This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Needs a whole lot of citations. D43M0N 21:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
One wonderful quote to dig up is one from Playboy (1981?) that canned the film, in particular, attacking the long car chase! Will try to find it...
Previous comment by 22.214.171.124. I would say that all this is trivia of the section. The section should change title to include public reception. Hoverfish 17:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, re-reading the article, the first sentence is very much what I consider true, but not very encyclopedic. Anyone want to attempt a rewrite? D43M0N 21:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The reception section has been cleaned up and referenced. It's positive reception is reflected by the box-office figures and a 90% Rotten Tomatoes rating. However, it still lacks any of the negative critical reception that it probably received. Roger Ebert is cited because he's the only actual critic from when the film was released who I could find on Rotten Tomatoes. The Playboy review mentioned here would be a good find. Also, there was a lot of negativity about the Blues Brothers in the music critics' community. I can probably track down a choice negative phrase from Peter Guralnick, but other sources would be helpful as well.-Wisekwai 20:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Should there be a full cast section? Or selected cast? A list in two columns would save some scrolling. The intro is loaded with names that could move here, with their roles. Hoverfish 17:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
"Okay, I can see that." Until I checked on the prices for vintage microphones, like the one Elwood is carrying in his briefcase, it always blew me away that he'd trade a Cadillac for a microphone. It'd be nice to know what kind of microphone it was that Elwood was using to blow his harp through.-Wisekwai 21:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
More can be said about the cast, which not only includes some soul legends, but also some bonafide R&B pioneers in the band itself. Steve Cropper and Duck Dunn were half of Booker T and MGs and were among the architects of the Stax records sound. Paul Shaffer was supposed to be in the film, but could not get released from his contractual obligations to Saturday Night Live. It says that in Paul's article, but a reference needs to be found.-Wisekwai 16:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It says it on the documentary included on the 25th Anniversary Edition DVD of the movie. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Cool. I don't have that edition. I'll add it in, though, under production. -Wisekwai 18:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I do have that documentary, on the 1998 Collector's Edition DVD. A lot of information to take in.-Wisekwai 17:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
In the context of The Blues Brothers, it doesn't deserve a mention. In the context of Mr. T on the Mr. T article, it might. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Are there any other images that should be added to the article? I can get any screenshot from the film if any of you find it worthy to add to the article. Also, should there be a DVD release section? If so, I can add an image of the 25th anniversary DVD cover. --Nehrams2020 19:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
There are probably already too many screenshots on the article. The 25th Anniversary DVD cover is there already. An image of the original movie poster would be a great addition, and would be preferred in the infobox. The DVD cover could be moved lower if the poster is added.-Wisekwai 20:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I think if the images are kept where they are, and the mall chase is replaced with a screenshot from the dance in the soul food restaurant, or even better, from the dance in the evangelical church would give quite a fuller illustration of the text. I know it's easy to stay out and post opinions, but I think this would definitely raise the article's quality. Hoverfish 21:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
That would be a good mix. The screenshots now concentrate on the car chases. A different screenshot to show the music and dance side of the film would be a great addition.-Wisekwai 21:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't even realize that the 25th Anniversary DVD cover was on the page. Anyway, I'll probably add the church dance scene with as many of the people in the screenshot as possible.--Nehrams2020 22:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I've added the movie poster image to the infobox. It's a much better illustration of the film, I think. The DVD box has been moved lower. The church dance scene would be a great addition or replacement for one of the car-chase shots.-Wisekwai 17:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I added the screenshot of the dancing scene in the church. If nobody objects, I am going to tag the car chase picture for deletion, since it has no other links to any other articles and really doesn't show too much about the movie.--Nehrams2020 20:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Beautiful. I might try to get a better screenshot from the mall - the same shot, just clearer is all, and reupload. The image now was actually snatched from YouTube of all places.-Wisekwai 20:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
