Talk:Heat (1995 film)

NOT THE SAME GIRL

Common mistake in the synopsis: the girl that Waingro maybe kills (nothing is seen on screen, it's pretty sure he hurts her but we don't know if he kills her) is NOT the same girl whose murder Hanna investigates after. Hairstyle, hair color and skin color are completly different: the prostitue has straight and somewhat bleached hair whereas the murder victim has black cornrows or braids and has a darker complexion. It could be an earlier victim of Waingro or something completely unrelated. Watch it again if you don't believe! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:475:BE90:71BF:8599:3DB9:A5CF (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

THANK YOU!! I just watched the film and noticed this immediately. It's backed up by how the policewoman says to Vincent on the scene that the killing resembled at least two other murders of prostitutes in the same area. Imo it makes sense that Waingro had killed several prostitutes (same modus operandi) - hence, i wrote that on the plot synopsis. 222.152.26.228 (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey

Please give credit where its due by adding Danny Trejo's character

I agree with the above that the plot description leaving out Danny Trejo and listing every other major actor is a problem. I'm not sure the best way to solve it, however; since Trejo's character's name is also Trejo, crediting the character as "Trejo (Trejo)" seems needlessly confusing, but crediting with the full name "Trejo (Danny Trejo)" deviates from the last-name only format of the rest of the section. In fact, since the page already has an extensive cast section, I'm not even sure listing the actor names in the synopsis is appropriate see: Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. Anyone have a good idea how to address this? Barring some other idea, I will delete all the actor names from the synopsis and let the cast section speak for itself. Mr Subtlety (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

You're talking about different things. This is a years-old unsigned comment that is probably referring to a complete absence of Danny Trejo being listed at all, not about the incorrect use of the names in the plot section which was added against MOS guidelines a few months ago by a new user here. Problem solved. JesseRafe (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Theory

It has been a theory of mine that Pacino and Deniro are brothers in the movie. At one point Pacino mentions that he has a brother out there somewhere. Why was that line placed in the movie. When they finally meet at the diner, you can almost sense a unique tension. I feel like there is so much more to their story, and Mann is just giving us a glimpse of it. Does anyone have anything to back this theory up?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.248.164.99 (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Fan theories, however cool and plausible, have no place in wikipedia articles. I'm glad you posted it here, though. :) 131.96.211.21 (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

They are brothers... of a sort, because they are both Marines ("no such thing as an ex-Marine").

Hannah's past as a Marine is pointed at by Nate during the car scene where he talks about Hannah with Neil and Neil is shown sporting a globe and anchor tattoo on his shoulder when he is getting out of Eady's bed.

That's actually a point that I feel should have been more explored in the movie. 2A01:E0A:475:BE90:50BC:9168:FE51:4B70 (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

L.A. Takedown

I've just given Heat's precursor, L.A. Takedown its own entry as I felt it needed one. If anybody else has more information on it please feel free to add more to it. -- J.D. 12:11, 30 April 2006

Unaccountably, the article includes no mention of LA Takedown, an oversight mow remedied by me in the Background section. I could not, however, get the link to the above page to come out right, so if anyone would like to assist in this, by all means have a go at it! Orthotox (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Do Pacino and DeNiro appear in the same shot?

My recollection from the 1995 theatrical release is that they do, briefly. And the IMDb trivia says:

<< Many viewers claim that Robert De Niro and Al Pacino never (or hardly ever) actually share screen time during the film, despite the hype surrounding the films release as showcasing their first screen appearance. In most Pan and Scan versions of the film, and TV broadcasts, it does appear that during the "diner scene" the two never actually share the screen, but viewing the film in correct letterbox format, as the director intended, clearly shows the two actors sitting at the table, though only in wide shots. >>

Good enough for me. Ribonucleic 13:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

In almost every shot of them talking, you can see the back of whoever's head isn't talking in the forerground. I don't know if that actually counts, but I thought I would mention it. Kingdok 23:45, 11 May 2007

Their faces don't appear in the diner scene at the same time, true enough. However, they do appear in frame in the scene immediately before when Hannah pulls Neal over. The camera shifts to a POV from inside the car that captures both actors' faces in frame. It's a popular enough fan theory that Mann, Pacino, and De Niro all have had to debunk it in interviews, including on the DVD. Some footage was taken of the two together -- this appeared on the movie poster -- however Michael Mann decided to omit an establishing shot.131.96.211.21 (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I just re-watched the movie, and the frame where Hannah pulls Neal over is the only one where their faces are in the same shot. While they share a few other scenes together, that's the only time when their faces are visible at the same time. So now I'm wondering if Mann might have been better off to give a gift to the film nerds by removing that one shot and so having their faces never appear together. 131.96.222.176 (talk) 03:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

There used to be a still of the two of them in black and white at Kate Mantilini before it shut down. Was never in the movie though. Table at dorsia (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 15:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Film Genre

I have about had it watching people change the genre tag back and forth. Let's get this hashed out on the table and be done with it. IMDB lists the primary genres for the movie as: Action | Crime | Drama | Mystery | Thriller

Under the "more" link - it includes several more - to the count of 80. Obviously that is absurd for this article. I don't see any reason we can't appease everyone by including the primary 5 listed above. Your thoughts? Please remember this is a consensus, and further editing needs to be withheld until a consensus is reached. If further edit warring continues on this item prior to that determination, then I will start the steps necessary to get the page locked up until people can calm themselves down. Srobak (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I view it as an action crime drama. Not so much mystery or thriller. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you - but some of the more recent edits are even going back and forth between action and crime. LOL Would you be adverse to having multiple genres if it included both action and crime and perhaps others as indicated my IMDB or valid genre tags in recent edits? Srobak (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Goodfellas is listed as a crime drama, and I'm sure there are other examples that list multiple genres, so the precedent is there. Too much going on in this movie to pigeon-hole it to one genre. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Heat is not an action movie, it's more of a drama. Rolaye With Cheese (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

To not consider this an action film is absurd. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a drama with action elements, but hardly an action movie, Crotchety Old Fart (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh Tom Lennox, you aren't even trying anymore. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like consensus on this film's genre needs to be clarified. MOS:FILM#Lead section says, "At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the major genre(s) under which it can be classified." Calling Heat an action crime drama can be considered "accurate", but we should try to establish the primary genre. It seems to me to be a crime film, as reflected by these Google Books Search Results and Google Scholar Search Results. Erik (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

