Talk:Sneakers (1992 film)

Expansion of Stub

I expanded this stub, but it's still a bit short. If anyone wants to add to it, please do - or if there's anything specific you'd like to see included, I'd be happy to find it out and add it. CamelsRmammals 21:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

character analysis

I've removed this from the article. Although I like it, it is original research and POV. Maybe something can be done to salvage it?

One of the most interesting aspects of the film is the divergence of the initially similar personalities of Martin and Cosmo due to a life-changing incident, that is, Cosmo's arrest. Cosmo is even perhaps more compelling of a character than Martin. In a sense, the real Cosmo died the night of his arrest, symbolically at the moment when he kicks and breaks the window as he is being dragged away by the police. The paintings of the Hindenburg that decorate his office are perhaps best seen as a metaphor for how his life came crashing down.

The version of him that survives and is revealed later in the film has been distorted and twisted by his incarceration and by the injustice of only him getting caught and not Martin, who largely put him up to his crime. There are many metaphors in the movie that suggest Cosmo is not a complete person. The sculptures in his office of the silhouettes of a man are another obvious statement to the effect that he is a scarred, hollow man. His office is a very sparse, bleak, and empty: just like his life has been without Martin.

The Cray computer and the sensors that protect the office parallel the intimidating intelligence of Cosmo himself and the emotional defenses he has erected to protect himself from the real world. To defend himself from the type of hurt and pain he has experienced he tries to eliminate (but actually bottles up) his feelings. There is much to support the idea that he himself is aware that this cannot really be done. For example, in the climatic rooftop scene it is clear that Cosmo desperately needs his old friend. We, the viewers, are left somewhat sadly knowing that Cosmo will live the rest of his life without Martin and in despair. One cannot help but wonder how Cosmo would have turned out if he had escaped instead of Martin. How much of our personalites are molded by our life experiences? Can we blaim Cosmo for his point of view if we understand how he developed it?

All of this makes for a compelling character that serves as the bedrock of the story.

Feel free to add back whatever is appropriate for the 'pedia. --Dante Alighieri | [[User talk:Dante Alighieri|Talk]] 20:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

"the divergence of the initially similar personalities of Martin and Cosmo"... I don't really think so. Cosmo had more sinister streaks to his personality even before his arrest. He tricks Martin into going for the pizza, muttering "One cannot trust anybody these days" as Martin leaves. This difference is merely amplified by their different fates on that day, but - ironically - it is also the reason for their different fates.

Anyway, this is OR, so it doesn't really belong in the article. DevSolar 07:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup - 9 March 2007

I did a sizeable amount of cleanup today. This article's not yet perfect, but with the exception of a few glaring errors further down in the page (Trivia, etc.), the article is very serviceable.

• Expanded the abstract and reformatted it
• Reorganized Sections to better fit Wiki standards
• Changed "Overview" sec to "Synopsis", cleanup to fit this purpose
• Removed "Plot" section: Possible Copyright Violation

I removed the section labeled "Plot", as it was extremely lengthy and was almost entirely composed of lines taken verbatim from the film (and not identified as such, but that's hardly the point -- it was simply a straight read of the film itself; not only did it copy too much, it didn't include key storytelling points and was difficult to follow for those not already familiar with movie).

If someone wants to retool a comprehensive explanation of the plot that conforms to Wiki standards, I encourage it. As it stands now, the "Synopsis" section serves its purpose well, so an immediate rewrite of "Plot" isn't necessary.

--

ManfrenjenStJohn 04:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Why was the "Plot" section a copyright violation? When listing a copyright violation, it's nice to include a link. I hope you don't mean that it's a copyright violation of the movie. A plot description of a movie is not a copyright violation of the movie. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 04:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for guiding me through this -- I've been reading WikiP since its inception, but I'm relatively new to editing. The "Plot" section was overlong and difficult to read; It bogged down the entire article. Copyright violation was definitely one of my concerns, as the section read like an exhaustive scene-by-scene description of the film, with most scenes described using strings of dialogue lifted from the movie but written as if original; not as a cite. I think it was just poor form and too much of a risk of a copyright violation on top of that, due to the absolute linear similarity to the film's dialogue. Feel free to revert it or review it without reverting it (if that's possible); I'd like to see if you agree. At any rate, I've read a lot of good wiki plot summaries and a lot of bad ones, and that one was ... well, one of the bad ones. It really struck me as How Not to Do A Good Plot Summary. (I know there's a policy that describes this, but I'm not familiar enough to cite it as I write this.) I think the "plot" section entry did far more harm than good. I stared at it for a good while to see if I could rework it, and decided that it would be more efficient to start from scratch. If I can find the policy I'm thinking of, I'll be sure to come back and cite it here. I'm happy to read your guidance on the matter. Thanks. -- ManfrenjenStJohn 06:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: If need be, I can find a copy of the script for comparison's sake, but I think that probably won't be necessary. The section as it was written simply fails on its own merits. I do not mean to denigrate anyone -- rather, I'm actually trying to ingratiate myself. If I knew how to quickly track down the author to ask his/her opinion before I deleted it, I would. As it is, all I know how to do is to "be bold", and describe my actions here on the talk page. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. Thanks -- ManfrenjenStJohn 06:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think it was written by many many people. It's not a copyright violation, don't worry about that at all. I think I agree and disagree. I think there should have been a plot section, but maybe not as long. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 08:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I took it upon myself to jump in with a red pencil and edit down the plot summary. While it was not badly written, it was excessively wordy and repetitive in parts. Feel free to heap scorn upon me for my efforts. Konczewski 17:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ending

