Talk:The Devil's Own

Fair use rationale for Image:The devil's own poster.jpg

Image:The devil's own poster.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) 02:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced material

The following is unsourced information:

• The movie attracted notorious press attention during principal photography. Many stories had reported that there wasn't enough room for both its stars Harrison Ford and Brad Pitt, and attributed that, in addition to troubles on the production and escalating the budget. At the U.S. Box Office, the movie was a flop, earning only half of its $90 million budget.
• A possible explanation for the film's poor performance was the changing political situation at the time in Northern Ireland.

  This is OR!

• The title is explained at Ford's daughter's confirmation, where the congregation renounces Satan and all his works while Pitt remains silent.
• Brad Pitt wanted to leave the production, but was threatened by a lawsuit. In the February 2, 1997, issue of Newsweek, Pitt called the film a "disaster", and said that "it was the most irresponsible bit of film-making - if you can even call it that - that I've ever seen. I couldn't believe it." Pitt subsequently wrote a letter to Newsweek claiming his remarks had been taken out of context. Still, rumors of fighting on the set (especially over which star would be the focus of the film) plagued the production. The original script was discarded and there were at least seven subsequent rewrites. Pitt said the final version was "a mess". "The script that I had loved was gone", he said. "I guess people just had different visions and you can't argue with that. But then I wanted out and the studio head said, 'All right, we'll let you out, but it'll be $63 million for starters.'"[1]

  Which article exactly?

• Screenwriter Robert Mark Kamen was one of the original writers but was never credited.
• Bollywood movies Badal and the 2008 movie Black and White are inspired from it.

While this is interesting, we can't use it unless you provide a source. Also, none of this is really trivia, as trivia by its definition is "unimportant information" - it therefore shouldn't be in a trivia section but instead the information should be incorporated into the main article. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, but the article as it now stands gives no information about the critical reception of the film, or indeed if it is worth watching. I came to this article as the movie is on TV here this evening and I needed some guidance as to whether it's worth watching or not. I have a vague recollection that this is a lousy film but the article didn't help one way or the other.

The article should be expanded from the existing (very detailed) plot synopsis to give some sort of assessment of its artistic value. Information about fights on set would be a bonus. --80.176.142.11 (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's function to assess the merit of a film, in particular, whether it is "worth watching" or not. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a film guide. — O'Dea (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)