To expand, "action crime drama" is a mouthful, and that particular term appears to be neologism. From what I can tell, Heat is more strongly tied to "crime" than "action" or "drama". Erik (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - Action Crime Drama is indeed a mouthful, and clearly does not apply to this film. The referenced link to action film doesn't give proper justification to the genre label it has received here. A search of Warner Brothers DVD website - the studio who released this film - has it classified as "Genre: Drama, Suspense/Thriller" (http://www.wbshop.com/Heat/1000025421,default,pd.html). This can and should end all debate about this issue. I will forward this info to Steve - who invoked the protection on the article. Srobak (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What is your take on "crime film", though? I provided search results backing its inclusion in that genre. Erik (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with you that it is indeed a crime genre film - it is hard to argue with the actual studio that released it, no? :) Srobak (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like the studio would be a "primary source" in this case. :) For all we know, it could be software limitation (as in not having the genre to categorize there), where a whole bunch of reliable secondary sources perceive it as a crime film. Erik (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Your call - I don't mind the addition of it - I think it applies, really. I would cite it however if you do, just my $.02. I would think that even with software limitations it would be listed in crime and drama before thriller/suspense. Srobak (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I notified people at WT:FILM about this discussion and one for The Godfather. We'll see what they think. Erik (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just by doing some google books searches] i'm finding many studies of the films of Michael Mann refering to the film as a crime film. In the Encyclopedia of Film Noir it is referred to a "crime procedural" [1], The BFI Companion to Crime refers it to a "heist film" [2], in Now in Theaters Everywhere it's referred to as a "heist film" and part of Mann's series of crime films, [3], The Scarecrow movie guide refers to the film as a "crime movie" [4]. New York Magazine refers to the film as both an "action film" [5]. Allmovie refers to the film as a "thriller, action, crime thriller and police detective film". [6]. The book "movies of the 90s" calls the film a "thriller". [7]. The book "Thrillers" by Martin Rubin refers to it as a "heist" and "police film" [8]. From these sources, most sources refer to it as some sort of sub-genre of the crime film. If there is still no consensus, I suggest examining these definitions of action films, thriller films, and crime films. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Any opinion on the releasing studio's genre classification, Andrzejbanas? Thanks Srobak (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

We should always try to go with the least wordy option that seems a good fit; lead sentences are under enough pressure to include this-and-that as it is. "Crime film" seems a reasonable option, which encompasses or implies the various other genres we could conceivably come up with (as with The Godfather and "gangster film"). Steve ^T • C 20:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm for crime film, crime thriller or "heist film" myself from my research. Having more then two genre's in the intro is quite a mouthful. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Heat is just a thriller as The Godfather is a comedy. 189.18.208.218 (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I just found the article calling the film an action film. OK, there are action elements. But this is also a crime drama. The script calls it a crime saga. Anyway, here is the compromise: call it an action film/crime drama OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

what is the consensus on genre?OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not clear what the consensus is. Could someone tell me what the genre consensus is? OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd just call it a crime film, seeing as most sources call it that way and crime drama redirects there. Perhaps add that it's a heist film. There seems to be no consesus on this, but nobody has been participating in the discussion for a while, so I guess it's up to us. Daß Wölf (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Good. I am willing to compromise and call it an action/crime film, but there are various editors who believe it is solely an action film, but these people aren't participating in the Talk page discussion. Do you agree that we can call it an action/crime film?OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe heist/crime film would be better. While there is some shooting and killing, this is a far cry from the likes of Transformers or Lethal Weapon. I'm fine with action/crime film as well. Daß Wölf (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The genre issue continues to be a problem. I believe that the word "crime" should figure at least somewhere in the genre. Other editors want to call it an action film. Can we restart the genre discussion and get a consensus?OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 21:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Variety calls it a crime film with action highlights: [9]. Therefore, I vote that we simply call it a crime film. This over-categorization of films needs to be nipped. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I will change it to a crime film, but it will only last for a few minutes. There are editors who feel very strongly that this is an action film.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 20:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, we can always hold an RFC if necessary. That would establish a stronger consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Crime Thriller

User Andrzejbanas only vomits what allmovie says, Heat is not a thriller, it lacks a resolution. Allmovie is not reliable, they list Jurassic Park as action instead of adventure. 201.27.173.220 (talk) 11:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks.

I have categorized it as both a "crime drama" and a "crime thriller", because multiple sources referred to it as such when it was released in 1995.

• CANNED `HEAT' STYLIZED THRILLER PITS PACINO AGAINST DE NIRO
• IF YOU CAN'T STAND A GOOD CRIME THRILLER, STAY OUT OF `HEAT'
• "the superb cast and some brilliant action scenes combine to make a taut, bloody, satisfying police thriller."

---

• "The film is an action / crime drama that would make even Newt Gingrich think twice about repealing the assault weapons ban."
• "Heat, an explosive crime drama"
• "grand, thrilling and unexpectedly tender crime drama."

 Chickenmonkey  19:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Chicken, anon IP, et al - The genre classification discussion has already been had - repeatedly, and ad-nauseum - above. Please contribute to that thread above vs. starting new ones about the same topic. Re-hashing topics which have already have consensus does or are pre-existing does not give them any more validity.

That being said - as an effort to put a final nail in this coffin I will re-state what I posted above: "A search of Warner Brothers DVD website - the studio who released this film - has it classified as "Genre: Drama, Suspense/Thriller" (http://www.wbshop.com/Heat/1000025421,default,pd.html). This can and should end all debate about this issue. I will forward this info to Steve - who invoked the protection on the article." While I personally disagree with this classification - it is not up to me, any of you, or any movie reviewer on the planet to determine which genre the movie belongs to. That decision rests solely on the studio producing the movie.

