Talk:Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (film)

DVD and Blu-Ray relase?

Should the release date and information for different regions be added. Specifically should information about the limited steel book edition or the deluxe edition be added? --Bobthbee (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Incubated version

There is a previous version of this article at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (film). I think we should try to get it restored, but I'm not sure which way to do it, with merged article histories etc. Also I have no idea how to get it done in the first place, should I post at some requested-moves page? I've added an "evaluate" tag to the article which adds it to some category that I fear nobody ever checks, so maybe something more is needed. Smetanahue (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done History-merged the incubator version. JohnCD (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

French film?

The cast is British, the director is Swedish, the writers are British, only the money is French. I don't think this counts as a French film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.149.3 (talk) 18:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the film does not have a distinct national identity, I will change it to "English-language". Erik (talk | contribs) 18:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Smells as dodgy as some French cheeses to me (And I've eaten the good, the bad and the ugly of those) - sure, some if not -all- of the money for this film came from France, but that does not make it a French film. Look at Avatar, no one would think for a second it has British connections, but it does, but it's certainly undue weight if it's added to the infobox below American. TTSS is undoubtedly a British English-Language film and any French connections are minor. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

In what world does this film not have a distinct national identity? It's set in Britain, full of British actors about the British intelligence service!--81.109.72.78 (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I will change it to fit other similar film articles, most editors insist films produced by Americans is an 'American' movie so it follows that this quintessential British movie is well, British. Twobells (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Update: I've just checked the BFI website and the Institute shows the movie is a Anglo-French international co-production so it stays. Twobells (talk) 10:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Detailed plot

Please could somebody add a detailed plot? This film is quite complex and I imagine there'll be droves of people hoping for good ol' Wikipedia to explain it to them. Crazy Eddy (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have made a start. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Done, and I agree many if not most viewers must have been bemused. Took me several watchings.

The plot contains some inaccuracies (e.g., Smiley finds Peter Guillam in his house, not Ricki Tarr) and also has some items out of order. (Unless there are two different versions of the film, which is a possibility ...) You might consider using the plot of the book as a starting point, because the movie follows the book quite closely.Kamahen (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Gay or straight

"Peter Guillam is gay in the film, but homosexual in the film," — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.71.22.208 (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

A mistake that has been corrected. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Variations from the novel

In the novel, Tarr was sent to Hong Kong, not Lisbon. The mini-series starring Sir Alec Guinness had Tarr sent on a mission to Lisbon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gestroud (talk • contribs) 04:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That might be relevant in an article on the mini-series, if one was created, but this article is about the film. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of cited information

I have reverted edits by User:94.5.94.52 who repeatedly removes correctly cited information. Just because cites are not on-line does not make them invalid. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Pushing two negative reviews (one of which can't be verified) and neglecting to add a single positive review? Ask yourself why this situation came about. 94.5.94.52 (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Positive reviews are covered by the rottentomatoes cite. The Times review can be accessed in any library in the UK and by looking at the print edition. Please read WP:Citing sources, especially this:

Newspaper articles

Citations for newspaper articles typically include the name of the newspaper (in italics), the date of publication, the byline (author's name) if any, the title of the article (within quotation marks), and the city of publication if not included in the name of the newspaper. Page number(s) are optional.

If the article is available online, link the article's title to the relevant Web address, as described above for journal articles.

Note: "If the article is available online". The Times is not available online. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Just dropping by to keep an eye on the article. I expect both of you to discontinue editing the article until you've agreed on acceptable sourcing formats.
I'd also like to point out the fact that the Times articles are available online, but are behind a paywall - the article in question (for the Times review) is here, but requires a login. I don't think our policies prevent paywalled sources - of course, verifying the source content can be tricky without a login. m.o.p 16:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I should have pointed out that I have access to a print source for the Times cite, which by the way I did not add. The editor who removed it cited first "not a proper cite" which is incorrect; then "unverifiable" which is not correct. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

MOS:FILM#Critical response says, "To maintain a neutral point of view, it is recommended to quote a reasonable balance of [positive and negative] reviews." If the film is well-received, then a good portion of the "Reception" section should reference positive reviews. Negative reviews can be included but on a lesser scale. WP:UNDUE says, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views." I would recommend referencing additional positive reviews in the section so the negative reviews are proportionally smaller. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

So how reliable is a rottentomatoes rating? How much weight should be given to it? I ask because these three reviews [1], [2], [3] are not very positive overall, yet carry the red tomato logo meaning that the aggregator site has judged them positive. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes is considered a reliable source, but you can use Metacritic too, or another publication that has reported the critics' response as a whole. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This suggests that the film is well-received, so there needs to be due weight of cited reviews. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the first review in the google list provided above says: "George Perry told The First Post he was not surprised at all to hear of the walkouts – he would have walked out himself if he hadn't been watching for professional reasons. "It was boring, largely incomprehensible, dismally shot, utterly unconvincing – should I go on?" he asked."[4] The next review says: "In condensing the plot, Straughan and O’Connor have made perhaps unavoidable shifts in emphasis that don’t quite give the story its immediate double urgency. Too much has been reduced to subtext, and as a result, the film feels like a strained interpretation of compelling material. Reducing Smiley’s four main suspects – played by Toby Jones, Colin Firth, Ciarán Hinds and David Dencik – to virtually secondary roles means that the final revelation, of which one is Karla’s mole, lacks the double-edged oomph that imbued a sense of both triumph and loss in the novel. To their credit, the four actors give it their best shot despite having less to play with than they should: Jones is well cast as the passive aggressive suck-up unintentionally out of his depth, whereas Firth supplies apt charm to a character whose intentions are (deliberately) never quite accounted for; Hinds and Dencik have little to do."[5] I would suggest that reviews are at best mixed and that rottentomatoes doesn't accurately summarise the reviews at all. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone had listed Polykov as being played by Kiera Knightly. Changed it to the proper actor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.234.92 (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Swimming on Hampstead Heath