And I've reuploaded the mall screenshot. It's slightly better. But the main thing is on the image is that there's a fair-use rationale added for both its uses. And it was refreshing to see FURs already on the other screenshots on the page. Good job.-Wisekwai 06:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I probably went overboard on expanding the soundtrack section. Though I like seeing it all here - it really gives a sense of the Blues Brothers' wide-ranging roots - it could easily be split off into its own article, with a smaller section to summarize.-Wisekwai 20:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You can never go overboard on the Blues Brothers. I think it should be left in, the music is a significant part of the movie so should remain on the page. Good job fixing it up beyond what I added. --Nehrams2020 08:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Question about collector's edition/director's cut
Is the extended cut of the movie on the 1998 Collector's Edition DVD and what's referred to in some places as "the director's cut" included with the 25th Anniversary Special Edition DVD the same? – WiseKwai | Talk | Contribs 16:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Short answer is yes, the 25th Anniversary DVD is the exact same cut of the movie released in 1998. The main difference is that the 25th Anniversary version also contains the original theatrical cut, which is a little 'punchier' (it flows on a little better than the extended version). The other difference is that the 25th Anniversary version is a new transfer of the movie from the original source (as told to me by George Folsey Jr himself after the DVD launch last year), so you'll notice that the colors are much brighter, and the sound is great. The bonus features are mediocre, although it was nice to see a couple of my Blues Brothers Central members included on the DVD in the fan documentary - bbcentral — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that helps! — WiseKwai 11:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
It's a plot
It seems to me the "plot" section is way long. It's a complete recap, not just a summary, like, "Brothers aid nun raising money for bankrupt orphanage by reforming old R&B band." (Yeah, that'd solve the "article too long" tags...) This is so complete, I hardly have to see the film. The way it is here, the "plot" of Moby Dick would describe every incident in the book. Rogér Ebért 20:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
All that proves is there's a lot of badly written reviews. Rogér Ebért 15:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The plot here gives the movie away entirely.--Kjmoran 01:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Fine. I took a stab a shortening it up.--Geoduck 02:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I am having trouble finding some sources. Does anybody actually have a Guinness Book of World Records listing the film as having the most cars destroyed (I remember reading about it in a 1995 book). As soon as all of these statements within the article are sourced, I think we can put it up for GA status. --Nehrams2020 08:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
If I had access to a public or school library, I'd check it out. — WiseKwai 08:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I think I finished getting all of the sources that we need. Of course, if anyone stumbles across books on the film that could better represent information please add them if you can. Right now, I think the article should be copyedited, especially the automotives (find a better heading name?) and sequel sections. Once that is corrected, then somebody can nominate the article for GA, and we'll see how it goes from there. Now, I'm about to go on a 7-hour road trip home, so I'll check back on the film whenever I get the chance. Good job to all the people that contributed to this article over the last few weeks, especially due to the Cinema Collaboration of the Week. --Nehrams2020 18:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I put the article up for nomination, so let's see how it goes.--Nehrams2020 05:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd think seriously about drastically cutting the "Plot" section, per above, before accepting. Rogér Ebért 15:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The soundtrack section would probably be best if split off into its own article, with a summary of the album's relevance to the film retained in this article. "Plot" is definitely too long, I'd aim for cutting its length in half. Also, I feel that the order of the article's sections would be better organized as Plot, Cast, Production, Reception, Alternate Versions, Soundtrack, Sequel. Without those issues, this may be a better candidate for FA than GA. Noclip 21:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I would be happy to undertake splitting off the soundtrack section and summarizing the details in a section that would appear lower on the page. — WiseKwai 03:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
If you want to do it, go ahead, we did discuss this in the past and I forgot all about it. Do you think that the plot needs to be cut even more then it already has? I don't think it's too long, but I guess we can change it if necessary. I don't know if it FA worthy yet, we'd probably have to get a peer review first.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nehrams2020 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 21 December 2006
Let's wait a bit. See below. — WiseKwai 14:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Very nice article, I really enjoyed reading it. This is a great movie (opinion) but the editors involved here managed to portray that without pov statements. Balanced critique, nice figures, nice plot description (long, but not bad). Nice overall coverage. I came close to promoting it, but am putting it on hold for the following reasons. Fix these, and I won't hesitate to give it a stamp of approval.
Second paragraph in "Origins" has no footnotes or references
In the phrase "1980 as the second album by the Blues Brothers band" - "Blues Brothers" links back to this same page. Rm that link.
