Talk:Heist film

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

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Heist film be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Necessary?

Is this article necessary? Could it be combined with caper story? 3mta3 05:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This should most likely be merged with Heist film. Dimitrii (who should really become a user) 03 Mar 2005

Move proposal

Talk:Big caper movie – Big caper movie → Heist film – "Big caper movie" is an obscure name for the genre much more popularly known as the "Heist film" or "Caper film". — Kevin Myers 05:13, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Support. --Dhartung | Talk 09:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Michael Z. 2005-08-28 15:51 Z
Support -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. Dragons flight 03:58, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

history section

I don’t understand the History section of this article. It seems to say that a 1955 film was the origin of the genre, but then says that films of the 1940s and 1950s brought the genre to fame. I consulted this article because I was curious about heist films that preceded The Asphalt Jungle, and the article is no help at all with that. The list of films should really be in chronological order, not alphabetical. --Mathew5000 01:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge One last big job here

This Heist film sub-plot isn't notable enough for its own article. If it was nominated for deletion I doubt it would be kept, but it's a common theme in heist films so would be more appropriate as a section here. Masaruemoto 23:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done ColdFusion650 00:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV

The History section needs a major rewrite. It sounds like a lecture by a Heist movie fan rather than an encyclopedia entry. Please try to keep from advocating one style or another. Stick to facts, in other words don't say things like, "ingenious", "second to none" or other things that speak to quality. "De gustibus non disputandum" In matters of taste there can be no right and wrong. Foolishben 09:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films

Why re-merge the big un-annotated list into the article? It is purposeless, spoils the look of the encyclopedia article, and threatens to keep growing as everyone adds their favourite film.

Wikipedia:Lists says that lists are for information, navigation, or development—this one serves none of these purposes. The only information is that they are "notable", which is simply false (see below). Category:Heist films already serves as a better set of navigation links. And this wouldn't be any good for development unless a bunch of red links were added, further diluting this article.

Wikipedia:Lists also states that "lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources". Please explain what is notable about the listed films. What on earth is notable about $ (film), Bad Santa, Bandits, Bottle Rocket, Confidence (film), etc, etc. Notable films are already linked in the text, specifically because there is something worth saying about them.

Wikipedia:Embedded list is more specific: "lists of links, which are most useful for browsing subject areas, should usually have their own entries: see Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) for detail. In an article, significant items should be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely listed".

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: this list should go. —Michael Z. 2007-08-15 19:14 Z

Fine then take out those unnotable films but a page for a list is not appropriate ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 19:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See below, but for now I will follow your suggestion and remove all of the duplicate links and films I haven't heard of. If I make any mistakes, please restore any notable films, with an explanation. —Michael Z. 2007-08-15 19:38 Z

The notable films are already noted in the article. I have already taken all of the duplicate links and other films out by removing the list, and you restored them, implying that they are all notable. Don't just dump the whole pile of Wikipedia:Listcruft on the article and put the onus on other editors to sort out your mess.

"A page for a list is not appropriate" — some consider that to be the case, but it is allowed. See Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists).

Criteria for list membership is required by the guideline. Please add the criteria, or remove the list.
Please justify all the items in the list based on the criteria, or remove the list.

Regards. —Michael Z. 2007-08-15 19:36 Z

I removed THE STING from the list because it is not a "heist" film as defined in the article; while there is a criminal organization and criminal acts are performed, the criminal act is a swindle of the main villain and not a major robbery.TonyPS214 19:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

References to use

It's All About a Dishonest Day's Work at The New York Times

References to use; feel free to add more. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] starts with discussing elements of the genre. CapnZapp (talk) 09:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[2] thinks the defining element is that the score should be someone's "last". CapnZapp (talk) 09:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[3] says "There is always an underlying reason behind committing a heist, ..."

[4] discusses "requisite elements of a proper heist film". CapnZapp (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the Reference Section?

The entire reference section consists of the definition of two words- "caper" and "heist". So I gather this article is just the imaginings of a wannabe film scholar and what he or she thinks a "heist" film is. At this point, years on, the article should be scrapped and restarted with the proper research done, instead of trying to clean up and justify the mess of suppositions this article has become. Buster (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Buster. This article is nothing but the opinions of a bunch of would-be film scholars. I have removed some of the more egregious sections in which opinion stands in for referenced information. I also removed the etymology section, which was utterly irrelevant. If you want a dictionary definition, add a link to Wiktionary. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have not seen these movies

since they appear to be about a retired criminal who does not pull a heist it seems to me that this section does not really belong.

"Early examples of films which elaborately depict a heist are the three screen versions of the play Alias Jimmy Valentine, the first two made in the silent era (1915 and 1920).

Carptrash (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced content

I removed unsourced content as seen here to give this article a fresh start. These details can be used by future editors to research additional sources to include in the article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I restored vandalism that removed reliably sourced content. However, I do not endorse the unsourced content, so I have removed them. The removed content can be seen here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik: Please don't call my edits vandalism. I left a detailed edit summary with my reasons to remove the list. To repeat: if this is an exhaustive list, why do we need it and why do we need it here (as opposed to on e.g. List of heist films)? If it isn't, the examples could be better. I'll admit, though, the sourced part of the list looks more on-topic than it seemed to me when I made the edits. Daß Wölf 01:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, "vandalism" was an overstatement. I didn't see why completely valid and reliably sourced content had to be removed outright from Wikipedia in its entirety. You could have been bold in simply migrating the list section to list of heist films, though I am not sure if standalone lists are warranted every time, especially for relatively minor genres. Embedded lists are a thing, though I don't think we have any precedent or guidelines to follow here. I don't know how many heist movies there could be, or if adding more prose to this article would make the embedded list more palatable. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think something like what you did with Thriller film would be a fine target for this article. Unfortunately it seems that the list takes all the new editors' attention away from the stub. Regarding the quantity of heist films, PetScan lists 683 articles in Category:Heist films. I think a low-four-figure total of all GNG/NFILM-passing heist films would be a decent estimate. Come to think of it a separate list article would be a good idea. E.g. we have List of blaxploitation films, which is definitely a smaller genre. Daß Wölf 23:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daß Wölf, if an editor adds unsourced content, please revert this addition rather than taking it as an opportunity for drive-by tagging. I've revised the introductory text as well. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see you yourself had time to deduce which of that is RS and which isn't. No need to be snarky. This isn't my day job, I can't always drop everything for half an hour to improve an article. Daß Wölf 22:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying you have the power to revert the addition of unsourced content. Fine if you wanted to template the lead-section prose, but undoing the unsourced content was an easy step. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"One last big job" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect One last big job. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about the movie Entrapment?

Also about a heist, and it is/was pretty popular. 62.165.197.56 (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion! I found a reliable source for it and added it to the list. Anything else you can think of, please suggest! Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The BFI Companion to Crime

Attenborough, Richard (1997). "The Caper Film". The BFI Companion to Crime. University of California Press. pp. 70–71. ISBN 978-0-520-21538-2.

The above source has extensive coverage about the genre across two pages with numerous examples. I just used it as a reference for the recently-added Hudson Hawk. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]