The article states that filming was done at “Hampstead Heath Lido”, where Smiley is shown swimming. Smiley is in fact shown swimming in the Men’s Bathing Pond, a completely different place on the Heath. The Lido (more properly called Parliament Hill Lido), may have been used for filming, but not for those scenes. Does anyone know if it has been used for the movie? Jock123 (talk) 21:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Box office figure

Box Office Mojo is quoting a figure significantly higher than what is given in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.94.52 (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Really? Can you provide a link? Because I find N/A.[6] Jezhotwells (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2011

The BOM page is in external links.94.5.94.52 (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Critical response

Given the overwhelmingly positive critical response, its kinda surprising to see that the space given to negative critical responses exceeds that of positive responses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buscha (talk • contribs) 08:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

If you care to read the so-called positive reviews on rottentomatoes you will find that quite a few are not at all favourable. It appears thatrottentomatoes is not very reliable at all when closely examined. I guess that is what happens when bots rate reviews as postitive or negative. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

BIF awards

• TTSS has seven nominations - JuneGloom Talk 17:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Prideaux and Haydon had an affair

I was a bit surprised reading the plot here at wikipedia not mentioning that Prideaux and Haydon most probably had an affair: the picture of them two, the obvious smiles/looks at the party, and that that was the reason he was crying when shooting Haydon in the end. Also this was most likely the reason Haydon got Prideaux back from the Soviets when asked by Smiley about it in the end, and also saying that Smiley couldn't see him objectively because of the affair with his wife. I cant recall Haydon saying that he had "seduced Smiley's wife on Karla's instruction" as stated here on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User931 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Haydon doesn't quite say that - he says "that was nothing personal, Karla said you (Smiley) were the one we had to worry about," BUT in a meeting in India years before Smiley had tried to persuade Karla to defect by repeatedly saying "think of your wife" - giving away his own weak spot. I agree with you about Haydon and Prideaux (and also Haydon is bisexual), at the very least they were very close friends in their youth and Haydon has now distanced himself, which is why he takes the photo of them away when they go to JP's flat after JP has been shot. I did have both these points in the plot summary when I expanded it a few months ago, but they have since been trimmed, and I've got better things to do than start an argument about it. Don't know what other people think.Paulturtle (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I took this out initially: it's not really covered in the film—even in the novel the point is only partially alluded to, rather than overtly stated—and is even less clear cut in the film. As per WP:FILMPLOT, if it's not overtly stated then it shouldn't be in there ("Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims"). - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it's quite clear, they were homosexuals. It's okay to be gay today precisely because being gay in 1973 could get you fired from a sensitive job. J Edgar Hoover was a paranoid who kept blackmail files on everyone in the White House and Congress because he was afraid of what could happen if he were found out. Alan Turing committed suicide when he was fired from UK government service for being gay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.18.19 (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

If it's "quite clear", can you point to the scene in which someone clearly says so? If not, can you provide a reliable, independent secondary reference that specifically says so? If not, then it cannot go in. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It is quite clear that Haydon is bisexual; see the scene near the end where Haydon asks Smiley to do a "little light house-cleaning" which consists of giving money to both a woman ("Tell her 'I loved her' if you want") and a man ("There's also a boy."; i.e. a rent-boy).

When you add to this the facts that Haydon suggests the search of Prideaux's premises; goes along (instead of continuing to man HQ in a crisis); and then pockets the photo depicting them as "best chums"; plus their looks at the Christmas party (where Haydon has to then ignore Prideaux in order to start the seduction of Ann at Karla's orders); Prideaux spending time at Haydon's the evening before his Hungary mission; Prideaux confiding in Haydon that his mission's goal is to get the name of the mole; Haydon's insistence of Prideaux not being harmed when he is captured by the Soviets; the quick trade for his return; the slush ("reptile") fund payoff so Prideaux can start a new life; Prideaux's tear after killing Haydon; it is all strongly suggestive that they were lovers. Yes, this is all circumstantial, but the sheer number of circumstantial evidence (10 different pieces ) is overwhelming. Movies simply don't present 10 pieces of circumstantial evidence for no reason at all. Contributor tom (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

"photo depicting them as 'best chums'": When Smiley visits Connie Sachs, she pulls out the same photo & with a smirk calls Haydon & Prideaux "the inseparables." After viewing an ancient photo of Control, she adds, "All my boys: all my lovely, lovely boys." BubbleDine (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

-Heres a source. Not sure what you'd think of it though. [7] 74.141.51.98 (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"In the book, Guillam has a flute-playing hippie at home, over whom he’s constantly puzzling, and to use her would’ve required dialogues—the benefit of the homosexual relationship is that it is, by virtue of the setting, instantly full of complications (only legal since 1967, after all). And for a modern audience, Alfredson may have been trying to lay the groundwork for the homosexual history between Prideaux and Haydon, which is never entirely spelled out in the film." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.51.98 (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really. "Alfredson may have been trying to lay the groundwork for the homosexual history" is hardly a solid statement on which to include the information. It's all very grey and hardly a definate. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Surely it IS clear (Guillam's homosexuality at least, if not an affair with Haydon), from the scene in which, after Smiley warns Guillam to cut all his personal ties as he will be under constant surveillance, we see another man packing all his belongings and clothing, leaving Guillam the key to his (Guillam's) flat and asking just before he leaves if "there is someone else". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.157.116.18 (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no argument about Guillam's homosexuality: that is very clear. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