Disambig "Shake Your Moneymaker"
Pipe this link "The Blues Brothers#In popular culture "
The lack of references in that paragraph is the biggie. Great work so far.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 14:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Esprit, for your eyes-on and the comments. The fixes you've suggested have been applied. However, I think there's some confusion about the link in the soundtrack section. The Blues Brothers links to the article about the band, not this film. I have now piped the link to read "the Blues Brothers Band", which might help. If it's still too confusing or duplicative, it can be removed. — WiseKwai 14:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Great job everyone. I have promoted it to Good article status!--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
One of the possessions returned to him upon his release is a broken watch. A broken watch also figured into a Belushi gag in National Lampoon's Animal House.
I removed it, and Wahkeenah put it back in. It does not belong in the plot section, that is for certain. However, in the edit summary Wahkeenah suggested that the article should perhaps have a trivia section. I disagree. The article is already very detailed and I don't see how having a trivia section would be a benefit. Also, it would probably jeopardize the article's "Good Article" status. — WiseKwai 16:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Everything that is added needs to be sourced. Usually a trivia section is shunned upon for a GA. I don't want this to lose it's GA status after all of the hard work everybody put into it! --Nehrams2020 18:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Am I getting old? or....
"The main entrance to Wrigley Field makes a brief appearence when the "Illinois Nazis" visit it after Elwood falsely registers the ballfield's location, 1060 West Addison, as his home address." Wasn't it the cops that went to that address, not the Nazis? It has been a while since I saw it, so I could be wrong.... CodeCarpenter 17:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
No, the Nazi's actually went to Wrigley Field. But the cops metioned that they thougt it was "real cute" when they showed up at Elwood's place. VanTucky 18:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Right. First it was revealed when Elwood told Jake about it. Then the cops showed up at the derilect hotel, where John Candy said he kind of liked the Wrigley Field bit, and the uniformed cop said sarcastically, "Yeh, real cute." Finally, the Illinois Nazis found the address and appeared in front of the Wrigley entrance, at night yet, with the sign lit up. At that point the grupenfuhrer (Henry Gibson) told his men that the Blues Brothers should pray the cops get to them before the Nazis do. Wahkeenah 19:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Great. So essentially, I AM getting old. Thanks to both of you for clearing that up. I will go see my doctor now.... CodeCarpenter 20:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, since I've obviously seen this movie too often, maybe *I* should go see the doctor. :) Wahkeenah 21:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I tried to organize the "Reception" section better so that there was better division of the box office and the critical reception, except my header isn't showing up. If anybody can fix that, that would be great. Bolt Vanderhuge 22:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I tried to edit it too, it's showing up in the source but not after saving. I dunno what's wrong! VanTucky 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Bluesbrothersraycharles.jpg
Image:Bluesbrothersraycharles.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.
It seems that the only part that's actually a musical is when Aretha Franklin sings Think. Everything else is either background music or a situation where people actually would sing in real life. --NE2 03:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
That song was one of several that was performed in the film indicating it is a musical. Probably the most notable is the "Shake Your Tailfeather" scene sung by Ray Charles at his pawn shop while a large number of extras perform the dance to the song outside of the store. Indeed, there are several songs that are performed (in the country bar or the final show), but the extra songs that require extravagant musical numbers on city streets seem to indicate that this is a musical film. It may not follow the same format as many/most musical films, but it does have the necessary elements to classify as one. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, or it could just be a bunch of people getting up and dancing while Ray Charles plays the piano. According to our musical film article, "the songs are used to advance the plot or develop the film's characters." (This isn't cited, so let me know if it's incorrect.) There's not really any plot or character development from these songs, unless you didn't already know that Ray Charles likes playing the piano and singing :) --NE2 07:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that James Brown singing "The Old Landmark" also advances the plot, since it causes Jake's epiphany of putting the band back together. Given that The Blues Brothers was released around the nadir of Hollywood musicals (The Apple, anyone? Xanadu?), I'm willing to cut it a little slack. More to the point, all the music is integral (as opposed to incidental like most soundtrack music), and since our definition doesn't say that all the songs have to advance the plot or provide character development, the fact that at least couple of them do seems like enough to call it a "real" musical. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. It would probably be best to have a source like a book about musicals that covers it. --NE2 22:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. And thank you for posing (and thereby forcing me to ponder) this very valid question. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah thanks for asking. I initially was thinking it was definitely a musical, but then had to look up musical film and consider all the songs to confirm it. It would benefit from a book source stating so, and hopefully one can be added at some point. This article passed GA back in 2006, and I need to go through and update the article again at some point in the coming months. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The article has kept well since its promotion back in 2006, much thanks to Nehrams2020's recent improvements. Further improvements might include:
Cutting down on "Cast". A full cast is unnecessary, and much of this is repeated in "Casting". Much better would be short descriptions of the main characters.
