Talk:The Fourth Protocol (film)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buckinghamshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BuckinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject BuckinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject BuckinghamshireBuckinghamshire articles

Film: British

	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.

Renaming

Greetings! I tried to move The Fourth Protocol (movie) to The Fourth Protocol (film) in keeping with Wikipedia naming conventions. When I saw that a redirect already existed at The Fourth Protocol (film), I just swapped the article text from one title to the other, rather than having to request a move from an admin. It was for expedience only, not meant as vandalism. The title of the article should be The Fourth Protocol (film). Please consider removing the speedy delete tag. Thanks. Her Pegship 04:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Film rights

Maybe somebody could discuss the rights to the film, and why it hasn't been released in the States on DVD? Wonderful movie, this is. --Paploo (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:47604.1010.A.jpg

Image:47604.1010.A.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 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) 05:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The film itself

One thing missing from the article is any information about the film itself, beyond the cast list, summary, and dates etc. Did the critics like it? Was it successful at the box office? Was it a British film or an American film? Is it currently available on video? I ask because it seems to have dropped off the radar entirely (even e.g. Defence of the Realm pops up now and again on blogs etc, whereas The Fourth Protocol is a kind of black hole). -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Albarn

I believe he made his acting debut in this film? Andrew07 (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB credits Damon Albarn, lead singer of blur, for only two film roles as an actor. It might be possible that he was an uncredited actor or extra but you'd need to have a reliable source to back it up. His wikipedia article doesn't mention this film but that doesn't disprove anything either, so again, if anyone finds a source ... --- 109.78.141.51 (talk) 01:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Differences from the novel

"The character of the assembler in the book is a man although the surname is the same. He is killed by getting his neck broken rather than being shot." < I haven't read the book – does this mean that Petrofsky has sex with the assembler as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messlo (talk • contribs) 19:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. In the book the Assembler is indeed a man, and apart from some witty banter about how a nuke works, there is no interaction between them at all really. There is a comment that Petrofsky holds nuclear science in some awe, and that translates to the Assembler himself as well. In the book he is killed when they take a toilet break by the side of the road (The assembler is under the impression he is being driven back to the airport to leave), and the body is covered with branches and left in a layby.

The film has quite a bit more sexual tension than the book - the American officers wife, the swingers party, the gay encounter at the airport, and the female assembler - none of this is present in the book. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand that scene with the gay encounter at the airport. [spoiler] That cruising gay gets murdered by Petrofskiy before he even gets to initiate his blowjob, and it doesn't seem to be politically motivated, as the slew of other killings in the film. In the grand scene of things, it also seems like an unnecessary risk for a top KGB spy of attracting unwanted attention. There are some signs of Petrofskiy showing sexual frustration, so I don 't know if it is some slightly clumsy and speculative way of showing him as a perverted sexual sadist, in combination with either latent homosexuality or internalized homophobia. [/spoiler] 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, looking it up, it seems as if the killing was politically motivated after all, and I wasn't paying attention. "In his first theatrical role following his successful run on TV’s Remington Steele, Brosnan’s Valeri Petrofsky is sly and enigmatic. He does a lot of emoting with just his eyes, whether it’s tempering the advances of a lonely military wife or seducing a gay man he must kill after witnessing an exchange. " [1] 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify somewhat - the gay man (called "Cruiser" in the credits) walks into some hotel toilets while Petrofsky and a courier are exchanging one of the items (it's a radio, ISTR). To call the killing "political" is completely inaccurate - he's just eliminating a witness, something he couldn't do there and then in the toilet because A) the witness had already left the toilets and was in the hotel lobby, and B) a dead body on the floor of the toilets is even more clumsy and obvious than a death in a Ford Granada in a carpark.

Insinuating that Petrofsky is therefore a sexual pervert and/or has latent homosexual tendencies is original research of the highest order, and there's nothing to suggest this at all. In fact, Petrofsky's behaviour towards McWhirter's wife shows restraint rather than perversion.

Thinking about it, there is only one political death in the film, and that's Petrofsky himself who is killed to keep the balance of power - all other deaths are purely to tie up loose ends and prevent either witnesses or leaks - Philby, Pavlov, Cruiser & Vassilievna - or an accident - the seaman at the docks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another error?

Polonium is one of the most poisonous materials known. And yet here we have at least two people casually handling a disk of it. My understanding is that just handling a disk that side would absorb enough polonium to be lethal. Is that the case? 2001:8003:E40F:9601:3D7B:B0DA:D0D9:A99B (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]