After watching this movie for the third time, I would like to posit another theory about the relationship between Prideaux and Haydon. Notice how the scenes a). where Haydon tells Smiley that his affair with Smiley's wife Anne was a ruse, and b). where Prideaux tearfully kills Haydon, are neighboring scenes. This, I suggest, was to draw the common theme between these two relationships -- that is, that Haydon's affair with Prideaux was just as artificial as it was with Anne. Haydon hid the picture of him and Prideaux because he didn't want anyone to think he was gay -- because he wasn't. But I do believe that Prideaux is gay, and that Haydon also knew it and had exploited that. Haydon saved Prideaux in Hungary because it was a quid pro quo for having been warned by Prideaux, not because they were lovers. And Prideaux killed Haydon out of spite for having been exploited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.128.199 (talk) 07:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This theory makes sense. However correctly reasoned the conclusion may be that Prideaux killed Haydon out of spite, there's also a reasonable alternate interpretation of the scene, which is that Prideaux was ordered to kill Haydon. If he is killing out of spite, why would he hesitate and also shed a tear? As with a lot of the film, ambiguity intentionally abounds. The current plot synopsis seems to paint too definitive a motive on Prideaux, but at the same time, I cannot suggest a more accurate wording of it.Trumpetrep (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The role of Irina

While in the book Irina may have been a Soviet agent, it was never explained in the film. Yes, she knows of the mole, but that simply means she knew of it somehow. People talk. No explanation was given. In the spirit of wiki, we give out the facts, not speculation. The fact is simply she knows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.26.162 (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No: she says it in the film. To Tarr. Which is how and why she finds out about Gerald and how Tarr finds out. It's one of the bits that comes across from the novel into the film. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Boris

It should be noted that Boris, whom Jim went to see if he could turn, was at first thought of as a trade delegate. He thought he was going to turn a trade delegate, he soon gave up because he could tell it was a Soviet agent. He didn't set out to turn an agent.

208.120.26.162 (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Running time

This isn't specifically related to this film, but I'm just curious where you find the information about the running time of films? It's never cited and I'm just wondering where that information is available?

Dilcoe —Preceding undated comment added 03:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC).

http://www.imdb.com --77.76.207.6 (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Accolades

I am pretty sure the film is nominated in more categories than this page shows, maybe the Golden Globes, so someone should work on it ;) I added two recent nominations but I don't have the time right now to do more.--Sofffie7 (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's a note from the film's official facebook page that includes http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1595438368#!/note.php?note_id=344595758888795 Of course, the references are missing but it's a good base to start :)--Sofffie7 (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Distributors

Why should the US distribuitor get a special mention in the infobox? Does Australia? Or India? Or Outer Mongolia? This is an Anglo-French funded film, based on a British book, by a British author, with a British cast, a British subject matter, filming mostly in Britain (with some E European venues). Why should the US be listed? Focus are listed amongst the categories, fine. If there is something noteable about Focus distributing the film in the US then put it in the article, but otherswise we may as well list every country and say who distributed it. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

1)There is no rule to indicate that US distributor of foreign films can't be lisited in the infobox. Template:Infobox film

2) USA is the extremely important movie market in the world. An US theatrical release can help a film to get more revenue in even other countries. These two articles explains more.

http://www.screendaily.com/news/opinion/the-us-deal-conundrum/5004159.article http://www.screendaily.com/reports/features/the-foreign-fallout/5013522.article

3) The wiki pages of The Young Victoria and Pride & Prejudice also display their USA distributors on their infoboxs, and those wiki pages are rated as Good articles . --Marychan41 (talk) 10:12am, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a question about the US market. It's a question of listing markets that are not linked to the production countries of the films. This point has been discussed countless times in the infobox chat and the upshot has always been to limit the information in the infoboxes: please see here and here for further information. Just by way of background, Young Victoria was an Anglo-American film (that's why it's listed as such and why both US and UK information is shown), whilst Pride & Prejudice has only one distributor listed: presumably the global one, which also covered the 'home' country of the UK as well as other territories. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

1) Focus Features is only the US distributor of Pride & Prejudice, Universal released in film in other countries including UK. (It is the reason why you can't see Focus Features' name on the film's non-US poster.) http://www.impawards.com/2005/pride_and_prejudice.html But the wiki pages of Pride & Prejudice is still rated as Good articles .

2) On the other hand, Match Point also display DreamWorks on its infobox, and the wiki pages is rated as Good articles. And there are even more foreign films' wiki pages display their USA distributors on their infoboxs, including Slumdog Millionaire, The Artist, The Iron Lady, Taken, Perfume: The Story of a Murderer, Resident Evil: Retribution and many others. (I had re-edited the wiki pages of Taken, though, because Fox didn't release this film in all international countries.) It proved again that listing foreign films' US distributors on the infobox doesn't break any rule.

3) You asked why I listed the film's USA distributor but ignored the distributors in Australia, India and Outer Mongolia, so I explained my reason to you. USA is a much more important movie market than Australia, India and Outer Mongolia. These two articles explains more. http://www.screendaily.com/news/opinion/the-us-deal-conundrum/5004159.article http://www.screendaily.com/reports/features/the-foreign-fallout/5013522.article

4) Most of box office gross of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy are from USA, not UK. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=tinkertailorsoldierspy.htm --Marychan41 (talk) 11:05am, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

All fascinating stuff, but it still boils down to the two discussions listed on the template talk, which I linked above. These both support the non-inclusion of territories which are non production countries. You can list as many articles that you want which are not following the agreed criteria, but instead of trying to force an issue that has already been decided upon, would it not be better to edit those films you list above so they comply with the consensus? Just to help you out on that and to start the ball rolling, I've amended P&P so the correct company is now shown. - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Based on the second talk you posted (the most recent one), the issue had not been decided upon and there are no guidelines about it. Users in there seems to agree that the criteria is somewhat arbitrary and [case by case] , and the users would present the notable distribution information. In the case of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, the film did have a very notable release in US; the film grossed higher in US than in UK, and the film wouldn't get any Oscar nomination without its US distributor Focus Features. --Marychan41 (talk) 12:21am, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion has gone round several times now and each time it ends up around the same point, which is, and I quote: "We usually list the distributor for that film's country/countries. Not every distributor possible." In this instance, quite rightly, that is the UK and France. Unless there is something particularly noteable about the distribution in another territory, it doesn't get added. There is nothing particularly noteable about the US distribution in this instance, so it isn't included. It all goes back to why there is an infobox (see WP:IBX), which says "keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". Listing endless non-core information bloats the box and defeats its very purpose. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the talk in here. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film Wish that other people would discuss about this issue. --Marychan41 (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Night Duty Officer

The night duty officer mentioned the night Jim Prideaux was shot in Czechoslovakia was not Jerry Westerby, it was Sam Collins who was fired for drinking on duty. Collins was interviewed by George Smiley at the gambling casino he joined after leaving the Circus and told Smiley enough for him to realize Bill Haydon was with Ann that night.