I sincerely hope this will be the end to this silliness. Any further edits to the genre will be considered vandalism and will be acted upon as such. I am actively seeking protection to be placed on the article again since children cannot seem to play nicely together.Srobak (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please continue to assume good faith, and there's no reason to make threats; it makes you look like a WikiBully. With that said, the studio considers this film a "drama" and a "suspense/thriller". "Suspense(slash)thriller" means they consider "Suspense" and "thriller" equatable. Therefore, they consider the film a "drama" and a "thriller". Given that wikipedia recognizes the genres "crime drama" and "crime thriller", it would be understandable to, using reliable sources, also categorize this film as both a "crime drama" and a "crime thriller".  Chickenmonkey  18:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that the studio's selling of a film should not be the end all and be all for genre classification. For example, Birdemic calls itself a "romantic thriller" on it's promotion while Revolt of the Zombies calls itself a love story on it's poster. I think the genre definitions by the official website itself should be the definition. It reminds me too much of bands on MySpace and whatnot who promote themselves by placing several popular genres in their infobox, whether it's correct or not. Also, what is a Suspense thriller? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A studio, quite understandably, will often refer to or market a film with the idea of attracting the widest possible audience, no matter the accuracy of the statement they're making. I'm not saying they're wrong or lying in this case, but that at the very least we shouldn't blindly take their word for something. (How many trailers have we all seen that totally misrepresent a film's premise?) The studio's definition in this case is especially irrelevant, seeing as it comes from a shopping website of all things. Plus, calling Heat "a 1995 American Drama, Suspense thriller" is extremely clumsy and not something we should say when trying to describe a film in encyclopedic prose. We should try to go for the least wordy option that's accurate. "Crime film" is widely citable and is more to-the-point, encompassing most of the genres that we've tried to shoehorn in over this and the previous debate. What that means in the context of this film is easily discerned from reading the brief plot description in the lead paragraph. Steve ^T • C 20:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. In the lead, "crime film" adequately describes the film, especially considering that "crime dramas" and "crime thrillers" are both "crime films".  Chickenmonkey  21:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Steve, I fully agree that the referenced classification is not accurate, and stated that above. Personally I think crime drama is very fitting - but that is only my opinion. Every other week some anon IP comes on and changes it to their flavor of the week. Without going with consensus and setting it in stone the only other option is to reference it and the only authoritative source is that which I listed. Despite that I don't agree with it is irrelevant. At this point I don't care if it is classified as Movies about tiddlywinks - as long as it is either based on consensus or valid, authoritative, referenced fact, and is protected or otherwise set in stone. This is not supposed to be an encyclopedia of dynamic opinion, and if something in the article as base as genre can't be figured out - how can anything else about it? Sorry to be making a stink about this, but really thought all this nonsense was handled ages ago when we went 10 rounds with it back then. I am all for either running with the old consensus, getting a new one, or using valid citation. Whatever works... just would like to see it put to bed already. Srobak (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Crime film seems sufficient. I don't think that including a promotional page for selling the DVD is a best option for citing the genre, even if it is the genre. For all we know, some intern could have set up the page there and chose his interpretation of the genre. To keep the reverting to a minimum, several citations from various available mediums detailing crime thriller, crime drama, and any other crime variant could be included to support "crime film", as this description would encompass all of these. Consensus from several citations well hopefully put an end to this, and allow for more focus on the more pressing issues of the article, such as the bloated plot and bare sections. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Nehrams2020 on this one, If there are no further discussions on this topic, then I'll be updating this later today. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

lists this as primarly a thriller and an action film. I think it's enough proof that this is an action film. TowerDefender (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There are 2 genre discussions above. Consensus was reached. Participate there if you disagree. No need to start a new section for the same old stuff. Srobak (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

References in popular culture

I was surprised to see no mention that Heat is referenced and parodied by a section of Grand Theft Auto IV. Surely there must be many other references to this movie in other media? Stroller (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Such a section can only be added with very good references. This video game example seems trivial. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Citations for intro section

I'd never heard that Heat was based on the experiences of Miami Vice writer / Mann consultant Chuck Adamson, but I found a newspaper review of the DVD commentary which verifies the claim, and added it. And the box office details I found through Box Office Mojo, no problem. Agreeing with perspective from April that the article is otherwise well-enough cited, I'll remove the template from the top now. However, I do agree the plot summary is too detailed -- but it's an intricate story, so scaling that back will be a challenge. WWB (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Gangster film

I think this movie should be included in the cat:Gangster films, I have found sources that mentions it as a gangster film. Heat is more of a gangster film than No Country for Old Men. Chigurgh (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

People magazine isn't a film magazine. This is hardly a good source for genre. Find better ones. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

These sources list heat as a gangster film, ,

How can NCFOM be a gangster film if no gangsters appear on screen and Heat not be one? Chigurgh (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There are no gangsters in Heat, not even implied. In No Country for Old Men, the assassin works for gangsters, and we actually see them. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Neil is a gangster. Also... SOTL is a horror film film but Heat not a gangster film? From what I know, there are no vampires, wolfes, ghosts or possessed entities in Silence of the Lambs either. Chigurgh (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing horror with supernatural horror. And, no, Neil is not a gangster. Yes, he is a career criminal and a professional thief, but he is not a gangster. Please learn the differences between these different genres. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Those sources seem to be from sites about video games. Find a film oriented source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The genre of the film has been discussed at length earlier on. You can see it here in the talk page, far above. I don't even agree with the consensus, and it isn't even in accordance with what the releasing studio classifies it as - but as WP is consensus based, despite my providing sources from the releasing studio itself - certainly not from pop culture magazines or video game magazines - it sticks. A lot of people have come to the article over the years saying this genre or that, but you are the first ever to come in saying it is a "gangster film". To that effect it is also the 3rd different type of genre you have tried labeling this film with - seeming as though you can't decide which genre it should be. Best bet is to just go with the consensus. Srobak (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

References

revised plot summary

I noticed this article is in need of a shortened/revised plot summary. I'd like to contribute my version which is just under 700 words but includes much more of the plot points skipped over by the current article. Please consider it and if there is consensus here I'd like to replace the existing plot summary (or can I just edit it without consensus if there is a note asking for it?). My proposed version is in the extended content below: KeithLD (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Vast improvement. I say go for it and let the copy editors drop in the make small tweaks where they feel it warrants it. For whatever it's worth, when articles are tagged as having overly long summaries like this, you usually won't get much of a fight if you just rework it and drop it in. You only ran into it on Inception because there was a lot of conversation to get to the summary they have at all. Millahnna (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