Make the soundtrack listing into a neater-looking table (though trying to avoid collision with the album infobox. Lampman (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Bluesmobile model year
One editor wants to change the model year of the Bluesmobile from a 1974 to a 1971, having made this edit several times. This has resulted in the following discussion on their talk page. I have copied it here in order to bring it before a wider audience of interested editors. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for contributing to the article. For the 1971 addition, could you point out where in the commentary/special features it says this so it can be verified? I have the 25th anniversary edition and can take a look if you point me in the right direction. A simple Google search says 1974 for the majority of sites I visited, so a source will need to be added for the conflicting year. If you have any questions, let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
hey pal it is a 1971 dodge not a 74 like you think and i don't remember exactly where it is said but it is said in the commentary/special features and i have watched the Blues Brothers hundreds of times —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3rdBluesBrother (talk • contribs) 15:27, 21 November 2009
Sorry, but "I don't remember" is not a reliable source. Please refrain from making this edit again unless you can come up with something more specific. Also, in talk pages it's considered good form to sign your posts. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
how does anybody know that you are right? it is a 71 dodge not a 74 thank you very much signed the 3rdBluesBrother 3rdBluesBrother (talk | contribs) 21:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Not so, it's a '74. How do I know? Well, I can answer your question in two ways.
First, the page you've been editing, The Blues Brothers (film), has been stable with regard to this particular fact for quite some time. At present, you're the only editor contending it's a '71, and you haven't provided any citations to support your claim. Does that automatically mean the page is right? No — but it does mean that consensus tends to think it is. If you think consensus is wrong, the best way to change that is to provide reliable sources.
Second, why don't you try a simple Google image search? I did, and here's what I found: this site, with two clear views of a '71 Monaco's front grille; this site, with a link to a '74 image; and this site, with the classic shot of Jake and Elwood sitting on the hood of the Bluesmobile. Do you see how the hood of the '74 Monaco — and that of the Bluesmobile — curves around the top of the headlights, while the '71 hood runs straight across from fender to fender?
The answer is plain as day. Whatever was said on the commentary track, either they got it wrong, or you misheard them. Cheers. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Look it is a 71 Dodge and not a 74 as you so claim and what exactly makes you so right about the Blues Mobile being 74? - 3rdBluesBrother —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3rdBluesBrother (talk • contribs)
Guess what: nothing I've said here proves I'm right that it's a '74. In fact, I have no way of knowing that it's not, say, a '73 or a '75 — for all I know, their grilles are exactly the same as a 74's. All I know is that the photos I linked to above clearly demonstrate that the Bluesmobile cannot possibly have been a '71, because the front end is very obviously different. Did you even bother to look at the pics? Until you do, I'm done discussing this with you. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
the pics prove nothing they could have been altered for all i know i still say it is a 71 not a 74 like you so claim. - 3rdBluesBrother —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3rdBluesBrother (talk • contribs) 18:50, 11 December 2009
So you keep insisting. Can you cite anyreliable source to support your claim? Given the anecdotal evidence I've provided to the contrary, I believe you cannot. Please do so, or leave it alone. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Not to flog a dead horse, In the movie, right around the 28 minute mark in my version, the African-American state patrol officer in pursuit of the Bluesmobile describes it over the radio when requesting backup as "a black and white 1974 Dodge Sedan with Illinois plates." Is there a reason to not treat this description as accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koelpien (talk • contribs) 00:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Ckruschke (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
Who is Ralph Doney?
