Talk:Heat (1995 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

The Bearer Bonds debate

I wonder if any HEAT fans have been puzzled by the fate of Van Zandt's Bearer Bonds. On the IMDB discussion boards there was a "heated" disagreement on whether or not Van Zandt received his Bonds 1st before sending his men to the drive-in to hand Neil his 60% payoff on the bonds. Some believe this to be true...others argue that the Bonds never reached the hands of Van Zandt's people and that he was only interested in killing Neil to send a message about stealing from him. Has anyone else been confused by this?

It never occurred to me that Van Zandt might have gotten the bonds. That was the purpose of the drive in meet, to do and exchange. The crew would never have handed over the bonds before getting payment for them. CynicalMe 01:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This never occured to me either... Although the theory is interesting. I agree that the crew would not have handed over the bonds before getting payment. Misterboston

I am not sure whether this is the correct formal way to contribute to an article, but i give it a try. I believe that this article contains a slight factual error which is related to the article's explanation of the bond's deal structure and the potential cost for laundering them. The article says '...selling the bonds back to Van Zant for 60% of their value instead of laundering them at 40% cost...'. If this would be correct, Neil would get 60% of the bond's value in both cases (100% value - 40% cost for laundering = 60% gain...). However, the film actually tells us that Neil would get '40 cents on the dollar' (40%), which means costs for laundering would be 60% and the gain only 40%. So the article's text should actually say '...laundering them at 60% cost...'. I made the change in the article, please have a look. Am I right, or did I miss the point? F4fzapata —Preceding undated comment added 13:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC).

McCauley "Qoutes"

On the main page there are two quotes by McCauley, but I have no recollection of those quotes being used in the movie.

The first quote is spoken to Eady, at her place, after the disastrous bank robbery, in reference to the death of Cherrito (Tom Sizemore). The second quote is in the trailer, maybe not in the final cut, will have to check. These quotes hardly add to the quality of the article anyway. Slowmover 15:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Guns used in Heat

Just wondering if someone can identify what shotguns is used by Mykelti Williamson's character in the shootout scene and what by Wes Studi's character in the hotel door breaching scene?

Thats a great point! I wondered why on the elivator Studi ejects his rounds from his shotgun, and then load more. I believe he loaded breaching rounds, which are lead powder encased in wax. These are used to break the hindges of doors without harming anybody inside.

                                   Addition To Cast

Xander Berkley-Ralph

It's a Mossberg 500 - I've added The guns of Heat[1] to the External Links section. Here's the bit about the Mossberg. [2] Crserrano 01:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

New Images....

Hey guys i wanted to add some screenies I took myself to this article just to expand it a little and give it some appeal and hopefully interest in the movie...;).

Tell me what you think. Btw, if they are not displaying correctly or I have done something wrong, do notify me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Booboo12 (talk • contribs)

Too many pictures

I like the screenshots, especially the one of pacino going nuts ("She's got a great ass"!), but I think there are way too many screenshots, and the captions are mini paragraphs. This is my favorite movie, but I think they make it look way too cluttered. CynicalMe 19:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I fixed the copyright tag on your screenshots. You put many of them under "I created this.." license, but in fact you don't own the copyright, they belong under the "movie screenshot" fair use tag. CynicalMe 19:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

North Hollywood Shootout

The authorities that investigated what's known as the North Hollywood shootout believe that the two suspects used the shootout scene in Heat as training and inspiration. Does anyone think its inappropriate to mention that fact in this article?

That is true, i know alot about the North Hollywood shootout, and yes they did use Heat as a training video, i think its worth mentioning it, Dep. Garcia 20:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thief ?

Surely it's more accurate to describe De Niro's character as a Robber than a Thief? --Charlesknight 22:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Gun porn?