97.121.223.125 (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That's true for the book, I'm not sure it is for the film - I'll check later. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

In the film, it's Jerry Westerby.Contributor tom (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Flag on excessive detail under plot

Hi all

Just observed today that this article has flag for having excessive detail. I agree that the details are somewhat long-winded but not excessive. Rather, it requires a deeper analysis of the plot so that people can understand the movie better. Why would anyone read wiki for tinker tailor under plot, knowing it contains spoilers? If it is an indication,it is due to the extensive double meaning in all the actions observed in this movie that awe and puzzles the audience at the same time. This makes TTSS a true gem to watch over and over again.

In fact, I think a new section should be added on interplay of power in acts deemed insignificant at first glance.

For example, one can trace the storyline and separate from the flashback by looking at the colour of the spectacle frame of Smiley, as he gets himself a new spectacle shortly after he gets his spyhunting job. It also symbolises his acceptance of old age but later on, we realise that it also means that he is planning his inevitable journey to become a "grown up" (leaders of British Intelligence).

To conclude, please add more detail to this section, not trim. Concise is good, but there is not sufficient volume here to start trimming.

This movie has depths beyond most people can figure out in one playback. I think we are doing humanity a service by analysing this movie and writing a comprehensive plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shushinla (talk • contribs) 15:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Not really: the plot is not that complicated and needs trimming, not bloating. - SchroCat (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I have pondered about your reason for supporting the trimming the mentioned section, and I must say it is a poor idea on your part to propose trimming when you will likely have little or no contribution to the actual editing that is to be done under your flag recommendation.

This is because the plot is not so simple as what you assume it to be. I find every detail in this plot well written and sufficiently detailed. If anything, for your own personal preference, a new section can be created for your satisfaction called "Summary of Plot"

Shushinla (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

There are very few plots that cannot be summarised in under 700 words. As to suggesting that I "will likely have little or no contribution to the actual editing that is to be done", then congratulations in being able to see into the future and knowing what I will and will not be doing on Wikipedia in future. One small correction: it is not "my" flag recommendation, the tag was added by another editor, not me. As to the plot itself, as it currently stands, it is overly detailed and needs trimming, regardless of how much you try to defend the bloating. Finally, as to the idea of a "Summary of Plot": see the MOS and accept that this is not an accepted part of the structure of film articles. - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I came to this page as a frequent Wikipedia film article user who had just recently watched the film, and not as an editor. As such I want to offer my opinion that the Plot section is not much too long or detailed for this film, although such length would be excessive for most films. Thanks to all of you who take the time to edit these articles. Led by truth (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I took a swing at tightening up the plot description's language without losing its content, shown below. It's about 20% shorter, at 800 words (which, given the complicated plot, seems reasonable to me). I'll edit it in if others agree:

In October 1973, Control (Hurt), the head of British Intelligence ("the Circus"), sends agent Jim Prideaux (Strong) to Budapest in Communist Hungary to meet a Hungarian general who had promised information regarding a mole in British Intelligence. Prideaux is shot and captured by Soviet agents. Amidst the international incident that follows, Control and his right-hand man George Smiley (Oldman) retire. Control, already ill, dies soon afterwards.

Percy Alleline (Jones) becomes the new Circus Chief, with Bill Haydon (Firth) as deputy and Roy Bland (Hinds) and Toby Esterhase as allies. Previously, they had championed a source, "Witchcraft", to obtain valuable Soviet intelligence. Control and Smiley had mistrusted this material, which will now be shared with the United States in exchange for valuable American intelligence.

Smiley is brought out of retirement by Oliver Lacon, the civil servant in charge of intelligence, to investigate a claim by Ricki Tarr (Hardy), an MI6 operative thought to have defected, that there was a mole in senior British Intelligence. Control had also believed this.

Working outside the Circus with the assistance of Peter Guillam (Cumberbatch), Smiley interviews people who left the Circus shortly after he and Control were forced out: Connie Sachs was sacked by Alleline after claiming that Alexei Polyakov, a Soviet cultural attaché in London, was a spy; while Jerry Westerby was duty clerk on the night Prideaux was shot. Westerby says he called Smiley's house for instructions, but Ann, Smiley's philandering wife, had answered. Shortly after, Haydon arrived at the Circus, saying that he had learned the news at his club. Smiley realizes that Haydon must have heard the news from Ann, which confirms his suspicion that the two were having an affair.

Smiley comes home and finds Tarr there. Tarr had been sent to Istanbul to investigate a Soviet Trade Delegate named Boris. Tarr found Boris to be of no significance, but that his wife Irina might have useful information. So Tarr stayed in Istanbul and began an affair to gain her trust. Irina, however, is a Soviet agent, knows who Tarr is, and asks to trade information—specifically, the name of the Circus mole who worked for a KGB spymaster named Karla—for a new life in the West. Tarr sends Irina's request to London, but the reply, several hours later, ignores Irina's request and orders him to return immediately. Tarr then finds that Boris and the British station chief in Istanbul have been killed and Irina has been captured by her employers. Accused of these murders and of having defected, Tarr then went into hiding. Guillam is sent by Smiley to steal the Circus logbook for the night Tarr called; he finds those pages cut out, confirming Tarr's story.

