Talk:Scoop (2006 film)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scoop (2006 film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Film: British / 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 supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Romance Low‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in literature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Worst Woody Allen Movie Ever?

Whoever said that this was the worst Woody Allen movie ever hadn't seen that stupid one he was in where he played a tourist with Michael J. Fox and Dom DeLouise and, I think, that girl from "Blossom" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.186.24.107 (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

This wasn't a film directed by Woody Allen.

I don't like the section where it says that it mostly recieved bad reviews. In Spain and most parts of Europe it got really good reviews. I don't know why but in the USA they don't appreciate much Allen's films (maybe because of the scandal with Mia Farrow and her adopted child?) Will please someone put some good reviews there? Joanberenguer 02:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It actually was directed by Woody Allen: Don't Drink the Water (1994 film) --Anvilaquarius (talk)

Woody Old?

Doesn't Woody look really old in the picture??

Well, he is 70.

distributor

according to the IMDb, BBCfilms isn't involved, but focus features is only one of many: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0457513/companycredits Amo 22:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Hugh jackman6b.jpg

Image:Hugh jackman6b.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) 23:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot twist at the end of the film

I did not see anyone refer to this twist, but I can see it clearly in the film. Here is the full transcript of what the editor says:

"Fascinating observation. Lyman lost a cyufflink at the flat of a prostitute that was later killed by the Tarot-card killer. Hmm Hmm. Well, this upright chap certainly enjoyed patronizing some dodgy women. Unfortunately for Elizabeth Gibson, she elected to blackmail him."

No mention of any morder attributed to Lyman, although the last sentence is ominous.

It seems clear to me that this is not a plot twist, but merely explaining why Lyman's cufflink appeared at an earlier murder scene--a murder he did not commit. It was this coincidence that made his secretary suspicious and started the events in motion. Since it turned out that only the final murder has his, the audience needed an explanation for the coincidence. (Presumably he was already planning his copycat murder and so wanted to avoid any connection to the other murders, so he murdered his secretary.) Viewed in this light, "Unfortunately for Elizabeth Gibson, she elected to blackmail him" as well as the fact that the paper is running a story at all both support the idea that he has been exposed. I am removing the reference to this supposed twist from the main article. AmericanLinden (talk) 13:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scoop (2006 film). 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/aug/3/20060803-084654-8657r/print/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]