On the movie's ending, the article reads: "The last scene is a television news report: the reporter announces that the Republican National Committee has misplaced its funds and entered bankruptcy, while, simultaneously, Amnesty International, Greenpeace, and The United Negro College Fund are seeing record earnings, "due mostly to large, anonymous donations," mirroring Martin's computer crimes from the beginning of the film and hinting that he has resumed his past habits."

How does this mirror his past habits? The article (and the movie itself) simply states that he played pranks, not that he acted as some sort of Robin Hood character. I think that whoever wrote this sort of missed the fact that this is how Abbott's tried to give the group 'peace on earth and goodwill towards men'. I'm removing the line. 213.126.132.70 (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It mirrors his past habits because in the opening scene of the movie Cosmo & Martin are breaking into bank accounts and transfering money from organizations that they dislike to those which they like. Gorillatheape (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Top-geek-sneakers.jpg

Image:Top-geek-sneakers.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 17:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sneakersmovie.jpg

Image:Sneakersmovie.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) 05:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Rationale added to image article. Johnmc (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Tribute

Did anyone else notice the tributes to Three Days of the Condor? The most noticeable to my recollection is the wheelchair-bound phone operator who answers "This is the Colonel," apparently promoted from Major, the rank he held in the original film, where he answered equally brusquely.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 21:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of "Sir" from Sidney Poitier

I have removed this as this is chiefly a British designation, and I find no evidence that he has English knighthood. Furthermore, this site doesn't indicate that "Sir" is a proper form of address for an ambassador to Japan. 98.28.12.216 (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, since none of the other articles that has his name listed has "Sir" in it, it should be listed without in this article as well for consistency, something that can be found via the MOS, I believe. To wit, if you change this article to allow the Sir, then ALL other articles with his name mentioned must be changed to reflect it, or don't use Sir in the first place. 98.28.12.216 (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

He is Ambassador to Japan on behalf of his native Bahamas, which DOES have the right to bestow on their Ambassadors the title of Sir. Knighthoods are not necessarily an English designation, in fact any country that has Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State has the right to bestow this honour upon their citizens. As for other articles then go ahead and change them. The most important of articles with reference to Sidney Poitier is his own wikipedia page which states clearly he is referred to as Sir Sidney Poitier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aprhys (talk • contribs) 17:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not changing umpteen dozen articles to make it consistant. I am going to revert your change back because though (as you say) he has the title, it clearly isn't used by him with regards to his movie roles. 98.28.12.216 (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Honorific titles it is probably not correct to use "Sir" here, it can be used in the lead/infobox the subject's article then ignored after that. Either way, doing it this way would make it consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, there's no reason to make an exception here. Яehevkor ✉ 15:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Presumption

The end of the article read (with emphasis added)

In a postscript, we find out somebody on the team, presumably Martin, has used the processor to steal money from the Republican National Committee, driving it to bankruptcy, and used the stolen money to make massive anonymous donations to various charities including Greenpeace and the United Negro College Fund.

I have changed this to Cosmo. It is Cosmo that is the one who wanted to continue to change the world, not Martin. The article itself states this: that Martin saw their break-in in '69 as a prank, and that Cosmo was still trying to destabilize the economy. Montalban (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I should add that Cosmo is never arrested and is therefore still 'at large' and active, whereas Martin has done everything to hold on to a legitimate life. Montalban (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No presumptions should be made - unless the film specifically states who it was (it doesn't) no name should be attached to the act. Яehevkor ✉ 09:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

In general I disagree, as the purpose of films isn't always to absolutely state everything. It would be assuming the audience has no brain. The film begins with the two of them hacking into the Republican party's accounts. It ends with the fact that clearly Cosmo is still out to do these sorts of things, and that this sort of thing happens at the end of the film.

However for the purposes of this article, in keeping with editorial policy I would leave it alone. Montalban (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it was Martin. At the end of the movie, Cosmo doesn't have the box and has left activism for organised crime.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Halt and Catch fire

Sneakers appears prominently in Halt and Catch Fire season 4 episode 5 and it is the character Gordon's favorite movie. -- 109.79.119.230 (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Inspiration for "Whistler"

Is it possible that Joybubbles is the inspiration for that role?! --79.206.206.11 (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)