Career criminal Neil McCauley (Robert De Niro) and his crew; Chris Shiherlis (Val Kilmer), Michael Cheritto (Tom Sizemore), Trejo (Danny Trejo) and Waingro (Kevin Gage), perpetrate an armored car heist stealing USD$1.6 million in bearer bonds from money launderer Roger Van Zant (William Fichtner). During the heist, Waingro impulsively kills one of the guards forcing the crew to execute the remaining two guards out of necessity. Waingro later escapes when McCauley tries to kill him in retaliation. McCauley's fence Nate (Jon Voight) sets up a meeting with Van Zant to sell the bonds back and he ostensibly agrees but instructs his men to kill McCauley as a warning to other thieves. With backup from his crew, McCauley thwarts the ambush and vows revenge. Lieutenant Vincent Hanna (Al Pacino) of the L.A.P.D. Robbery-Homicide Division heads the investigation of the armored car heist and learns McCauley's crew plans to rob a precious metals depository next. Hanna and his unit stake out the depository but when an officer inadvertently makes a noise exposing the stakeout, McCauley is tipped off and the crew abandon the robbery. Waingro is revealed to be a serial killer, murdering a prostitute with the crime also falling under Hanna's jurisdiction. Despite the "heat" of the police surveillance, McCauley and his crew decide to go through with their final score; a bank holdup with an estimated USD$12 million payoff. Hanna discovers his wife Justine's (Diane Venora) affair and moves to a hotel and McCauley catches Charlene Shiherlis (Ashley Judd) cheating on Chris with Alan Marciano (Hank Azaria), a Las Vegas liquor salesman with a criminal past. Hanna deliberately intercepts McCauley during a surveillance operation and invites him to coffee, where he concedes the problems of his personal life; his concern for his neurotic daughter Lauren (Natalie Portman) and the failure of his third marriage due to his grueling work schedule. Likewise, McCauley confesses his profession as a robber forbids attachments and stresses mobility, making his relationship with his girlfriend Eady (Amy Brenneman) tenuous. Having met face to face, Hanna and McCauley share a mutual respect but readily admit neither will hesitate to kill the other if the circumstances demand it. Trejo is compromised just hours before the bank robbery. In need of a new getaway driver, McCauley recruits Donald Breeden (Dennis Haysbert), an ex-convict frustrated with his demoralizing position as a short order cook at a café. Hanna's unit is alerted to the robbery in-progress through a confidential informant and surprises McCauley's crew as they're exiting the bank. Cherrito, Breeden, and several police officers including Detective Bosko (Ted Levine) are killed during the ensuing shootout. McCauley narrowly escapes with Chris and leaves him with a doctor to treat his wounds while he tracks down Trejo, who explains that Van Zant's men called in the tip of the robbery from information provided by Waingro. McCauley executes Trejo then hunts down and kills Van Zant and makes new arrangements to flee to New Zealand with Eady, who's now fully aware of his criminal activities. The police surveil Waingro holed up in a hotel near the airport and Hanna attempts to bait McCauley into coming out of hiding by releasing Waingro's whereabouts to the network of bookies, bail bondsman, and snitches he hopes will spread the word. Fed up with Chris' abuse, Charlene leaves him and goes with Marciano to a police safe house where Sergeant Drucker (Mykelti Williamson) threatens charging her as an accomplice and sending her son Dominic to a foster home if she doesn't surrender Chris to the police. Charlene initially agrees but when Chris shows up in disguise she surreptitiously warns him about the police presence and he slips through the dragnet. Hanna finds Lauren unconscious in his hotel room from a suicide attempt and rushes her to the hospital. As he and Justine wait in the lobby for the news of her recovery they admit their marriage will never work, citing Justine's affair and Hanna's job taking precedence over his personal commitments. McCauley and Eady are en route to the airport when Nate calls with Waingro's location and the temptation proves to be too much for the normally disciplined criminal. He risks his assured freedom and detours to exact his revenge. McCauley infiltrates the hotel, creates a distraction by faking a fire alarm emergency, and kills Waingro but is forced to abandon Eady when he spots Hanna approaching in the crowd. McCauley is then shot and killed by Hanna after a brief foot chase outside the LAX freight terminal, dying as he and Hanna hold hands.

Why the Starring field should not include just Pacino, De Niro and Kilmer.

If the film revolved around the three characters played by Pacino, De Niro, and Kilmer, I could understand why they would be the only actors to appear in the Starring field. But the film does not revolve around three characters; it only revolves around Pacino's and De Niro's characters. If Kilmer's notable, albeit supporting role is included with the leads, then the other notable supporting roles should be included.