Prideaux was secretly returned by the Russians but sacked from the service. He is now in hiding, a teacher at a boys' school. Prideaux reveals to Smiley that the Hungary mission's purpose was to obtain the mole's name. Control had codenamed the suspects: "Tinker" (Alleline), "Tailor" (Haydon), "Soldier" (Bland), "Poorman" (Esterhase) and "Beggarman" (Smiley himself). After being shot and captured, Prideaux was brutally interrogated under Karla's direction. The Soviets already knew of Control's investigation into the mole and were interested only in finding out how far it had progressed. During his interrogation, Prideaux saw Irina, now a prisoner, shot.

Smiley learns that Alleline, Haydon, Bland and Esterhase have been regularly meeting Polyakov – the "Witchcraft" source – at a safe house to get material. At every meeting, Polyakov gives these men supposedly high-grade Soviet intelligence in exchange for low-grade British material that helps him maintain his cover with the Soviets. In reality, however, one of these men is the mole, passing along substantive material, including American intelligence, to Polyakov, his handler. The material Polyakov provides has just enough substance to persuade the Americans to share information with the British.

Smiley gets the safe house's location by threatening to deport Esterhase, a former Hungarian who would be treated as a traitor there. Smiley then sets a trap by having Tarr appear at the Paris office saying he knows the mole's identity and will give the name once at a safe house. The mole hears of this and arranges with Polyakov to meet at the safe house to ask the Soviets to kill Tarr. Smiley is at the safe house and captures the mole: Haydon.

At the Circus interrogation centre in Sarratt, Haydon reveals that he seduced Smiley's wife on Karla's orders, in order to divert any suspicions Smiley might have of Haydon. Haydon also reveals that Prideaux had confided in him about Control's suspicion of a mole before Prideaux left for Hungary, as they were close friends. The Circus plans to exchange Haydon back to the Soviets, but Prideaux, having learned of Haydon's betrayal and capture, kills him. Smiley is restored to the Circus as its chief.

Contributor tom (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as all the sensible contributors to this discussion have acknowledged, a proper explanation of an extremely complex plot, almost impossible to follow on first viewing, is perfectly justified here.MissingMia (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

La Mer - (and David Dencik)

As all other sound is replaced with the entire 1976 LIVE Julio Iglesias recording of the classical French song "La Mer" (including an introduction by a female voice) - including Priveaux' shoot on Hayden, is this how the film actually ends (it's most certainly NOT about the Spanish singer) - the film and the song ends simultaneously. In the very exact moment. And as Smiley returns to the Circus and takes the chairman's seat - to the last trumpet fanfare of the song. Not even when Priveaux shoots Hayden, are there any sound other than "Lea Mer" (The Sea"). This is essential ! The other songs like National Anthem of USSR, are NOT the only sound. (They can surelly also be mentioned) But most important is naturally the end of the film - 3 min 30 seconds something. During that time is there no "background music", "talking" or any other sound - which makes this song more important to the film. This is highly unusual, I know of no other film, that uses "front music" and "front music only" as sound during the film's last 3½ minute. Why deny this ?

Also the film itself shows David Dencik's name (as Esterhase) is shown in the beginning, as well as in the casting credits. (And Dencik has more dialogue than what Hind does). There is absolutely no reason to rule him out among the other's in the Circus' boardroom, when the film makers "rules him in" Boeing720 (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Besides - Smiley is not fired together with Control. When forced to face the facts , does Control just say "I take him with me" - to a somewhat surprised Smiley. And Smiley obeys his former chief a last time. Then the just walk in different directions. This ought to be improved as well. But the " "La Mer"-end is far more important, seen from the perspective of the entire film. Boeing720 (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

That song is of no particular importance and there is no reason to give so much attention to it. Dencik's is not a starring role as defined by who appears on the poster, hence his name does not belong. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 11:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Not the song as such, but HOW it is used ! Unlike "National Anthem of the USSR" (as stated in the casting credits) is it front-music, not backgound music. No other sound is heard after it begins. This is a highly unusual way both to end a film and the way it is used generally. Not even Priveaux' shot at Hayden can be heard (only seen), nor any other sound what so ever exist, after it begins. Last dialogue is Priveaux telling the young boy to "Go and play ! ... Damn You !" - after that is there ONLY the mentioned song. And NOT in the background but INSTEAD of other sounds. Very differently used from the "spy-song" and "USSR-Anthem" and other music in the film - if you just pay attention to the film all the way. And this is noteworthy ! I don't know from where that poster comes, but if you watch the film - does it begin with Priveaux is send to Budapest, followed by that he is shot there. And the russians becomes angry with the Hungarians , while Priveaux lies and bleeds. THEN does the the name of the film and the name of the actors emerge on the screen, This includes David Dencik. It's pure sillyness to state that he had no role, as if he was an extra. He is also mentioned in the casting credits. He is taking some kind of lift up to street level, where he is picked up, brought to an old airfield and is questioned - and becomes terrified. And he is participating in the boardroom at the Circus. Control screams "I should have left you where I found you" rather early. His role is larger than Ciarán Hinds' (who has no line at all). Boeing720 (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I have also removed your comment at my talk-page, which indeed was uncalled for. I urge you to watch the film in detail - and you will find that I'm correct in everything I have written. How the music is used during the last 3½ minutes is indeed very rare in film/motion pictures. And the poster says nothing about the casting. It may be a special poster for a certain part of the world - or tampered with. Have you no copy of this film ? I have, and I'm of that kind, who at occasions not just watch a film once. If I like it - or find it (or a certain part) of special interest, then I watch it thoroughly. And that is - Thoroughly in detail. Do not call me a vandal again! Boeing720 (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion is irrelevant. Dencik is not one of the stars of the movie as defined by Wikipedia, hence he does not belong in the infobox or lede. The nonsense about the song is too ridiculous to even respond to. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with TOJ in regard to the stars of the film. Please do not restore Dencik to the infobox. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Neither is your opinion of greater interest than anyone else's. Can we agree on that, and be constructive ? After the Budapest-scene - are the board assembled and Control resigns. He then says "A man must know when it's time to leave the party" - Esterhase (portrayed by David Dencik) then asks "What about Smiley ?". Control replies "Smiley leaves with me". Now we are about 7 minutes in to the film, Control and Smiley walks out of the building , whilst the following texts comes up in the left corner of the screen -

