Talk:Ocean's Eleven

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Support for the critical success claim could be given by mentioning that it scored 80% "fresh" at rottentomatoes.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.184.233.232 (talk • contribs) 04:10, May 4, 2006 (UTC)

Plot question

Isn't the summary - here and elsewhere wrong? Benedict finds out that the robbery he saw shown on the monitor screens was not happening - in other words, it was staged on the replica set they built. So, is the acrobat actually in the real vault? Are Clooney and Damon? Was the fake video live or a recording? I don't follow that bit of the movie at all.

--Answer to plot question The acrobat (Yen), Danny Ocean (Clooney), and Linus (Damon) were all in the real vault. When Danny and Linus enter the vault to meet Yen, they arrive without any black bags to load the money. Similarly, they do not arrive with the call girl advertisements either.

The point of the recording that Benedict was watching is that, Benedict was watching a recording that Oceans 11 made in their warehouse. They made a complete replica of the vault in their warehouse, and the video they film is of burglars, all masked, loading the money in to black duffel bags. As Benedict is watching this video (that was a recording), Yen, Danny, and Linus are in the vault (unmasked) stacking all the money in to the center of the vault and are waiting for the "SWAT" team to show up and make the exchange. It's after they cut the power at some point and the SWAT team moves in that they switch the video so that it's no longer showing a recording, but is showing real time.

hope that helps

Asmitty97 03:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Cheadle

Does anyone know why Don Cheadle was uncredited in this movie? Was it an accident or was it his choice? If it was his choice, why? 24.62.27.66 21:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because of that ridiculous accent that is from a part of Britain not yet discovered.

My guess is for the same reason that Julia Roberts is credited as "and introducing" - its most likely a joke.

The accent is certainly a joke - not since Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins has such an excruciatingly lame attempt at a 'British' accent been screened.

Synopsis

Why is the summary so crappy and without any detail. It is truly an ingenius plot, and deserves credit.

It is incredible detailed...which could be part of it...and also you don't want to spoil too much.

It's also copied verbatim from the "Fan Page" linked at the bottom. I think another, more detailed, plot summary would be a good idea.

Plot Hole

In the DVD commentary Steven Soderbergh and Ted Griffin acknowledge a certain plot hole: How did the crew get the flyers of the hookers in the vault in the first place?

True. An additional hole was getting Yen AND THE BRIEFCASE THAT WAS BEING SENT BY BENEDICT`S PEOPLE TO THE VAULT through the 1st security door by the mormon twins. Additionally the "I forgot my passkey" explaination is sloppy. Earlier in the movie the robbers removed the (single) guard at the door by the "baloon boy" play so that the Electrician (who did have the passkey) wouldn`t be recognised as an intruder. In the "Getting Yen into the vault" occassion there are two guards and neither of them suspects the twins who DON`T have the passkey. While the dispairity in number of guards could be explained by an assumption that the electronics room and the Vault in fact have separate enterances from the casino (i.e. those are not the same doors in question - hence the passkey from the first would`nt work on the second), the more lax security guards at the enterance to the Vault simply couldn`t.

-I think the plothole that was mentioned basically said that several bags went up the elevator and into the hands of Benedict's men when there was no one to put them there.--68.193.113.43 (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The hooker flyers and the bags seem bulky - although the bags would not be so when folded tight, and the bags may have been packed with only a few flyers and a lot of low-density paper fill. If so, then the bags and fill could have been in the cart that contained Yen. Darcyj (talk) 09:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot device

Basher's "pinch" is not a real McGuffin, as I've recently edited. What is the correct name for a "black box" plot device like this? --Wetman 06:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "pinch" is more like an electromagnetic bomb, and its design is just like it. An EMP bomb is designed to knock out power sources, and it's construction is basically a coiled bomb. check it in in wiki. it's fictional in a sense that it's this powerful, but humanity is really close to achieving it (last time i read about it)

Eating

The trivia states that Brad Pitt is eating because he's so busy. I don't believe thats the reason.