Do we need the weapons list? Who cares about that besides gun spotters? What is it's purpose in a general readers Encylopedia? --Charlesknight 23:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes we need such thing? Where is it? Have you deleted that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.147.116.153 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Maybe leave it in for a trivia section? Whoever created must have spent a decent amount of time documenting it. Chupper 02:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

indeed we do need it , you shouldn't have removed someones hard work in documentation without first discussing it , the reason why we need it is incase you haven't noticed , majority of michael mann's films are extremely realistic when it comes to firearms and firefights. proof can be seen in that film's like collateral , HEAT and miami vice all had the actors go under extensive training in weapon handling techniques and battle-field/urban combat tactics. nto only this , but also i believe michael mann specifically does this to make sure audiences not only understands how fear inducing and deadly firearms and firefights can be , but also that if characters did what they typically do in most action films , they would be dead , extremely quickly. it can be seen on the HEAT dvd's special features in a interview with the audio members that michael mann was determined to have the "right" sound for firearms in the film. also another reason why they use full load blanks. does anyone have a copy of the orignial list? Thecoldness 12:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I came looking for gun info and I couldn't find it. And I'm someone who knows nothing about guns. Put it back!

I've added The guns of Heat[3] to the External Links section. Crserrano 01:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Why has so much info been deleted

What happend to all the information? Who are these people deleteing it? Its happening all over wikipedia on movie pages, people delete trvia and interesting facts. WHY? Since when is too much information bad??? This is Wikipedia, not Britancia for gods sake! People like this web-site simply becasue it does provide a lot of information that others wont.

    Yeah, the trivia is what I come here for. I know what the film is about. Don't cut the  
    interesting stuff

Trivia is discouraged by Wikipedia and the only "trivia" that was on the page was comparing the ending scene to a scene from another movie and noting that it "seemed" like it was inspired from it. If you want trivia, go to IMDB. Slinky317 (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Slinky317 may be right, but his tone and attitude toward new comers is what turned me off of editing Wikipedia. It's fine that he believes in the editing standard as it applies to trivia, but telling new folks to 'go to IMDb' is the same as telling someone to leave Wikipedia. Why not direct these new or uniformed folks to the appropriate policy pages so they can raise their concerns there. Or is it just easier to snipe someone's hard work? Creating an inviting atmosphere is one of the many ways that editors can encourage new thoughts, ideas and the continuation of Wikipedia.72.23.80.194 (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's more trivia

Heat is based on some real life experiences, but I don't have time to add this now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU5Rfm57XFY&NR=1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.210.45.20 (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Heatposter.jpg

Image:Heatposter.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 23:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Heatposter.jpg

Image:Heatposter.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 23:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Rationale given. --J.D. 18:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Heat001.jpg

Image:Heat001.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 23:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Heat001.jpg

Image:Heat001.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 23:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Colville pacific.jpg

Image:Colville pacific.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 04:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

North hollywood shootout

Could someone write a quick para and link to the North hollywood shootout which was apparently inspired by the bank robbery/gun battle in this film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.207.2.2 (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Though there are a remarkable number of similarities, we shouldn't unless it was confirmed by the the robbers, who were shot dead. Imacphee (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary

I've trimmed the plot summary extensively, but it's still too long at about 1140 words. --Tony Sidaway 21:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Heat20qi.jpg

Image:Heat20qi.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

removed section about 'sequel' (a game)

Took this out on suspicion of OR, fancruft, totally unsourced, crystall balling and advertisement

---

Though it was only a moderate success when it hit theaters in 1995, Heat has developed a devout cult following. Its deep characters, clockwork-like plot, and intense violence have earned director Michael Mann's three-hour-long crime epic many fans, more than a few of which are game developers. Indeed, the ultradifficult bank robbery level of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City was a direct homage to the film, featuring copies of the hockey-mask-and-coverall disguises worn in the beginning of Heat and re-creating its violent street-shootout denouement.

Now, it appears Heat will be getting a more direct game adaptation. Today, the hybrid entertainment company Titan Productions announced that it has reached a deal with Regency Entertainment, the Hollywood production company that owns the rights to Heat, to publish a game based on the film for "next-generation consoles" in 2007.

According to Titan Productions, Mann is in talks with Gearbox to oversee the game's development. There's also a good chance that many of the movies' stars will be lending their voices and likenesses to the game. Titan claims it is in "advanced stages with representatives for Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, and Val Kilmer to be part of the video game sequel."

According to a statement by Titan, Heat: The Game will be a prequel or sequel to the film. If the game is a sequel, De Niro's character, Neil McCauley, will appear in flashback, perhaps in the form of training missions. If Pacino declines to get onboard, it would be a sequel that would have a new detective chasing down McCauley's crew.

---

It may be reinsertable as a footnote paragraph with sources. MickMacNee (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "Similarities to Collateral" section

I agree with this removal because the assertion of similarity is based purely on original research. In particular, critical appraisals such as interpretation of the theme of a film should cite a reliable source. The decision to put weight on matters which may be superficial (the occurrence of the name Vincent in both films, for instance) should also be sourced. Without a source it's reasonable to conclude that the emphasisput in the article may be unjustified. If Mann has discussed the purported similarities in writings or in interviews, or the similarities have been remarked in critical appraisals in reliable secondary sources, then we can mention those facts. --Jenny 12:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You are frankly wrong, and have completely misunderstood the purpose of the original research policy. The source for all "claims" are the films themselves, which is specifically allowed as being primary source material. The "claims" of similarity are not outrageously POV statements that require third party independant sources, which is what reliable sourcing is truly for, not to support banal fact checking. In fact there are no claims or assertions being made at all, just factual primary source based observations. As such, they possibly come under the rules against trivia, but even that is a weak claim given the strong intersections here. I fail to see what this ridiculously over-zealous campaign is hoping to achieve with regard the aims of wikipedia. Frankly, you and the others seriously need to go and find something better to apply your policy wonkery to, as you haven't achieved anything of great merit with this removal without discussion, but you have reinforced the self evidently poor interpretations of what is important to Wikipedia in other less experienced editors watching, and who infact actually look to have initiated this lame edit war in the first place, over a section that was stable for a very long time. MickMacNee (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed it again as its clearly trivia and original research. From the comment here and the article's edit history that's clearly the consensus of the editors. Please do not try to own this article Mick. Seek consensus before re-inserting the section. Aaron Bowen (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not owning this article, it is not my problem of so many people clearly don't have a good enough grasp of policy. Quite clearly with the same director this is clearly not trivia, but no doubt none of you are big enough to admit you are clueless, note even the lack of a reply from "Jenny". MickMacNee (talk) 10:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow

this page used to be alot bigger and had more images, alot more. Seems like somone didnt use the proper rationale, someone else could do it though? It was a really cool article, pretty bare now. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 01:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are restrictions on image use, basically you have to come up with a good reason to use an image. To be completely honest, often times you need a phoney baloney, contrived explanation as to why the image is desperately needed. Aaron Bowen (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I guess but I also mean there used to be a lot more information, like a proper look at Manns thinking behind the film and the importance of the music (Heat (soundtrack)). now its about a third of what it was, its a shame and I do not get why it was almost all taken off. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 19:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Subtle Mistake

Yesterday, I changed in the plot summary "Together, the two men share a final, quiet moment of reflection and understanding as McCauley dies." to "Together, the two share a final, quiet moment of reflection and understanding as McCauley dies." as both subjects of the sentence are not both males. 129.97.185.42 (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

They're not?? 64.208.152.155 (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Current edit war about Starring

In the hope that the current edit war about the content of the Starring field can be concluded I offer Merriam-Websters (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/starring) definition of Starring: "to feature in the most prominent or important role". I believe that definition is an argument for limiting the list to Al Pacino, Robert De Niro and Val Kilmer. Lklundin (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You're correct LKludin, Natalie Portman, Tom Sizemore, Ashley Judd are not starring roles. Tom Lennox (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That is actually termed as the phrase "Starring Role", vs. "Starring". I mentioned this in the edit notes. Srobak (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"Starring", again

Right, this is happening again. Can we get a show of hands for who wishes to stick with the consensus formed above, and who doesn't? I'm for keeping it at DeNiro, Pacino and Kilmer, and no more. GRAPPLE X 17:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Ending interpretation

The plot summary seems pretty solid right up until the last few sentences. Simply put, we as the viewers do not have evidence for any of those supposed thoughts of Vincent. We don't know that he "knows that he has more in common with" McCauley than anyone else in his life. Where's the source for that information? I'm having a tough time coming up with an end to the plot summary that's more grounded in the images and dialogue of the film that summarizes the ending better, I just wanted to see if this kind of speculation was considered a universal interpretation of the film by Wikipedia editors. Is that really what everyone thinks Vincent is doing at the end? To me, the fact that he never looks at De Niro's character as he's dying implies a much more nuanced view of events: perhaps Vincent realizes on some level his similarity to McCauley, but won't admit it to himself on a conscious level, and thus provides emotional comfort to McCauley because he sees some of himself in the thief without committing to it on a fully cognitive level. Or maybe, Vincent does not even see himself as similar to McCauley at all (and that comparison is available only to the viewers due to the arrangement of the scene), and is only emotionally responding to the situation the way he does because he finally realizes that his life of hunting people results in only death and solitude, with McCauley's death as the catalyst in a metacognitive moment of reflection in Vincent that reminds him of his own mortality and fallibility (as earlier foreshadowed in the scene with his television). Or maybe something totally different is going on in Vincent's head, the point is, all these interpretations seem valid, but putting just one that excludes all other possibilities in the plot summary seems to delineate the emotional thematic ambiguity at the end. Maybe we can come up with a more neutral interpretation? If people are fine with the way it is, I won't suggest changing it against popular consensus, but I think there's something to consider in changing the wording.

Crotchety Old Man:

Yes I know the difference. "Minute" details would be Natalie Portman's suicide attempt or Kevin Gage's side steps as a serial killer. And even these "minute" details, I believe, would belong here. If your intention is to highlight that the only important point in the plot is the rivalry between two mutual nemeses, then you don't even need the rest of the plot in the first place. The plot according to your philosophy should be summarized in a single paragraph.

However, if you accept this as a choral, multilevel movie (which it is, if only for its long cast of known actors, its overlapping of different plot lines and its 180-minute span) then you should accept the inclusion of the different levels at some point or the other.

This article was once longer and more complete and for some reason it has been mutilated to such an extent that the film's undeniable artistic significance is currently misrepresented. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMPLOT, plot summaries should be 400-700 words. Given that Heat is a bit longer and more intricate, that rule could be fudged a bit, and the summary extended. However, your edit brings the summary to 1234 words, which is never necessary. We don't even need to mention the editor analysis you added to the plot summary. If you edited more than once every few months, you'd probably be a bit more familiar with the policies that us regular editors enforce. So, in conclusion, you get reverted again. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 10:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

On one hand you stick very adamantly to your version of the article, yet subsequently admit that even you too have a lax attitude from the minute you accept an article of more than 700 words.

If you accept an article of more than 700 words that means there are no rules anymore, and the only rule is common sense. And I don't quite see it written anywhere that you have the monopoly, copyright or usufruct of common sense.

The mere fact that you are a "regular editor here" doesn't give you that extra common sense either. I'm sorry. Heat is a complex film with a complex plot and if you want to reduce it to its minimal expression you don't even need 400 words, 100 would be enough. Or even less: "De Niro plays Neil McCauley, a professional burglar who is a calm and methodical introvert, while Pacino plays a Lt. Vincent Hanna, veteran LAPD homicide detective whose devotion to his job causes him to neglect his personal problems. " should be enough in that case. So you might just as well either work towards the minimal expression of the plot (in which case I'll agree) or let other editors do and act as they deem necessary without interfering. Thank you. I haven't touched any of your contributions. I'd appreciate you didn't do so either with mine unless you have an educated excuse.

Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh and by the way

If you want to reduce this plot to a 1000-word one (which I guess would be your notion of a compromise or a common ground) I think you have far more intelligent ways of doing so. For one thing, this plot has lots of unfounded statements which could be contested (such as Knowing he has more in common with McCauley than anyone else in his life...), whereas my previously erased contributions contain several plot points which are actually relevant (such the ones in the paragraph starting with "By means of a clever ruse...". And if you think McCauley's shadow on the terminal ground is extra, I also think that the "restless SWAT officer" portion is extra as well and should go. Etcetera

So yeah, I've got no problem in plot-trimming (although I just don't understand why it should be trimmed) as long as it's done reasonably.

Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Sobchak0 - but I have to agree with COM on this. The details you are adding are doing less to contribute to the article as a whole as an information resource about the movie, and more for plot unveiling and "Cliff's Notes" - which are two entirely different things. The general idea of the plot is already there, and facilitating it further would only serve to itemize rather than generalize it. WP is not intended to be a novel, or even a Cliff's Notes type resource. You can look at other movie and tv show articles for examples of this, where even important details are omitted from them, yet there is still a vast amount of non-plot related, encyclopedic reference material about it. As WP is a consensus-based reference, I urge you to see what kind of other comments people post here in regards to adding to the plot (or detracting from it) prior to making any further edits to the plot section. Feel free to edit other relevant areas of the article however. Srobak (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Your vast array of strawman arguments basically tell me you understand that you are in the wrong (as other editors seem to agree). I consider this matter closed. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Crime drama or Crime thriller

Let's discuss here if the mainline genre should be crime thriller or crime drama? For me it's a drama, not so much thriller. 201.68.195.208 (talk) 21:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: The above user is a sock-puppet of the infamous Pé de Chinelo. Do NOT attempt to engage him in discussion! Crotchety Old Man (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You're a very annoying user, firstly, you think dakota fanning is an action movie actress, second, you remove adventure from jurassic park. 187.35.32.13 (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Genre is being discussed in the section above, and the article has recently been locked due to stupidity. Discuss it in the provided section above, and do so prior to further genre change edits. If this continues I will push hard for a perm protect. Thanks Srobak (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Plot Length

On 29 Jan 2010 Andrzejbanas added a plot tag, which says that the plot is too long.

WP:Filmplot suggests a length of 400 to 700 words but accepts that this may be too short for some films, which have complicated or unconventional plots.

When the tag was added the plot was 1,294 words long and is now 1.167 words long.

When the tag was added there clearly was some unnecessary content in the plot (e.g. 'leaving McCauley clinging to life in the fields of the adjoining runways. McCauley tells Hanna "I told you I'm never going back". Hanna answers "yeah".') and a number of sections have been reworded to be clearer as well as shorter.

Having just watched the film (which is almost three hours long as well as being pretty complicated) I don't think that the current plot is too long. I don't think that there are plot elements included that could be removed without impacting on the effectivness of the summary. That is unless it is taken down to paragraph or two.

So any objections if I remove the plot tag?

FerdinandFrog (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Refimprove

An editor has asked me to justify the refimprove template I added to the article, so here it is: the article currently has only 8 references, fully half of which are for the real crime section. This is woefully inadequate. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

How so? The rest of the material that would be referenced would come from the actual movie itself. The only material requiring reference is that which is outside the movie - of which there is very little of and is pretty much referenced. Srobak (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Srobak. At a quick skim through the article the only factoid I found that could use a citation is the bit in the lead about it being a remake of a previous movie of Mann's. The plot summary is a nightmare but that's a different beast that doesn't involve references or a lack thereof. Millahnna (mouse)talk 17:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit, I suppose the fact that it's based on Chuck Adamson's experiences could use a ref too. Although that's such common knowledge I hadn't thought about on first read. Millahnna (mouse)talk 17:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

More references are available here. There are also books about Michael Mann which will cover Heat. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright... but I guess my question is - what specifically needs to be further referenced, and is outside of the plot section of the movie? Srobak (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

RepublicanJacobite, I think you may want to use the {{expand}} template instead. Like Srobak said, {{refimprove}} is about existing content in the article lacking references. I assume from what you said that you want more content about the film and with citations. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)