1. Gary Oldman
2. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
3. Kathy Burke
4. Benedict Cumberbatch
5. David Dencik
6. Colin Firth

And so on. David Dencik is mentioned as number four. In the film. That's not an opinion, but certain facts. How do you mean Wikipedia "defines" stars of movies ? Above the film makers ? That is your opinion , if so. Boeing720 (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Boeing720, Wikipedia does not follow the opening credits to a film when including or excluding actors from a film's infobox. We go by the film's poster. Dencik's name is not on the poster; therefore we are not including him in the infobox. Right now in this thread there is a strong consensus to uphold the Wikipedia guideline of following the poster. You are edit-warring against consensus, and you will be blocked if you continue to do so. The only way forward for you would be to somehow neutrally gain a consensus for your desired edit, by for instance creating an WP:RFC (that is, if you really want to go to all that trouble). Softlavender (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

As I pointed out to Boeing720 on my talk page the other day, if he wants to write a commentary about how the closing bars of "La Mer" coincide with Smiley sitting down in the boss's chair at the end or whatever, then he needs to find a reliable third party source (eg. a film critic) and cite his opinion - not write his own commentary.Paulturtle (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

To Softlevander - but posters are next to always different in America, India, Scandinavia, the UK, France etc. And hence a tool which is unsatisfying. While the actual movie is the same everywhere, and is included in the art of a film. (Except for when different versions are released like in The Boat) A poster or a DVD/BR is made in order to sell cinema tickets or film copies. Could you please show me exactly where in our guidelines posters is considered to be a more important source than the films themselves. And stands above our Global perspectives - as the posters are different in different countries. Please. Boeing720 (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

And about the music, was I taking about about it was used as art. I took your comment to heart, and only described what acually happens. Without any interpretation.

But what about tyhs - for instance (from the plot) "Control and his right-hand man George Smiley are forced into retirement" - that's very much an interpretation. What actually happens is - Control say "A man has to know when it's time to leave the party", then Esterhase (David Dencik) asks "What about Smiley ?" and Control replies "I' take Smiley with me". Question was Smiley forced to resign ? He obey Control, but hardly forced to, as Control already had resigned - and by a good degree of free will, I would say. I don't want to make a large fuzz about this matter - but why is that part not needed a source ? But explaining exactly what happens during the last 3½ minutes does ?

It is a fact, that the film and the music ends simultaneously. But "Control and his right-hand man George Smiley are forced into retirement" isn't a fact but an interpretation made by a contributor. I never did add any own interpretations. And what Colin Firth thought about the role - including a Swedish source Aftonbladet, which are used for other statements as well. I say again - this article isn't owned by anyone. And my contributions are based on either absolute facts - or sources. The reason to all this trouble lies doubtlessly in the way User:TheOldJacobite has behaved. Boeing720 (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Boeing720: OK, here's an absolutely clear warning: if you continue to make derogatory remarks about another editor instead of arguing the content dispute itself, I will re-open the AN/I thread I closed and report not only that behavior, but also your unwarranted and inflammatory supposition that someone is suppressing the name of an actor because the actor is Jewish. Just stop this nonsense, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This is not in any way helpful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Anti-David Dencik league ? Due to him being Jewish ? In six years tiome here have I never before encountered a such negative attitude against an actor - or anyone else. Now that I have learned that he is of Jewish origin, must I ask - is that the reason for the elimination of his name in various articles ? Boeing720 (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

What Control actually says is "Smiley is leaving with me" - it is a fait accompli and not up for discussion, in the way that sackings, once the decision has been made, usually are in any walk of life. It is also pretty obvious from the discussion later between Smiley and Lacon, and the flashback discussion between Control and Alleline, that Control had lost the confidence of his bosses (Lacon and the minister). Of course you can come up with weird and wonderful interpretations of any set of events if you try hard enough, but it's hard to see what inference the viewer is supposed to draw here other than that Control and Smiley are being sacked, and Control is being allowed to save face by signing a letter of "resignation". It's not like the relationship between Haydon and Prideaux where it's not entirely clear if they were gay lovers or just very close friends.Paulturtle (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC) And later on, in his meeting where he is being briefed by Oliver Lacon, Smiley says "I'm retired, Oliver. You fired me". So no, it's most definitely not an "interpretation".Paulturtle (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Another poster

• Look at the poster at this page http://www.filmmarked.dk/koeb-thriller-film/29099-dvd-film-dame-konge-es-spion-5706710218814.html

- here is David Dencik on. And as there are so many different posters, do I strongly doubt such can be regarded as sources. Boeing720 (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• This is a Danish-language poster, presumably made for its release in Denmark. The film is not a Danish film, so the Danish poster is irrelevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Boeing720, we use the official original film poster, not posters in other countries and so on. Softlavender (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• First. This is exactly what I have said - Posters are different - different in America and in the UK as well. A third version might be from Canada or Australia. And are hence unreliable as sources. They are for commercial reasons only, obviously. Names are shifted in order to attract as many ticket buyers possible, locally wherever the film is shown. It's advertise and not a quality source. If it's a matter about "movie-stars" casted for a film, there are many prizes and nominations which may be used for such matters etc. I have however NOT been discussing that at all. But the Old Jacobite stated "David Dencik has no role in this film". And I believe he (perhaps deliberately) both confused me and misled me.

