance with the guidelines against subjective analysis.

- I did not include the explicit term "raising the stakes" in the article either. Again, the DETAIL of Blonde's overreaction succinctly gives the basis for the reader drawing a conclusion. This, again, is in compliance with the guidelines against subjective analysis.

- I did not include the words "supposed reasoning". You are confusing my argument with the text. A direct detail that indicates a motive is NOT interjecting analysis into the description.

- 'An injection of the song title "Back in the Middle with You" is a detail of how Tarantino's distinctive cynical style is injected.' Again, a detail that does not OPINE. As I expressed above, the article actually includes a photo of the theme "Little Green Bag" being played when they first arrive. If THAT detail warrants a PHOTO addition, then showing "Back in the Middle with You" as an example of Tarantino's black humor is not an excessive detail. It's a small example of the subversive humor that permeates the entire story.

- I did NOT give an "exposition of all possible details". I added a few points that add motive and raised stakes without giving a subjective interpretation of them in the text. All well within the 700 word "guideline." I could easily have given many more details, but limited my additions to a very few hand-picked DETAILS THAT TELL motive or stakes--important to Tarantino's plots.

- The detail that NASH knew that Orange is a police officer is VERY IMPORTANT. Even while he was being tortured he did not betray his fellow police officer. This is easily overlooked. Again, the detail reveals this, not my interpretation.

- What I have added are NOT "bloated details." They add motives and stakes that give a flavor of Tarantino style that are missing in the reverted dry description. Again, I thought the article lacked any indication of what makes the movie interesting: motive and stakes.

- Perhaps, just as the grammatical errors were missed in the several reversions, the dimensions of my edits were misunderstood. Again, no overt analysis. The 120 words added a concise dimension of Tarantino-isms anyone familiar with his work would be looking for in a plot summary.

- The revised article being well within the 700 word "guideline" limit is a strong indication that they are neither "excessive" nor "bloated." They are legitimate enhancements. If I had "bloated" the article to 800 or 900 words you might have a legitimate point. To continue arguing that the details are "excessive" is specious.

- Two editors on this site are raising specious objections when I have repeatedly demonstrated that NONE of my edits have violated ANY of the cited guidelines. This hardly constitutes a quorum or universal agreement.

My aim is not to stubbornly argue out of ego. When I read this summary I thought it lame for a Tarantino piece. I don't understand why details that SUGGEST motives and stakes without adding explicit analysis that are within the word limit are objectionable. I want the Wikipedia plot points to be strong, as I assume you two do too. The article is stronger for revealing the ruthlessness of the characters, clarifying their motives, and exposing the stakes--all within an economical additional 120 words--neatly within the 700 word limit.

I would appreciate it if my legitimate edits were restored for the reasons given. None of the objections you have raised are true violations of the rules you cited.

Edit: Clearly the article was not "in good standing" since it had 3 grammatical errors in it. If it was improved by the grammatical edits I pointed out, I suggest the other enhancements also would improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariadne000 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ariadne000 (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there just isn't consensus for it. A plot is meant to be a brief outline of what happens. Once it starts to insert details to illustrate a layer of analysis regarding motives, it's lost its way. And other editors think so, too. I can't help but contrast the concise comments arguing against plot bloat with the comments from those opposed to the determination that the edits under review constitute plot bloat based on the analysis of other editors' motives as raising specious objections. Plots best stick to a sketch of what happens, not what was meant. _signed,Willondon (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Clearly the article was not "in good standing" since it had 3 grammatical errors in it. If it was improved by the grammatical edits I pointed out, I suggest the other edits also would improve it.

"Plots best stick to a sketch of what happens, not what was meant." You are willfully misinterpreting my argument. Again, my edits contained no "analysis" per se. The few additional details--aka "a sketch of what happens"--give the reader a basis for a greater understanding of important plot points of motive and stakes WITHOUT ADDING ANALYSIS OR INTERPRETATION. My edits actually did what you caution would be rightful edits.

"Bloat?" I did myself a disservice by referring to "200" additional words. The 669 version is only 122 words over the 547 word version. Again, well within the guideline and hardly "bloat." You are exaggerating.

"And other editors think so, too." I only see one other editor making comments. That's two editors against one. Hardly a "consensus". What's more, I have refuted every one of your specious points: word count under the guideline, actions instead of interpretations, additional details hand-picked by an experienced editor to convey Tarantino style WITHOUT INTERPRETATION. The guidelines also say that other editors' edits should not be lightly reverted because they may have merit--which these do.

Just as my pointing out the grammatical errors that were missed by the "other editors" during TWO PREVIOUS REVERSIONS improved the article, it would be improved by adding in valid edits that enhance the Tarantino-isms in the summary of a Tarantino film.

Are you being fair or just stubborn? I don't see why you are so vested in keeping out 122 words that are accurate and add a basis for deeper understanding. Without the enhancement the article falls flat. Ariadne000 (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a single, simple example of the interpretation your edits add: "A single gunshot, followed by multiple more, are heard and White collapses to the ground, presumably dead."

If you're using the word "presumably", you're adding your own interpretation. We should just be giving the reader the same information the film shows us, and not trying to read between the lines.

You need consensus to make this change. By my count three editors oppose you. And please STOP SHOUTING. Popcornfud (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So by your editorial standards, please revert the grammatical errors I flagged for you to correct, too. An article with three grammatical errors that you initially deemed "in good standing" reflects your editorial abilities and standards perfectly.

There was ONE interpretive word in my edit: "presumably". Gee, you got me (sarcasm). I'm sure that after all those gunshots were aimed at White after White was ordered to "drop the gun" that he would have been very much alive. Such a stretch. What a nonsensical "point." That just by the most ridiculous inflexibility "justifies" deleting ONE of 122 words. Meanwhile you ignored a dozen points that refuted your specious arguments.

I will not argue the point further because the three of you will be able to revert after I would be blocked for repetitive edits.

Too bad the Wikipedia entry on Reservoir Dogs has to suffer for your "standards" and inflexibility. Ariadne000 (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking to everyone here with open contempt, using sarcasm, SHOUTING, bold text all over the place and rambling walls of text. If you'd be willing to chill out a bit you might be more persuasive. Popcornfud (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You ignored a dozen well-reasoned points before I began to express frustration at the inflexibility.

As for "rambling", that's quite comical considering the rambling and dismissive nature of your collective responses to my logical points.

Sorry, but I stand by my remarks. AND MY FORMATTING. I will not be checking back since your responses lack any rationale.

Ariadne000 (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_banned_in_the_United_Kingdom

[1]