Additionally, I am not trying to put the entire cast into the Starring section. I am trying to put in the names that appear on the lower portion of the poster. If these actor names were notable enough to appear in the film's marketing, they should be notable enough to appear in the starring field. Bluerules (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I figure the extended list should be limited to the prose section - infoboxes should really be kept brief as a cursory summary, and the three biggest names really convey what's needed for that, in my opinion. GRAPPLE X 00:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Those are the names that are on the playbill as being the headliners of the movie. This is not a new practice by studios and is not difficult to understand. Has been quite customary for many decades and to extend the scope of it would futilely attempt to redefine not only the industry standard, but also require the unnecessary updating tens of thousands of articles to offer nothing more than stating multiple actor names twice within each article. The full cast list is contained within the article itself and is cross-referencable by actor name searches. This is unnecessary bloat. Srobak (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, the vast majority of infoboxes here contain more than just three names in the starring section. Secondly, did you miss the part where I said wasn't trying to include the whole cast? This isn't a "bloat." I'm including the names that appear at the bottom of the poster. Again, if they were notable enough to be part of the film's marketing, they're notable enough for the Starring section. Just look at Cape Fear. There's three headliners on the poster, but the Infobox has more names. I don't know why, but this is the only film page where people continually revert my edits to the Infobox. Bluerules (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly because this issue has come up time and again and each time the overall consensus has been for the pared-down version. GRAPPLE X 20:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - a consensus had been reached which you can see in the old section, far above. The other reason is because the same people are probably not monitoring those other pages of which you speak. Not sure how you can equate fine print at the bottom of a movie poster (often lost amongst the vast amounts of other info in that section) with actual "marketing", but ok. Studios typically put 2-4 headliners in larger type on the poster. Adding so many names in duplicity within the article is indeed bloating - even if it isn't the entire cast. Srobak (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The "vast amounts of other info" found at the bottom of the poster appear in the Infobox. You made no response towards Cape Fear having only three names on the poster, but more in the Infobox. In fact, most film pages here don't rely on the big names that appear on the poster for the Starring section. They rely on the names found at the bottom. Why don't you explain why it's alright for films like Cape Fear to have more than three names appear in the Starring section, but not Heat? It's not bloating because I'm not duplicating the information in the article. I'm placing the cast in the order displayed by the poster, which billed Voight and Kilmer last. Bluerules (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Cape Feare is completely irrelevant to this discussion. This article is its own beast, and the community have happily reach a consensus regarding how to handle the infobox. Please stop throwing nonsense logic at it in a hope that someone will fall for it. GRAPPLE X 03:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not nonsense logic. It's the same scenario: three names on the poster, more at the bottom of poster. But whereas the Cape Fear entry uses the names located at the bottom for the Starring field, the Heat entry only uses the three names that appear on top of the poster. Try to be consistent.Bluerules (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I made no response towards Cape Fear because it is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with this article, this situation, what I monitor or this discussion. That being said - not only do I not believe it is alright for the infoboxes to contain more names (which should be obvious by now), but as I do not monitor that page - it is not my concern. Listing many of the names of cast members twice in the article is duplicative. Sorry, but there is no thread of logic that says duplication isn't duplication. The idea behind the movie infobox is to make a concise "fact card" to highlight prominent information about the film. It is not the place for an exhaustive list of nuts and bolts (read: details), which is exactly what the content of the WP article is supposed to consist of. Now - that being said - I don't know what movie posters you look at - but on the one in front of the theatres which played this movie - Kilmer is listed 3rd on the sheet, and did indeed hold a starring role in the film: You can see that here. Srobak (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It isn't irrelevant. It's the same scenario. Three names appear on the top of the poster, more names appear at bottom. Check out Blood Simple, too. The DVD cover of the film only lists three names, but when I first came to the film's article, four names appeared in the Staring field. Why are you even monitoring this page, anyways? This film isn't being preserved by the National Film Registry. Are you being paid by Kilmer to make sure he's the only person who appears alongside Pacino and De Niro? If I was duplicating the cast list, I would place them in the order provided by the cast list, not the poster order. Yeah, I'm duplicating some of the names, but so what? Pacino's, De Niro's and Kilmer's names are already listed four times in the article. I'm not sure how you can consider all of the film's editors "prominent," but alright. Re-check that poster and look at the bottom. It clearly says and Val Kilmer, right after the rest of the names. Bluerules (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I composed the plot summary awhile back and I vote that the info box remain with just De Niro, Pacino, and Kilmer with the cast section including the entire list of "stars" of the film. But that's just my vote. KeithLD (talk) 04:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree - but contend that there is a difference between cast members and stars - just to get into semantics :) Srobak (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I also support having just Pacino, DeNiro, and Kilmer in the "Starring" field. The infobox is intended as an overview of the topic, making certain highlights about the film. Having all these names makes the "Starring" field a mini-"Cast" section instead. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - there is a difference between starring (roles) and cast. Why this is such a hard concept for one person to grasp, I dunno... Srobak (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's the thing- Kilmer does not have a starring role. The only people with starring roles are Pacino and De Niro. If you're going to include one supporting cast member, you might as well include the rest of them. And if I was making a mini-cast list, I wouldn't be listing Voight and Kilmer last. Bluerules (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Bluerules, you continue to change the edits of the page in conflict with the WP Rules regarding consensus. Your arbitrary dismissal of this editing guideline in your last edit note ("So what?") is not acceptable. Please follow the rules and policies of WP. If you do not like them - you can utilize other avenues to try and get them changed, instead of ram-rodding your editing preferences down the majority's throats. This is the last time I expect to see this problem with you. If there is further disruptive editing, then you will be submitted for AIV. Srobak (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a better idea: refute me. Prove I'm wrong. You haven't. Nobody has. You still haven't told me why this page is so important to you, anyways. Here's several film entries that back me up:

• A Perfect Murder - Three names appear on the poster, four names appear in the Infobox.
• Ali - One name appears on the poster, seven names appear in the Infobox.
• Blade Runner - One name appears on the poster, four names appear in the Infobox.
• Cape Fear - Three names appear on the poster, six names appear in the Infobox.
• Cliffhanger - One name appears on the poster, seven names appear in the Infobox.
• Collateral - Two names appear on the poster, five names appear in the Infobox.
• Collateral Damage - One name appears on the poster, six names appear in the Infobox.
• Holes - Three names appear on the poster, eleven names appear in the Infobox.
• The Insider - Two names appear on the poster, eleven names appear in the Infobox.
• Jaws - Three names appear on the poster, five names appear in the Infobox.
• Judge Dredd - One name appears on the poster, seven names appear in the Infobox.
• The Last of the Mohicans - One name appears on the poster, seven names appear in the Infobox.
• No Country For Old Men - Three names appear on the poster, five names appear in the Infobox.
• True Grit - Three names appear on the poster, five names appear in the Infobox.
• Under Siege - One name appears on the poster, four names appear in the Infobox.

Bluerules (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a single one of those articles is relevant. Learn to grasp simple concepts, please. GRAPPLE X 00:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

All of them are relevant. Like Heat, only a few names are on the poster. Learn to actually refute people, instead of thinking you're right just because you say so. Bluerules (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You continue to ignore the policies of WP regarding consensus. You will adhere to them or you will not continue editing pages. You are now being AIV'ed. I am done trying to get you to behave yourself. Srobak (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't proved me wrong. I've made the stronger argument here. Report me to admits all you want, it won't help your case. Bluerules (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You are still under the apparent misguided perception that WP functions on a "what I say is valid until someone proves me wrong" basis. Sorry, but this is not the case. I do not need to prove you wrong... all that is needed is a consensus for the article - which there is - and adhesion to WP:MOS and other WP policies, which there also is. You have failed to generate a consensus change regarding the starring section of the infobox on this article. Now STOP monkeying with it and violating WP:POINT. Your next step on your crusade is to change WP policy. That is not done at the individual article level, so there is no longer a need to pursue it here. Srobak (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You just can't admit you're wrong. You still haven't told me why this page is so important for you. Bluerules (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring. It would be useful to contribute actual content to this article or a similar article. If you add useful content, it is much more likely for it to stick around than an overabundance of names in an infobox field. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's all calm down. First of all, don't edit war - I'm not blocking anyone, and I don't want to, so please don't make me. I'm sure there's a way we can resolve this issue.

So, in terms of the actual conflict; since consensus doesn't seem to be doing any good, does anybody have a backing policy for keeping the infobox short/long? From a cursory inspection, it seems that most other movie articles are formatted with multiple names in their infoboxes. For example, see Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.