Since July 20, 2009 the Bluesmobile section has contained the following:
Who is Ralph Doney? This was added to the page by an unsigned user with no source, and it hasn't been removed. I can find no reference to a Ralph Doney anywhere but this page, it appears to be vandalism. Bbcentral (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Ralph Doney was Chief of Police for the Mt. Prospect Police Department from 1974-1981. A policecar or cars was(were) donated to the production company by Chief Doney. As his oldest son, I witnessed the actual event. It should be noted that a full size replica is hanging in the Blues Bar in downtown Mt. Prospect.Dabull8 (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning that the car chase under the El is a ripoff (homage?) of the famous chase from The French Connection? Anyone who had seen the original would be laughing hysterically at how the BB production ramped an already insane chase to epic proportions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Only if you have a reliable source that says an homage was the producers' intent. Otherwise it's original research based on your impression of the similarities between the two. Given that the Blues Brothers did not involve a train during the chase, IMO you're stretching it. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Either a critic, or better yet, DVD commentary, would be in order. It might have been vaguely inspired by The French Connection, but that film's chase scene under L tracks ran a lot longer, I think. For that matter, The Sting, which came out only 2 years after The French Connection, has a scene involving Snyder chasing Hooker on foot along two levels of some L tracks. Anything filmed in Chicago almost always brings the L into it somewhere along the way. Although I think The French Connection was filmed in Boston? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Article says a car was dropped "a mile". This seems rather remarkable; perhaps an exaggeration on the DVD commentary? --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I recall that being said in the making-of documentary, and it did seem like an amazing height. But, that is only 5,280 feet, so not at all unbelievable. I also recall that the Chicago skyline is seen in the background, and it looks rather small. Of course, that is not verifiable, it's only my opinion. By way of comparison, the Sears Tower is 1,451 feet tall. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
That filming was for real. Maybe they didn't think model work would look convincing. They had to get permission from the city to do it. And I can't say for sure that it was a mile, but it was certainly higher up than the Sears Tower. In the one overhead view, from the helicopter they dropped it from, if you notice they actually dropped it toward Meigs Field, the then-in-use airport which juts out from the downtown a ways. But in the scene where they show it hitting the ground and busting a hole in the street, it's surrounded by buildings and was probably done in a backlot somewhere. It's also worth pointing out that the Chicago downtown shooting was done on weekends with the downtown basically roped off. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 18:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I know it was dropped from way high. But a mile...well...here is one being dropped from 4000 feet. So maybe it really was a mile! --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Edits proposed to plot description: these are edit proposals made in good faith, not a bloody damned nuisance
Anybody want to explain why these are not worthwhile edits? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Several editors have, in their edit summaries removing your edits: the edits are contrary to Wikipedia guidelines regarding plot summaries — specifically, "between 400 and 700 words", and "avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, and technical detail". Your continued attempts to add an excessively long and detailed summary (regardless of its accuracy) imply that you are ignoring them in spite of consensus, which makes it difficult to assume good faith on your part. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
That's an answer. It also says "[t]he summary should not exceed the range unless...the film's structure is unconventional...or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range" and to discuss with other editors. Although I hold a Juris Doctor degree, I'm not applying the law here. The consensus obviously is that neither I nor my contribution are welcome here. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying that The Blues Brothers has an unconventional structure or a complicated plot? Sorry, counselor, you'll lose that case. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that my plot description improves the quality of the article. However, since you've asked, yes, I do think the movie has an unconventional structure and a complicated plot. Another movie similar in this regard is Coneheads. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the film's plot is complicated enough to warrant an extensive plot summary. A lot of the additions had excessive detail and little jokes that don't really relate to the main plot. It's best to give a concise overview, and allow readers to actually view the film to see the elements not included within the summary. There are plenty of other websites that detail entire film's plots, so covering every scene isn't necessary. It's preferable to focus on expanding the other sections of the article, including production and critical reception to help give readers a more comprehensive overview of the film. Plot sections are always the most heavily edited of film articles, and if there are ways to keep the plot concise while improving prose, those edits are helpful. However, adding such an extensive plot section that conflicted with guidelines was why you had the several reverts. Thank you for taking the time to raise your concerns on the talk page, which definitely helps instead of constant back-and-forth reverting (well, except for the back-and-forth reverting of the talk page today). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
It depends on the definition of “complicated”, in this context. The word “complicated” is appropriate here, rather than the word “complex”. I don’t see how any reasonable person perusing that section could disagree that what’s there now is neither accurate nor does it give proper credit to the characters and the actors who portrayed them. I understand about Wikipedia guidelines regarding plot summaries. Keep in mind, I am not advocating to change the provision; it is, already, explicitly equitable in nature. It seems to me the applicable guidelines here are supposed to be just that—principles and guidelines in equity, rather than a rigid, statutory, codification. Actually, not only ought it to be that way, it’s unrealistic to expect that this project will ever advance without that kind of latitude.
