Talk:The Big Steal (1990 film)

	Film portal 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 articles
	This article is supported by the Australian cinema task force.

Australia: Melbourne / Cinema Mid‑importance

	Australia portal The Big Steal (1990 film) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Australian cinema task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Importance[edit]

I rated this article as High importance as the film in question won three AFI Awards (as noted in the article) and features a solid cast of prominent Australian actors. This unarguably marks is as very significant in Australian performing arts, and thus highly important in an all-encompassing corpus of works on Australia generally. Darcyj (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Unarguably" huh? I disagree. Nothing is unarguable. To prove that, here I am arguing with your assertion. Saying something is unarguable is almost meaningless in the same sense the word "countless" is casually tossed about as a handy rouser of emotions by news media journalists when describing events and phenomena whose outcomes are indeed countable if only the news media would make the effort of finding out the statistics involved or perhaps counting the units involved themselves (oh shit, that sounds too much like work). Your logic is that because the film has a 'solid cast of prominent Australian actors", therefor it is very significant in---what? The Australian performing arts? A more succinct and relevant way of putting it would be to at least mention Australian cinema. After all, it's a bloody film innit?

The part that baffles me is, ". . .highly important in an all-encompassing corpus of works on Australia generally." Exactly what, or which, "all-encompassing corpus of works" are you referring to? You mention that as some kind of definite article, as in "an" etc.

If The Big Steal is so significant in Aussie cinema, you could make that point by finding a peer-reviewed review of the film and putting a reference to it in the article itself, instead of pasting what looks like your personal opinion on the talk page where most readers won't see it. Your assertion doesn't wash with me anyway because on your user page you state that you are interested in anything and everything. Oh yeah, a real expert on cinema. Not. ---Arbo talk 12:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what, because it won 3 AFI awards? That doesn't prove diddly squat. Check the list of Australian films released in 1990. A typical pile of dog poo. The others were rubbish except An Angel at My Table. The Big Steal won Best Screenplay, Best Original Music Score and Best Actor. It did not win best director or best film. An Angel at my Table won those, and it won a stack of awards in New Zealand, Venice, Toronto, chicago and other places.

What was it you were saying about it being such a significant film? Gimme a break. ---Arbo talk 12:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worst plot summary ever[edit]

Of all the film articles in WP I have read, this one has the single worst, most farcically inappropriate, inferior plot summary.

Ever.

By a country mile. Arbo talk 12:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@James Arboghast: Can you improve it for the sake of future readers? :) Erik (talk | contribs) 15:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could, but I won't. This kind of blather is the responsibility of the arseclown who wrote it in the first place. You think I should improve it? In the same breath you could do that yourself. I refuse to because there is a wider dimension to the group effort of authoring WP. I am a specialist Wikipedian, a critic. Now I have done my part by drawing attention to a problem, you and / or others could follow it up. After all, this is supposed to be a group effort. --- Arbo talk 12:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION[edit]

Why was this film changed from its original name, “Mark Clark Van Ark?” Sunwest42 (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The working title is mentioned in the Production section. Films often start out with a different title and then changed. The film wasn't released under the working title. Hope this helps, Knitsey (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Knitsey. I am wondering where the working title came from. I know the actual (has to be the same person!), Mark Clark Van Ark. We worked together at the Boulder County Sheriff’s Department in Colorado years ago. (He’s actress Joan Van Ark’s brother.) My curiosity has gotten the best of me. How earth did Mark become the working title of an Australian movie?! Sunwest42 (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]