Note that I'm not taking anyone's side, I'm just wondering why consensus was reached for Heat to follow a (seemingly) different standard. m.o.p 06:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Like with plot summaries, the "Starring" field can get bloated. The infobox is intended as a concise overview of the film, making certain highlights. I've seen a few discussions in the past couple of months where editors have debated who to include in the field and what process to use (such as looking at credits on a poster). These discussions discuss probably a range of 3-6 names, and I'm fairly positive such editors would find 11 names excessive. Recent Featured Articles about films show a degree of conciseness: Dustbin Baby (film), American Beauty (film), Fight Club (film), Tropic Thunder, Changeling (film), Bride of Frankenstein, Barton Fink, etc. The Featured Articles on Star Trek films don't even list people but provide an anchor link. The answer here does not have to be three, but it is much closer to that than 11. So far, everyone but Bluerules is fine with three. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

To expand, even the sample articles listed by Bluerules typically show around 4-7 names, and these are undeveloped articles. I already trimmed the eleven names that were at Holes (film) and The Insider (film) each. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not just drop Kilmer and be done with it? The OP asked that either all the names are included or Kilmer should be dropped because his importance is equal to the rest of the actors mentioned on the movie poster. If this is the case (not saying it is, I haven't seen the movie since it came out), then I think his argument makes sense. N^oformation ^Talk 21:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Generally, the best way to determine who a "star" is is to look at the billing. On the film's poster Pacino and DeNiro are billed above the title, and Kilmer below the title. Kilmer's billing is inferior to the other two, but all three are "stars" for the film, as determined by the film's producers in negotiation with the actors' agents. That's a prety darn good empirical guide to who is and isn't a star.

Actors billed with an "and" at the end of a list of actors in the billing box are also generally considered to have superior billing, especially if it's inside a box of its own. "Introducing" or "And introducing" and "Special guest star" -- more of a TV thing -- also raise an actor above the rest of the cast. Each of these, if they occur, should be given consideration for possible inclusion in the "starring" field. About the only possible situation which can't be resolved by the factual data of the film's billing is the virtually unknown actor who walks away with a film, and in that case a consensus discussion should be prepared to look at critics' reviews to establish that the actor, even though not billed as such, is a de facto star. Aside from these situations though, billing (in the country of origin) is the way to go, since it's indisputable and heads off these kinds of arguments. Here, it's clear that Pacino, DeNiro and Kilmer are the actors who should be in the "starring" field, and no one else. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, actors listed in the graphics are always repeated in the billing box, so it's not a situation of "3 names on top, more on the bottom," it's "3 names on top and bottom, more on the bottom only". Star's names in the billing box (the "bottom") almost invariably duplicate their relationship in the graphic. In this case, looking at a higher rez version of the poster than we have here, I see:

AL PACINO ROBERT DENIRO "HEAT" name1

name2 name3 name4 name5 name6 name7 with JON VOIGHT and VAL KILMER

the "with" billing is slightly inferior to "and" and could be considered a star or not, depending on circumstances. With the added fact of the billing in the graphics, I'd say that Voight shouldn't be in the "starring" field, but should be mentioned as being "featured" in the lede - but that's not something I'd lose sleep over. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah I see, and fair enough. Incidentally, this entire arguement seems like the kind of thing not to lose sleep over :/ N^oformation ^Talk 01:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely! Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

So just wondering, why is it acceptable for films like LOTR to have a large number of names in the starring field, but not Heat? Bluerules (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Because they're unrelated pages edited by different users and consensus amongst to different sets of users can be different. Deal with it. GRAPPLE X 20:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

They're not unrelated, they're film pages, just like this one. The only difference is the users who edit those pages are more moderate and less stubborn. Bluerules (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Drop it already, Bluerules. You have been advised repeatedly by multiple users about WP:CONSENSUS. 1 person doesn't make for one of those. Enough is enough. You are wasting people's time, bandwidth and space on this talk page, and it is now to the point of your being a WP:DISRUPTIVE USER. Your account has already been blocked once for this. It needn't go any further, but it will if you want it to. Please go find some other article to hark over - but be forewarned that consensus is how all the pages function. It will be more effective for you to make efforts to shift consensus, rather than shove it down people's throats. I will not be wasting my time in dealing with you directly any further - they will simply go straight to ARV. Move along. Srobak (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It would actually be more effective if you just established why you're so set on keeping the infobox to three names and why you refuse to listen to my reasosn. All I want is consistency. I don't need to hark over anymore articles, because most people don't care when I edit the infoboxes. Bluerules (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Bloody hell... I listened to your reasons. We ALL have listened to your reasons. We disagree with them. WP:CONSENSUS. Read it. Understand it. Also understand that abstinence is not consensus. This is my last response to you. Do not disrupt WP further. Srobak (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Action film?

I would like to revisit the issue of the genre. I do not see this as an action film. There are action sequences, yes, but this is predominantly a crime drama. The concentration is on the characters, not on chase scenes or shoot-outs. At any rate, I would like to hear from other editors on this. It looks like the last discussion of this was 2+ years ago. I am not interested in an edit war, nor in starting an argument, I would just like to hear some other opinions. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 01:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Cast list

I boldly removed the cast list, arguing that it is needless repetition, since all the important cast members are identified in the plot. I was reverted, with the argument that cast lists are standard in film article. True enough, but they are not required, and there are film articles that do not have them. Considering that the cast list in this article is a constant source of trouble, with different editors revising it fit their own view of which castmembers are more important than others, why not simply remove it, and be done with it? Any thoughts? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 04:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It is entirely needless. The cast should be given in the plot section in context (see Eraserhead for a featured example of this), not dumped in a context-free list. We're not IMDB. Something which adds nothing to the article, and only serves to attract edit warring, should be cut out with extreme prejudice. GRAPPLE X 04:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

In a fully developed article the cast list should be in its own section, and cast names/links do not appear in the plot section; see WP:FILMPLOT. Beadmatrix (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Beadmatrix

There's nothing in WP:FILMPLOT to support that opinion, and having seen multiple FA-class film articles use the plot section to show the cast, I'd say the opposite is quite true—a fully developed article should use the plot section to show which character is played by who. At the bare minimum a cast section should support this use, not supplant is (see Manhunter (film), an article with both cast-in-plot and a cast section, which does the desirable thing of using a cast section for more than just a listing of names). GRAPPLE X 21:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Heat (1995 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121113061141/http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http:%2F%2Fwhitelodge.no%2Fblog%2Fdet-store-kuppet%2F&sl=no&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8 to http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwhitelodge.no%2Fblog%2Fdet-store-kuppet%2F&sl=no&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 04:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2016

Inflation calculation error in first section 213.48.106.145 (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

What is the error exactly? Daß Wölf 23:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Dane2007 ^talk 19:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Genre

Can we please have some kind of discussion on this instead of back-and-forth edit warring? I don't see what was so wrong with crime film, which is what we came up with two years ago in a prior discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, crime film. The previous discussions can be seen above and were mostly ridiculous. Crime film suffices. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's much point in us starting these discussions. It's the people who won't come here that want to change the status quo... Daß Wölf 03:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably so. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with all above. Crime is fine, but I don't see any of thriller, action, or drama being wrong in a vacuum. Obviously we should avoid the edit-warring, but I don't believe more than two genre words should ever be used unless the film is truly (and notably) genre-bending, such as Shaun of the Dead (ha, which I just checked and that itself has only one genre in the opening line). JesseRafe (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

L.A. Takedown

As with all other remakes, I have noted this movie is a remake in the leading paragraph. Damiantgordon (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Action film

Recently, Das Wolf removed the action categories from this film, I've reverted him, I want to know if there is a consensus whether Heat is considered an action film, this considers Heat action. Deloop82 (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Apologies for my re-revert, I didn't notice you started a talk page discussion before I checked my watchlist. There are some disruptive editors who insist on adding various genres to films and never discuss it on talk page. Two sections above you is a discussion prompted by the last time this happened. Regarding the genre, WP:FILMLEAD states that the article lead should limit itself to the primary genre, and besides categories should be limited to those that can be verified by article text. It helps prevent category inflation -- past a certain point adding more categories becomes less useful for navigation. I surmise this is why it was decided to go with "crime film" alone. Daß Wölf 18:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Pinging NinjaRobotPirate, TheOldJacobite & JesseRafe who participated in the previous genre discussion. Daß Wölf 02:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I saw the edit, but I didn't want to say anything about it because I'm kind of tired about debating this film's genre. But, yeah, we came a consensus that Heat should be described as a "crime film", since that's the primary genre (per MOS:FILM). As far as categories, I think that "crime film" is generally good enough, but if there's a consensus to include others, that's OK. I personally would just stick to the primary genre. By comparison, calling Star Wars a comedy film would not be indefensible, but it would put way too much emphasis on the comedic elements when it's clearly a space opera film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I support the previous consensus. The emphasis is on the crime, not the action, which is secondary. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 11:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

This, as a concept, is tedious. I'd put my personal limit at two genres, because that fits the prosody of when we hear two genres combined enough, they become their own genre: romantic comedy, action comedy, action adventure, psychological thriller, crime thriller, etc. However, "action crime" and "crime action" don't fit this bill, and there was a lot of brouhaha over "action" earlier. As long as the genre includes "crime" and as long it's stable and as long it doesn't grossly violate the MOS, it's cool with me ("Crime thriller" cooler with me, as there's so much tension). Per Dass Wolf, there are a LOT of very adamant genre warriors out there, not just on film articles, and I wager a lot of page-watchers are understandably very quick to revert as another iteration of a previous blocked vandal. JesseRafe (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Heat (1995 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150727005754/https://thedissolve.com/features/movie-of-the-week/882-the-long-warm-up-to-heat/ to https://thedissolve.com/features/movie-of-the-week/882-the-long-warm-up-to-heat/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://m.cinemascore.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080906230258/http://free.financialmail.co.za/05/1209/leisure/fmalala.htm to http://free.financialmail.co.za/05/1209/leisure/fmalala.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2018

In section Factual basis, please change "in an 1995 interview" to "in a 1995 interview". 5.151.0.108 (talk) 11:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

TMS Entertainment's involvement in heat (1995)

TMS Entertainment, is a Japanese animation studio founded in 1964. TMS is one of the oldest anime studios in Japan; best known for produced numerous anime franchises such as Lupin the 3rd, Detective Conan, Bakugan, D.Gray-man, and Sonic X and feature-length films Akira and Little Nemo: Adventures in Slumberland, alongside animation works for western animation such as Animaniacs, Batman: The Animated Series, Ducktales, Spider-Man: The Animated Series and Disney's Adventures of the Gummi Bears.

The company has animation subsidiaries collaborating in conjunction with the company, Telecom Animation Film Co., Ltd. (テレコム・アニメーションフィルム Terekomu Animēshon Firumu), which co-animates shows with TMS.

i found out that this company was involved with this film thanks to idmb, check it out: https://www.imdb.com/search/title?companies=co0064579 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.72.210.21 (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

found the relation thanks to imdb, TMS Entertainment (courtesy of: "Akira"): https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113277/companycredits?ref_=tt_ql_dt_4#other — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.72.210.21 (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Another article stagnating under the protection policy that means no once can edit it

This article sucks.

Mainly because those who can edit it never will.

It's statistically proven that only IPs do the bulk of the work on here not the overblown pompous asses who give each other awards and undeserved titles.

For example: the development section is written by the semi-literate. The production section is not much better. No clarity or explicit explanation of the points being made.

Watch this space, nothing will happen cos the so-called editors only remove stuff they don't like and polish turds like this article.

Remember most contributions to Wikipedia (the encyclopedia anyone can edit - my @rse!) are done by IPs not by signe din editors.

Heat is another example of this fact. 81.141.60.156 (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't get what is the problem here. Just register on the website so no one will stop you I guess (?)--Mazewaxie 15:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is the hypocrisy of people who still claim that Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit?

Maybe the problem is that locked articles ossify and don't improve? Some even get substantially worse because so much gets deleted by people who aren't genuinely interested in improving articles, and too many editors fail to recognize when Trivia is merely Production and Background information in need of a better source and a bit of copyediting. (Production details sourced from DVD commentary could have been improved[10] only it takes a lot more effort to find out specifically which version of the DVD and the approximate timestamp in the commentary for those kinds of details. It is a shame that even more so called trivia[11] wasn't recognized as location information, namely the restaurant "Kate Mantilini"[12] or the insight that Pacino was playing his character as if he was on cocaine[13]) The "themes and motifs"[14] section in particular seems like something that could be restored and improved, if anyone can find some academic articles as sources.

