Talk:Trading Places

Best sentence in Wiki history

"In the years followings its release, some critics have praised the film while highlighting elements that they believe have aged poorly and become seen by some as problematic, including racial language, the use of blackface, and the implied rape of Beeks by a gorilla." The deadpan delivery of the final fact.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah...I've made an attempt to clean that up. DonIago (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I like to read it in the voice and tone of the Police chief in Beverly Hills Cop when he says "who disabled an unmarked unit...with a banana?" Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

In the club

Can anybody identify the song the guys in the club sing to the ladies before Winthorpe shows up in his cheap clothes from Ophelia? Hodsha (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Constance Fry, Constance Fry,
Anytime you call,
Constance will fulfill your needs,
Winter, spring, or fall

Absolute classic! Surely it's Love Me Tender. Or whatever that itself ripped off?  :) SN54129 22:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

By the way, I believe I'm still a member of this club.

• https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-trading-places-what-was-that-song-they-sang-at-the-tennis-club/261614/3 Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Christmas Movie

No I am not the IP User:Darkwarriorblake. I'm pretty sure I've never edited here before, and I sincerely do not recall doing so (I am not scrolling the history now). It came from here.

I suppose it is simpler to perceive it as the action of a single person, since spontaneity implies a genuine underlying need to enlarge it. Enlarging it from one setence to two sentences in any case, so not really a big deal.

Nevertheless, if you intend to remove information supported by sources, its presence is unrelated to the creation of a separate section about the role as Christmas movie, which would actually make the article more readable in general. It was time to rearrange it.

Your edit is therefore excessive and good luck next year! Please just don't imagine it's the same person :D Alexmar983 (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Apologies then, the IP was very adamant about including the specific channel it aired on and changing the release date. The second sentence seemed to be pretty much a repeat of the first bar mentioning the specific TV channel unless I was misreading it, but this is ultimately temporary information since it may change channels and I do not find it relevant to include, and while commentary about it being a Christmas movie is relevant, I don't think it needs its own section to explain as it's not a controversial subject. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake the specific "emphasis" on mentioning the channel in the explanation is because that particular channel originated the tradition, shaping it into a part of "modern folklore." Take, for instance, the name of this Facebook group. This aspect remains constant —TV stations and their associated 10-15y+ TV traditions tend to remain stable in Italy. It's akin to Domenica in being on Rai1 or Chi l'ha Visto? on Rai3 or Striscia la Notizia on 5. They might theoretically exist elsewhere within the same broadcaster, but they simply won't. It's intriguing how this aspect significantly influences perception.

The separate section, in my opinion, is essential. Placing that block within the current paragraph disrupts its flow. Bye!--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Here another source in English that cites Italia 1. This removal is actually against the source material because you need this info to provide the complete explanation. To get an idea, it's like removing on another language Wiki a reference to NBC describing the New Year's Eve specials because "it can change the broadcasting station" or "it's promotional". It basically sounds like that - if not wrong at least "naif". So let's don't go too much against the windmill, at a certain point it would be kept. it's just not worth to remove it probably every year when the next person arrives.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Cracked isn't a reliable source but even with a reliable source the relevance of the TV station would be in doubt. Also the comparison is not applicable, NBC makes their specific New Year's Show, it's not just playing a film, it's a live broadcast. They're literally called NBC New Year's Eve specials. Explain how the explanation is incomplete sans the title of the TV station which I'll add has even less relevance on the English Wikipedia about an American film. Also, if the significance is so great, why isn't the film mentioned on the Italia 1 article? I'm never going to agree with you, I'd recommend searching the Wikipedia process for 3rd opinions. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't need to. The inertia of sources is on my side, I know the topic and can feel that this idea that removing any mention of the braodcaster gives some integrty is self-refential, because it's just part of the lore, that's it. I can bring other sources and make other comments but there's no point. I've noted your assertiveness in identifying me as someone else, which has given me insight into your approach as a user, you think you're protecting the page, probably sometimes you are mostly protecting a "social role" that you feel here. It's a side-effect of low user density, no blame..

The information will continue to surface over time... because I know the sources in Italian so there will be a fraction filtering down to English media, ad another one and another one... another source, another explanation why it's not the right source, another undo...eventually, there may come a point where you will stop and focus on other aspects.

I am just doing this for the poor fellow who might be here this next December etc., so they don't have to spend time. they will understad someone is overfocused on one aspect and they will give up to do other things, or come here prepared.

Don't forget to link this discussion if it's the archive at that point! You need to provide all information, especially whan you think you are right :D You can put it in amessage the user talk page or if you undo, link it into the edit summary.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

It's really weird you're still bringing this up. There being sources or not wouldn't matter, the existing text states it plays on Italian TV at Christmas and further back than these Italia 1 runs you're so precious about so there'd never be a time when we'd remove the earliest debut for later ones or that it playing specifically on a certain TV channel would ever be notable.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Ameche's Heart Attack line wasn't to Randolph

"Ameche was opposed to using foul language and often apologized in advance to his crewmates for what he was scripted to say; he only performed one take of his final scene where he shouts "fuck him" towards Randolph."