Then - I think it's fair and correct - optimal even (perhaps), to mention Colin Firth, Toby Jones, Ciarán Hinds, and David Dencik in an equal way. (As the remaining members of the Board, as well as the suspected mulls - during Smiley's investigation ; Control was not even quite certain of Smiley). Who of these are a greater star than any other, really is not at all my cup of tea, to discuss. (At Wikipedia or elsewhere). The current lead is well enough. And if I have missed a brief non-content comment at the talk-page, then I'm sorry, but I don't think so. (How to comment void or orders given ?) Please understand the methods Old Jacobite used here (in "my case") - is indeed not something I ever before have encountered here, not even close. I mean removing references, and pretend they never were there, plus bombarding my own talk-page without making any efforts of explain anything - at the same time. I did not feel well due to his behavior, I'm used to discuss articles. But this was something else (with him).

And. I can leave it at this, I do leave it at this rather. But I really think it would be of benefit to our article to add a few words about how all other sounds is replaced with the already mentioned song (and I'm that old that I'm used do distinguish live recordings from ordinary ones). I certainly do not suggest we should wright "how splendidly this is done". (only think it is). Please assume the best of me. As I do of you. Cheers Boeing720 (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Please do not add anything to the article that is not supported by a citation from a reliable source. Specifically, do not add your opinions, analyses or interpretations to the article, that would be a violation of WP:Original research. Also, the purpose of an article talk page is to discuss potential changes to the article. Since your opinions, analyses, and interpretations cannot be added to the article, they should not be discussed here. Specifically, an article talk page is not the place for general discussions of the article's subject matter, per WP:Talk pages. I am adding a notice to the page to remind all editors about that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• Boeing720, TheOldJacobite never said "David Dencik has no role in this film", so please stop saying that. He posted standard user-talk templates about your edits, and you deleted or ignored them instead of establishing consensus here on this talk page. I understand that you did not realize that on Wikipedia we go by the film's original poster when listing actors in the infobox, but now that has been explained to you. The other thing you need to be aware of and learn is that we do not allow original research on Wikipedia. In other words, we cannot post our own observations in a Wikipedia article; everything needs to be cited from a reliable independent source. Softlavender (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Ken - This is the place to talk about the article, isn't it ? (Rather than giving orders) I have NOT added anything you say. And it is 'I' who have used this talk-page, rather than Old Jackobite. And as I said - I'm finished with this article. Why then keep going on like this ? Why did you remove a part you have saved here Yesterday ? (removed during my last reply) About OR see reply here below.

Softlavander - 20th June, in the history file- "Dencik's is not a starring role; please look at the poster." I think I have disproved this - and that posters in general are different from country to country , also between US, UK, Australia and Canada NZ , India etc - depending of how well known actors may be in different countries (or very well may be - and hence are unreliable as sources). Please direct me to the WP:guideline that states "posters as good sources".

I have most certainly NOT ignored anything, but I was "bombarded" with various messages, by OldJ. To the extent which is intolerable and causes distraction (at least to me). The totally rabid attempts to remove David Dencik as an actor, like the other four at the top of the Circus (Smiley and Control aside), as they have equally important roles and number of lines, suggests to me someone is personally disliking him. Why on Earth else ? A rather stupid image at David Dencik article ? (the new one isn't much better, but what I could find), or anything else. No one has given any answer to this strange question. Which I found to be very strange. (Who is a "movie star" or not isn't the issue, and is a highly subjective matter which I haven't any interest at all of) I could at one time see "please don't change this" (have a look in the history file) - but I couldn't see it until I already had made a change.

If this is the general way Old Jackobite works, am I deeply concerned about his behavior. I began using the talk-page as soon as he brought it up, but he was not interested in talking, and instead began the bombardment of my talk-page. Generally speaking is the entire plot either original research or own interpretations. There is not one single inline reference. And to my knowledge is that almost always the case. So if you're accusing me of that here, you do the same with everyone else who ever have contributed to any plot without the use of an NPOV source.

However I shall correct myself on a few points. The music isn't completely the only sound during the last 3½ minutes, only largely so. Priveaux's mantle movement with his gun is clearly heard, but the shot is almost not heard at all in the music. Also - Hinds (Blend in the film) has indeed a few lines, but only between the 10th and 30th minutes, approximately. Over and out. Boeing720 (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

No, this is NOT the place to talk about your opinions about the film, and if you do it again I will be deleting it. Nor is it the place to continue attacking another editor. Since I told you that if you continue to do so, I would report your behavior, I am going to follow through on that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I concur that Dencik does not need to be mentioned in the film infobox or the lead section. We have had too many cases of edit warring in the past over which names to include, so we need to follow rules of thumb already existing elsewhere. In this case, the highlighted names in the original theatrical release poster are sufficient. Posters for other countries may differ for whatever reason, but this is an ideal rule of thumb to follow. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Boeing720: All I can say at this point is that TheOldJacobite always acted completely within Wikipedia guidelines and policies, whereas you have not, and you have continued to heap unfounded criticism on TheOldJacobite without cause and have continued to insist upon your own way and your own preferences despite numerous editors explaining to you why your personal preferences do not take precedence over Wikipedia guidelines and policies. And at this point I can also say that if you continue to waste everyone's time here you will probably be brought to ANI and a sanction will be sought against you, such as either a topic ban or a block. Softlavender (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Boeing720: Here are the very clear infobox instructions for films: Template:Infobox film. -- Softlavender (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Prideaux's killing of Haydon

I removed an interpretation of Prideaux's motivations for killing Haydon from the plot summary. Speculation and interpretation don't belong in a Plot Summary.

Beyond My Ken undid my removal on the grounds that "there's no doubt" re: Prideaux's motivation.

This is incorrect. The motivations in the original novel, from which this film is adapted, have been recognized as ambiguous by various scholars. For example, from p. 44-45, The Spy Novels of John Le Carre, Myron Aronoff, 1999, St. Martin's Press:

"To dramatize further the depth of Haydon's betrayal of Prideaux, le Carre imples they were lovers as well as colleagues and close friends. Prideaux follows Smiley as he tracks down the mole. After Haydon has been finally identified and incarcerated, Prideaux breaks his neck in the manner in which has previously dispatched an injured bird at Thursgood's school. This act could be interpreted either as an act of revenge or as a mercy killing (the allusion to the wounded bird) of someone whose life of intrigue was over and therefore had nothing more for which to live. It is also entirely consistent with le Carre that it was both, because he suggests that individuals act for a multiplicity of reasons [...]"