I can't speak for the above anon editor but not only is locking articles a bad policy it is a bad policy poorly done. I cannot understand why articles continue to be locked without any clear indication as to when if ever the lock is due to expire (I'm disappointed this info is not included clearly alongside the lock or as an explanation on the Talk page. Properly explanation of why a page is locked and for how long, should be a requirement, not something anyone should have to ask.) Even requiring approval or flagged edits is a much less hostile policy, fully locking articles for years on end is a terrible policy. There's plenty of room for improvement in this article, but it is still locked. -- 109.78.206.20 (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• "OF VICE AND MANN | Vanity Fair | April 2003". Vanity Fair | The Complete Archive.
• Wolcott, James. "What Michael Mann Changed, and What He Didn't, for the Anniversary Edition of Heat". Vanity Fair.

So, so much room for improvement. -- 109.78.206.20 (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I requested for the article to be unprotected. It has been protected since 2014, and I see no reason why it had to be protected for that long. I think no one asked all this time because editors probably assumed there was a reason for it whenever they may have noticed. I think nowadays, there is an expiration date to protection measures. Maybe this was one of the last overlooked articles to have an indefinite protection measure. Hope you can make some good contributions to this article now! Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

According to the protection log, which anyone can use, this article was indefinitely locked because of persistent vandalism. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=protect&user=&page=Heat+%281995+film%29&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=

However, I agree that the explanation of why an article is locked, should be made more visible on the article. I don't think locking is a bad policy. A completely "open" Wikipedia would bring rampant abuse from unregistered users, which happens far too often on Wikipedia. The only thing obstructing you is a login. FYI, there is a less hostile "pending changes" protection, which requires someone to approve your edits. These protection measures are done on an article-by-article basis, and usually for good reason. L150 20:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2019

Addition to Impact section regarding video games. There is no mention of the Payday series of games (Payday: The Heist 2011, Payday 2 2013), whose majority of content is arguably based on scenarios in the film if not at least in part. See: https://www.digitalspy.com/videogames/gamescom/a336972/payday-the-heist-inspired-by-heat-dark-knight-says-developer-gamescom-2011/ https://www.vg247.com/2013/08/13/music-to-heist-to-payday-2s-musical-masterpiece/

There is literally a level of the game called "Heat Street" in which the player engages police in an shootout though an urban city environment in a manner very similar to the downtown LA scene. 68.39.130.255 (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Please format your desired text in a way that makes sense, illustrates the notability of these video games, and clearly demonstrates what was drawn from the film using the sources you have. I can't speak for any other editors, but if you do that satisfactorily, I may add it where appropriate. But note that Wikipedia is not the place for "arguable" assertions, but only the well-cited and inarguable facts of an encyclopedia. Thanks! JesseRafe (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Several voice lines from the game are directly taken from the film, "the action is the juice" being a prominent one. In the First World Bank job in the game, if you wipe out all the security guards before the first police assault wave arrives, and there's a bot in the lobby, it will climb onto a desk and make the famous "Don't try being a hero" speech. Additionally, the aesthetic of robbing the bank while in suits and gloves, along with all the weapons used in the film, and the magnetic drill from early in the film, are all used prominently in the game. The 4-man crew idea could also be taken from the game, though it could simply be a balance issue. A legacy skill in the game was called Kilmer, as per the actor in Heat. GenSec armored van livery is inspired by Gage Armored Transports from the film, and there is a prominent side-character named Gage in the game as well. The armored transport heists in the game both pull directly from the armored car robbery in the film, in blocking the road with an ambulance and in ramming the car off the road. If you purchase the Expert Driver asset for a heist in game, the name on the driving license is Neil McCauley, per the character from the film. A number of achievements in the game also are direct references to the film. 71.85.220.255 (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Article is now unprotected

I have unprotected this article as per a request at WP:RFPU. If further protection is required, please register a new request at WP:RFPP. Chetsford (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Principal photography

when did shooting start? All I can find is that the final airport showdown sequence was shot in the same week as the Unabomber scare at LAX (28 June 1995) and that the entire shoot took 107 days.Point of Presencetalk 21:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

why someone delete my extra info?

Hallo. I add to the cast Mrs Begonya Plaza, at the role of Anna Trejo, the wife of Trejo in the movie. Why is this delete it? The actress is at a lot of scenes 141.237.121.89 (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Tom Elfmont - cast member and technical adviser

Would like to see Tom added to the cast list - was the 'desk clerk/lapd undercover officer' at Waingro's hotel...He was in 2 scenes and his 'inability to recognize McCaulley' led to McCaulley killing Waingro... Tom is a retired LAPD Captain and good friend of Michael Mann's. He's also listed as a technical adviser on the film per IMDb and was the unnamed "LAPD Commander" who drove Mann around the city so Mann could get a feel for LAPD Crime scenes prior to the shooting of the film. I worked for Tom in the 90s and he was a good Commanding Officer...I tried to add him in as a cast member this morning and the edit was removed... thought I'd throw this out there for consideration...*** edit*** ooops, I see that he was added underneath the main cast - as an additional - Thanks!! Sorry -- if it was there prior to this morning... I must be getting old

https://laist.com/news/entertainment/michael-mann-al-pacino-and-robert-de-niro-reflect-on-heat-20-years-later Toastt21 (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I had moved your edit to the lower portion in this edit, as it was a minor and un-named role. I reviewed the article you posted a link to above and did not see any mentions regarding Tom or his off-screen role as you mentioned. If we can find some citable sources that meet WP:RS standards it can certainly be added. As with most of Mann's films - there is a long list of technical advisors - which is why they are so good, so if we start down that path it would probably be best to include more than one to kick things off - just my $.02. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Norco shootout

I read the wiki article about the Norco shootout in 1980, and feel that the depiction of the get-away and shootout bears similarities to the depiction in Heat. I couldn't find any sources with a short Google search but maybe someone can find something. 84.215.194.129 (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Watched a YT video about it at YT Link and can't see much similarity at all beyond multiple men robbing a bank and then engaging in a shootout. They didn't have body armor, there was no vehicle pursuit in Heat, no heli was shot down in the film, and the pursuit didn't involve multiple officers heading into the desert. Maybe others will - but I'm just not seeing much of a connection. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

one of the paragraphs ends suddenly

see subject 38.42.2.224 (talk) 04:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Care to be more specific? --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 03:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

First paragraph of Development/Factual Basis NateVance (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Development/Production Tone Pass

Tone in Development and Production sections is passionate and at times informal, using language like “missed out,” etc. Curious if anyone better than me at editing would be interested in a general tone overhaul to clean it up. NateVance (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)