However, contributing to Wikipedia is also about power—which I don’t have, in the form of administrator tools and prerogatives—and which you do. So...you get your way. Those who have a legal education understand that there has to be room for both law and equity. Word-counting and arbitrary and capricious ideas as to what constitutes “detail”, “scene-by-scene breakdowns” and “minutiae-like dialogue” in this context were not what was called for here, and explicit discourse and resolution based on a consensus as to the source material’s structure and complexity was.
There are a lot of people who derisively say “kill all the lawyers” and would just as soon see law as a distinct discipline ridiculously generalized and uncertain and thereby and therein subsumed under the rubric of “politics”, but I think “sober second thought” ultimately will prevail on that issue.22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how it's not accurate. After re-reading it, the plot covers the major details and seems to me that it would indicate the general plot to a reader unfamiliar with the film. Contributing to Wikipedia is not about power, it's about taking the time to discuss conflicting views on articles and following guidelines and policies to ensure some conformity across similar articles. When there is opposition to guidelines, such as WP:FILMPLOT, then consensus needs to be formed in changing them. My administrative tools have nothing to do with the plot section of this article. With the tools, I would have the ability to block a user or protect the page to prevent editing, but since I'm involved in the current discussion, that would not be proper. That would require intervention from another editor, basically putting us both on the same playing level. As much as I like lawyer jokes (and being an accountant, I enjoy the similar ones...), it's irrelevant what editors do for a living in relation to the discussion. Even if we've each never seen the film, only once, or daily, that also does not matter when it comes to improving it. Could you clarify on what points the plot wouldn't make sense to a reasonable reader so we could make an attempt to clarify? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Home Video Rarity
During the 80s in the UK the home video version (released by CIC as I recall) became unavailable due to copyright issues surrounding the soundtrack (well that's what I heard anyway). As a result secondhand copies were fetching very high prices, in any condition. It was off the market for a long while, maybe around eight years. I don't know if the same situation prevailed in other territories. This is original research as I was working in the video distribution business back then, but if it can be reliably sourced then I think this information would enhance the article. (Watched the long version again yesterday, I had a smile on my face all the way through - splendid movie). EdX20 (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Elwood's drivers license
"Elwood's Illinois driver's license number is an almost-valid encoded number, with Dan Aykroyd's own birth date embedded" The license number in the film (police car display)is B263-1655-2187. Dan Aykroyd's birthday is 07/01/1952. Please site the correlation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Creating the characters
Even if the "Killer Bee" sketch inspired them to start a band (which it really didn't), SNL should not get credit for these characters or this movie. One of the big sticking points with SNL & NBC is ownership/profit rites for SNL characters. One of the big reasons SNL & NBC are psychotic about ownership rights is the fact that they received no profits from The Blues Brothers movie. Why? Because they didn't create it on the show. The Blues Brothers were developed independently of the show and were actually the musical guest on the 4/22/78 show with Steve Martin. They were also considered the musical guest with Carrie Fisher on the 11/18/78 show and not a sketch. Calling The Blues Brothers movie an SNL product is as ridiculous as proclaiming This Is Spinal Tap should be considered an SNL flick. ```` Grimsbah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimsbah (talk • contribs) 15:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok - so what is the text of your suggested edit? Ckruschke (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
Good Ol' Boys
Who was the lead for the Good Ol' Boys? Was he also the redneck bartender in 48Hours? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
No. Different actor. The lead singer for the Good Ol' Boys, "Tucker McElroy" was played by Charles Napier. The redneck bar bartender in 48 hours was played by Peter Jason. Fish Man (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Son House reference in the film?
When Jake and Elwood are walking up the stairs to Elwood's apartment, they pass a man reclining on the stairs. It sounds like Elwood says, "Hey Son." Is that supposed to be Son House? I came to this article hoping it would answer this question. But it's not mentioned in the article. Does anyone have any information?
Since I don't have access to the movie, I can't look at the clip. After a somewhat extensive web search, I could neither confirm nor deny whether Son is in the movie. I did see that several sites (including IMDB) attribute him to work on Blues Brothers 2000 which would be quite a trick considering he died in 1988. Ckruschke (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
Principal photography -- not really
The section titled "Principal photography" has very little to do with photography and a lot to do with extensive drug use by the cast. Should it be retitled to reflect that? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree - never caught that before - changed the title to just "Filming". Thanks for the intel! Ckruschke (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke