Talk:Public Enemies (2009 film)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jesus0008.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Racism against Native American People

When race is depicted in a character and is part of the storytelling Hollywood goes back to paint faces in black casting a french Marion Cotillard to play Billie Frechette which was a Menominee native american. As Leonardo Di Caprio have said Hollywood is still highly racist against native american people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.27.86.88 (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Suggested move

I would suggest moving this article to Public Enemies (2009 film) due to the existence of the 1996 film. I'm sure there are arguments that this film is more important than the other one, but it's not a primary topic. It would involve a mere additional click to the 2009 film's article. Anyone in agreement? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. By the way, when are you going to finally submit your RFA? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good as long as a disambiguous page is created. Royalbroil 00:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, we'll be bold and go ahead with the move. As for the RFA, I'm not in a rush to seek the tools. If I wanted to nominate myself, I would probably spend some time reviewing the administrative tasks first. I'm a mainspace editor and probably would stay that way, using tools in a limited way. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Song in Trailer #2

The song at the beginning is Black Heart by Calexico. The second is Ten Million Slaves by Otis Taylor. For the Marketing part !--Brown Shoes22 (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC) s♂

Historical accuracy

Having seen the film last night, there seem to be some serious deviations from actual historical events, specifically the presentation of the events in Little Bohemia, and the death of Baby Face Nelson specifically (e.g. combining the two). At the same time the "Plot" section is woefully inadequate. I'd also question the current wording in the introduction describing, "the focus on the FBI agent Melvin Purvis's attempt to stop criminals John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson, and Pretty Boy Floyd," given that there is very little of the latter. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Saw the film earlier, would have to agree. Pretty Boy Floyd has minimal screen time. --93.96.19.132 (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious if anyone else has noted discrepancy in the dates of Pretty Boy Floyd's death and that of John Dillinger? The movie has in two places emphasized that killing of Floyd occurred before Dillinger. Sources here(in Wikipedia) indicate Dillinger death happened in July while Floyd was killed in October 1934. This is also borne out in the book on Pretty Boy Floyd written by Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana, pg 388. The movie was great but for a history purist like me, I don't get it. Nfergusclan426 (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The same applies to Baby Face Nelson, who died after Floyd, let alone Dillinger! It's notable that the 1973 film also has both Floyd and Homer Van Meter (for two) being killed before Dillinger. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I was struck by that particular chronological disrepancy as well, especially because the death of Pretty Boy Floyd is being made to serve as the main reason for how the two main antagonists are being set upon each other. However we will need some reliable sources that mentions this, or else I'm afraid this is all original research. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Michael Mann has a commentary track on the DVD edition, where he admits to taking some dramatic license with the Battle of Little Bohemia. He wanted to emphasize more of Dillinger's loneliness building up to the Biograph finale. I don't agree with him; I figure if you're going to be so authentic everywhere else, why slip at the end? Unlike Apollo 13 where someone knowledgeable about things is warned by lines like "This is flight surgeon horse shit, Deke!" near the beginning to expect a lot of license, especially with the character interactions, that didn't happen here. In most things, this movie tries to be bull's-eye everything, and we're trained to expect that by this point. Mann says in the commentary that he got really lucky with a lot of the locations being unchanged (especially Little Bohemia) or being able to find locations (Anna Sage's apartment) that weren't the originals but looked just like them (the Biograph was the big exception), I kinda get the sense that God wanted it that way. It might have disappointed Graham, but I think Nelson's death belongs on the cutting room floor. Featherwinglove (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

An interesting break in my suspension of disbelief while watching this one was when Tin Goose N8407 appeared. I'd already seen a couple of Youtube videos of the plane, apparently made a few months before the movie. It looks like they painted over her Eastern Airline livery and tail number, so I can't verify that it is the exact same aircraft, drat. Featherwinglove (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Budget

Is $100m (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090705/film_nm/us_boxoffice) according to Yahoo! Movies. So have modified the figure on the article. Armuk (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Digital video?

I've been reading that portions or perhaps all of the movie was shot digitally. (The place where I read this, the author felt that the visual clarity wasn't there, but that's not relevant.) Under "Filming", can someone cite a reliable source regarding how the film was shot (i.e. what digital camera system, etc), not just where shoots took place? Dave (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

here is an article that covers the digital aspects of the film.--J.D. (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

With a few exceptions, the film was shot to digital according to the DVD's commentary track. The exceptions were when they rolled a few feet a film through the hand cranked cameras in the Tin Goose scene. Featherwinglove (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

IMDB has the specs http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1152836/technical - anyone who's seen it can tell it's filmed on video. Personally I thought it really detracted from my enjoyment but my less film geek friend really loved the documentary sort of feel it gave.--TheoGB (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

characters

First you guys said Purvis died when he commited suicide and that Billie lived the rest of her life in jail which is actually true The Movie Master 1 (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Purvis did in fact die when he committed suicide (in 1960; it was likely due to him discovering he had inoperable brain cancer). Billie didn't spend the rest of her life in jail; she only served a two-year sentence for harboring Dilinger and was released from jail in 1936 (she lived until 1969). 75.70.188.29 (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Visual effects

Public Enemies: Fast and Loose VFX at VFXWorld. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

ESSCO Signal Controversy

Oddly, I searched on the internet for a controversy about Public Enemies, and suddenly, a recent news column surfaced about Universal renting a man's rare "1920" ESSCO Traffic Signal, and after the movie had been finished, Universal responded with a horrid false story that they bought it and will not refund him of any value. Could this be a good edit for the page? Ryou Hashimoto (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't really relevant in the overall encyclopedic treatment of the film, especially to a global audience. While unfortunate, this is not that unique or unusual as to warrant a mention. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Then most of the other movies with occurences like this that isn't relevant in the global audience must be deleted. Ryou Hashimoto (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Jazz Goodbye

Is there any historical backup for Dillinger having any last words?

I'm assuming this is pure filmmakers' fiat, but maybe some of you have a better idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.240.121 (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Pretty Boy Floyd mention?

Is there really any point in mentioning Pretty Boy Floyd in the summary sentence in the first paragraph? It's not like he appeared much.173.95.138.76 (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Fonts?

Someone added an entire paragraph about the font on the poster. This isn't notable enough for inclusion. I've removed it. 75.95.47.110 (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Public Enemies (2009 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 05:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm reviewing this article. I hope my comments are helpful. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Very close; should be able to pass easily with a few changes and improvements.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   There are some prose issues, but nothing major. The lead could be a little longer. It's my practice to comment on the prose and other issues below, after making general comments. Follows MOS, especially WP:Real world style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Did a sources spot check; looks good.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I especially like the Historical accuracy section; very appropriate for a film of this genre.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Looking at the history, it doesn't look like there's one lead editor. Rather, it seems collaborative, even from some anonymous IPs. That poses some problems with the prose (see below), which often occurs when an article has multiple editors.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I wonder if you could add some images of the actual historical figures, at least of Dillinger and Purvis, in the Historical accuracy section.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   In general, looks good. See comments below, which I'll add later.Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead needs to be expanded. Remember, the lead is supposed to summarize the article for those who don't want to read the entire article. Its current version doesn't do that.

• Plot

As I state above, the prose in this article reads like it was written by more than one person. Getting numerous reviews will help, so I recommend that you get this article peer reviewed and copyedited at least once.

This section "suffers" from choppiness, so it doesn't flow well. I recommend varying the sentences, both in length and in type. For example, the two sentences in the first paragraph have the same structure. I recommend changing their structure to vary things. The use of passive voice makes it unclear who killed Floyd. I think you should go through this entire section and change the structure of as many sentences as you can. You should also change as many instances of passive voice as possible.

In between a series of bank robberies... Don't start sentences with a preposition. How about: Dillinger meets Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) at a restaurant during a series of bank robberies and woos her by buying her a fur coat.

Watch the unencyclopedic language: Despite thinking Nelson hasn't the discipline for his style of robbery...' Change to: Despite thinking Nelson does not have the discipline for his style of robbery...

The sixth paragraph in this section is probably the best example of the above-mentioned choppiness. This is what I'd do with it: Purvis and his men apprehend Carroll and torture him to learn the gang's location, so Purvis organizes an ambush at Little Bohemia. Dillinger and Hamilton escape separately from Nelson and the rest of the gang; agents Winstead and Hurt (Don Frye) pursue Dillinger and Hamilton through the woods, and Hamilton is fatally wounded during the ensuing gunfight. Nelson, Shouse and Van Meter try to escape by hijacking a Bureau car, and kill Purvis's partner Carter Baum (Rory Cochrane) in the process. After a car chase, Purvis and his men kill Nelson and the rest of the gang. Hamilton dies that night and Dillinger buries his body.

• Cast needs to be copyedited. I think that the prose is fine for GA, but I recommend that you have someone take a look at it for improvement sake. This would tighten up the prose; for example: He felt "some kind of inherent connection" to Dillinger through one of his grandfathers, who ran moonshine, and his stepfather, who committed burglaries and robberies and spent time in the same prison Dillinger helped his associates escape from. I think you could just say "through his grandfather". You don't need to explain the reasons for his stepfather's incarceration; just say "...who was incarcerated in the Lake County Jail, the same prison from which Dillinger helped his associates escape". I could go through more of the text, since there are many places in this section and the rest of the article that could be tightened up, but I've never thought that GAC was a place for that.

Why did Cotillard only speak English during the filming? You need to explain why, for those of us who aren't familiar with her, and for the lazy who don't bother to link to her article to discover that she's not American and that she speaks French.

• Development: However, Burrough had no experience in screenwriting, and says his drafts were probably "very, very bad. Ishtar bad." Not everyone will get the reference to Ishtar, so you should explain it. Like this: "However, Burrough had no experience in screenwriting, and compared the quality of his first drafts to the movie Ishtar, which was mostly panned by the critics."

• Filming: The film became a flash point in the public debate about the "film tax credits" that are offered by many states. I'm not sure what you mean by "flash point". Explain, please.

• Critical response: It currently holds a 70/100 from Metacritic, which indicates "generally favorable reviews." You should state when this was true, as you did in the previous sentence.

• Historical accuracy: This is by far the best-written section of this article. The second paragraph depends too much on quotes, though. I suggest that you paraphrase.

Nice job, for the most part. I'll give you a week to work a little on the prose, along with the other minor issues I've brought up, and I'll pass it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing's been done and, since it was a drive-by nom, I don't think anything will; suggest fail. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Well gee, that was a nice way of wasting my valuable time. Not Wiz's fault, of course; I just don't know what a "drive-by nom" looks like, I suppose. At least the review's here if anyone wants to improve this in the future. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)