The line wasn't directed to Randolph. Ameche was being advised by an employee of the firm, and when advised of his brother's heart attack, Ameche yelled the line to the employee. 2600:1700:BF10:69D0:9C17:8997:9736:1D18 (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

He's saying "fuck [him]", [him] being Randolph. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, IIRC, replying to Alfred Drake, Exchange chief, whom we have already met discussing escargots and being advised against going long on April wheat  :) ——Serial 15:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Quite odd response, to say the least. One might even observe that some of the responses to Wiki article issues in general have become moribund and some would say somewhat Philistine in nature. The eff-him statement was NOT made "TOWARDS" Randolph. It was OF Randolph, and made TO the Drake character. These niddly quirk responses contribute, bit by bit, to a diminishment of the stature and correctness of Wiki's reputation and construct. (And contribute to a reluctance of readers to make any suggested corrections at all.) 2600:1700:BF10:69D0:4022:E813:6B13:1A66 (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs. And taking the whole thing a little too seriously. Don "Hey Martez" Ameche (Mortimer) effectively says "Fuck Randolph" (Ralph "Randy Jackson from the Jackson 5" Bellamy) to Drake, in Randolph's presence, and that's all you need to know. Cheers! ——Serial 15:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The hairs you split are not by me, they are yours. Ameche screams the line to the exchange character, NOT to his collapsing brother, and he says "Eff HIM", NOT "Eff Randolph". For your own personal verification, kindly see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLySXTIBS3c&ab_channel=BloombergOriginals. I stand by my original comments. "Hair splitting" my ratz rump. 2600:1700:BF10:69D0:4022:E813:6B13:1A66 (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

a) Ameche screams the line to the exchange character, NOT to his collapsing brother. Yes; I have said this multiple times myself now; and b) He says "Eff HIM", NOT "Eff Randolph". Note I said "effectively says...", meaning, "can be parsed as", while not avoiding the original confusion above where certain parties to this discussion were confused to whom the "him" was directed; c) May I suggest using your night stick? ——Serial 17:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Recent IP edits

Noting how I agree with much of them. Also noted for the record: DoebLoggs misuse of rollback (see: WP:ROLLBACKUSE) to revert a non-vandalising edit. ——Serial Number 54129 13:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Good for you I guess? Removing large swathes of the lede summary and interpeting "Instead, the characters do not dismantle or expose the corruption of the financial system" as not correct because insider trading, which was a part of the system til 2010, isn't part of the financial system or assuming that the intent of the sentence is about them literally bringing down the financial system. Their edits are basically "I don't understand the content, I'm going to change it until I personally do." Same with removing the comment about screwball comedy because (according to Wikipedia) it's a subgenre of Romantic Comedy, ignoring the multiple references to it as a screwball comedy throughout the article or that while Winthorpe indeed does not bang Valentine, he does woo Ophelia. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Also changing Social stratification to Social class, I'm not expert but the former groups people by things including race, which is important to the film, while the latter groups them by working class to upper class, when Valentine is not working class, he's a poor black hustler who is assessed by the Dukes' primarily on his race, assuming he comes from a broken home, etc. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:IND, and join me, also, in condemning the misuse of rollback. ——Serial Number 54129 13:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129:, I accept you criticism and I apologise if I really misused the rollback tool, but I (may be erroneously?) interpreted the edit I reverted as a reiteration of a disruptive action by part of the IP. In that sense I considered it as a vandalic edit. --DoebLoggs (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Deep Throat

We'd need a source, but the bit where they meet Clarence Beeks in an underground car park is clearly a reference to "Deep Throat", the top level source (revealed thirty years later to have been Mark Felt, the Deputy Head of the FBI) who leaked information to Woodward & Bernstein during the Watergate Scandal. Like the Hunt Brothers ruining themselves in their attempt to corner the world silver market in the late 1970s, it's a pop culture reference which viewers would have "got" at the time but few will get nowadays. Paulturtle (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

As you said, we'd need a source. DonIago (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

It's trivia, and there is already mention of G. Gordon Liddy in the casting section. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

No it isn't, it's a satire of what were then recent news events (the underground car park meetings are shown in the 1976 movie "All The President's Men" with Hal Holbrook playing the mysterious leaker, his identity still a closely-guarded secret at the time) which nowadays you need to be a political history nerd to "get". And people aren't going to learn about any of that from looking up who the late Gordon Liddy was - there was little direct connection between the two, as DT was urging Bob Woodward to investigate how the operations of people like Liddy, and subsequent hush money, were being paid for out of Nixon campaign funds. But as I said, we'd need a source. Paulturtle (talk) 06:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)