While the film changes the manner of death from a broken neck to a shooting, Prideaux is shown with a tear running down his face immediately after firing the shot. This is in line with the ambiguity of the novel on which the film is based. I think it is far better in the Plot Summary to not suggest a motivation for Prideaux's act and to simply state the fact that he kills Haydon.Contributor tom (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The book is what it is, and the film is what it is. The filmmakers may or may not have intended to present what the book did, and may or or may not have succeeded in whatever they intended. Citing the book to "prove" what is shown on the film is not appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Read what I wrote, please. I acknowledged that the film is different from the book and pointed out something *in the film* and not in the book (the tear running down Prideaux's cheek) that suggests a more complex motivation than straight-forward revenge.

In any event, the purpose here is not to debate how to interpret the film; the purpose is to improve the Plot Summary for the reader. I think we have two choices: either simply state what happens (Prideaux shoots Haydon) and leave motivation out of it entirely or try to present a range of possible motivations (since the scene can be interpreted in various ways). Which do you think is better? Contributor tom (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, I agree, leave motivation out of it entirely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (film)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (film)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BOM":

• From The Theory of Everything (2014 film): "The Theory of Everything (2014)". BoxOfficeMojo.com. Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 12 March 2016.
• From God's Own Country (2017 film): "God's Own Country". Box Office Mojo. IMDb. Retrieved 7 February 2020.
• From Jason Bourne (film): "Jason Bourne (2016)". Box Office Mojo. Archived from the original on October 17, 2019. Retrieved January 5, 2017.
• From Kingsman: The Secret Service: "Kingsman: The Secret Service (2015)". Box Office Mojo. 1 March 2015. Retrieved 23 June 2015.
• From Spectre (2015 film): "Spectre (2015)". Box Office Mojo. Archived from the original on 19 April 2016. Retrieved 21 April 2016.
• From The Favourite: "The Favourite (2018)". Box Office Mojo. Archived from the original on 2 February 2019. Retrieved 12 April 2019.
• From Les Misérables (2012 film): "Les Misérables (2012)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 19 April 2013.
• From The Snowman (2017 film): "The Snowman (2017)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 23 December 2017.
• From Brooklyn (film): "Brooklyn (2015)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 16 May 2016.
• From 1917 (2019 film): "1917 (2019)". Box Office Mojo. IMDb. Archived from the original on 28 December 2019. Retrieved 3 January 2021.
• From Dawn of the Planet of the Apes: "Dawn of the Panet of the Apes (2014)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved November 6, 2015.
• From Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri: "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved June 24, 2018.
• From Kingsman: The Golden Circle: "Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 1 March 2018.
• From Love Actually: "Love Actually". Box Office Mojo. Archived from the original on 2 April 2014. Retrieved 17 December 2016.
• From Harry Brown (film): "Harry Brown (2010)". Box Office Mojo. IMDb. Retrieved 10 April 2018.
• From Universal Pictures: "Universal All Time Box Office Results". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved April 9, 2017.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Plot length, again

I notice there is a section above discussing the length of the plot section, and an edit notice there, saying the plot is "sufficiently complex to warrant exceeding guideline limit of 700 words". That may be so, but the plot is also more or less identical with the book, which also has a long plot summary. Wouldn't it make sense, in the interests of economy, to slim down the plot section here, linking to the book summary and highlighting the points where they differ (AFAIR, not much)? The plot is also more or less the same for the 1983 TV series, the article for which also has a long (but not too long) plot section. Swanny18 (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
PS: Does anybody else think the film wasn't a patch on the TV series? Despite being longer, it didn't drag half as much as the film. Or maybe it's just my age... Swanny18 (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I like the film, but the TV series is much better, it's one of the best series made. I think Le Carre's novels fare much better as telly series than films.Halbared (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure how that would help. The 2011 film is convoluted and almost impossible to follow at first watching, so people are going to come here looking for a plot explanation. It does differ in quite a few non-trivial ways from the book and the TV series. No "Gerald the Mole" or "Operation Testify" in the film, the nature of what Peter Guillam steals from the filing cabinet, eliminating the character of Jerry Westerby but giving the name to Sam Collins (no, me neither). No point confusing people even further.Paulturtle (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

"The 2011 film is convoluted and almost impossible to follow at first watching" - I did not have this experience. Regardless, that's pure opinion. I agree that the plot summary is overly long. I trimmed a few tiny bits. It's still too long (I brought it from 1159 to 1022 words), but it'll have to do for now. Benicio2020 (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

"I did not have this experience" - well jolly good for you, but unfortunately lots of other people did. It was my experience (despite having seen the TV series years before and vaguely knowing that Colin Firth was going to turn out to be the traitor), the experience of work colleagues with whom I discussed the film at the time, and as was testified to in numerous reviews at the time. So, no, it's not "pure opinion", or rather it's an objective report of quite a few people's opinions.

The purpose of this discussion was not whether or not the article is "too long", but whether we need another "long" plot summary on top of the "long" plot summary for the original book. To which the answer, or at least part of the answer, is that they are more than a bit different.Paulturtle (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The point is, none of that is relevant. Myself not having that problem isn't relevant. You and your colleagues not understanding the film isn't relevant. The plot summary is overly long by Wikipedia standards, and that's all that's relevant. Frankly, no one cares about how hard it was for you and your friends to understand the plot. Benicio2020 (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the point of an online encyclopaedia is to share useful knowledge, not to humour people who just want to enforce "rules" for the sake of enforcing "rules". The only iron-hard rule on wikipedia is that you can't libel living people.Paulturtle (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Compliments

As of the moment of writing, the plot section is well written. Compliments. 2A02:A470:7AC5:1:303A:7891:BA1F:EBC7 (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)