If you think back the beginning of the movie, he's eating something outside the club he's at where Danny eventually meets him. Was he busy then?

-Yes. He's a busy guy by nature. Who else could come up with 90% of the plan on the spot, just minutes after being asked about how to pull off the heist? "A Boesky... a Jim Brown..." A guy with skills like that habitually keeps busy (who wouldn't?)--117.254.9.95 (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The trivia you mention is not on the page anymore, but it happens to have some factual basis; on the DVD audio commentary, Brad Pitt explains that it was his idea for his character to always be eating because he figured that he would always be too busy to sit down and enjoy a meal. Minaker 15:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to him eating, there is a continuity error in the film where they first discuss the contents of the black portfolio. Pitt is eating shrimp cocktail out of a large glass while standing and talking to Damon. There is a cut to a tighter shot of them following in which Pitt is now eating the shrimp from a plate instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.186.191 (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Maybe he ordered another helping, a plate this time. Just because it isn't shown (perhaps implied?) doesn't mean it's not without merit and thus viewed as a mistake or goof. Think about it.--117.254.9.95 (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saul

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Saul a German businessman, not a Russian one like the article claims? I've never heard of a Russian with the name Zerga.

I think its not specified in the movie. But Zerga is definitely not a German name. As it was said on the bonus material of the DVD the language in which Saul speaks during the transfer of the briefcase was made up. His assistans are called "Michail" and "Vladimir" - typically Russian names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.94.191.63 (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Ep IV Homage

This was pretty obvious to me the first time I saw the film, but I've never read anything on the net about it -- isn't the scene where the Eleven are being shown the plan to break into the vault on a large flatscreen TV an homage to the scene in Star Wars when the pilots are being briefed on how their going to destroy the Death Star?

Mikhail and Vladimir as "Real Life Models"

We have the following in the section "Real Life Models":

In the scene where Saul (Carl Reiner) is walking to the security room with Benedict (Andy Garcia) and is recognized by an old friend, he addresses Virgil (Casey Affleck) and Turk (Scott Caan) as "Mikhail" and "Vladimir" respectively. This is a Reference to Mikhail Kalinin and Vladimir Lenin, both of whom were revolutionaries during the Russian Revolution.

Maybe I'm being picky, but I don't see how that's a "real life model". That's a reference to two existing people, but has nothing to do with them other than the name, while the other points in "real life models" talk about people and events the movie has used as inspiration: the highly-technical robbery of a bank by a team of eleven as a model for the robbery in the film, and real life's developer of the target casinos as inspiration for Andy Garcia's character. While these actually work as models, I don't see how this applies to Mikhail and Vladimir. I would put them in another section: "references" (or something like that).

Opinions?

PoisonedQuill (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed that before. I removed it as unsourced, but also it looks to just be some random observation. They are two very common Russian names. Good catch Gwynand (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goofs: Volume of bills

There are calculations that show $160 million would take up at least 2 cubic meters and weigh 1600kg. Hard to transport, but not too difficult to fit into 8 duffel bags, depending on the size. I'd Be Bold but I'm not sure what a proper reference for the capacity of a duffel bag is. I did find military duffels that are about 1/3 cubic meters capacity, so fitting that many bills into 8 of them would be no problem. In any case, the bags would then weigh 200kg (400lb) each, so they might have trouble lifting them, but that's a different goof.

A few of my friends and I came to the same conclusion, first by assuming you could stack bills with the same density as a university textbook, then determining how many bills/textbook (by pages and page size) then how many textbooks per bag. And we got roughly the same numbers; 200kg bags - which is actually 454lbs, not 400. And we were working under the assumption that the bills were not mixed, and were only in $100 sets. A casino would be expected to have mixed bills. Unfortunately none of this is reference-able. Annihilatron (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goofs: EMP

Currently the article says that an EMP would permanently destroy all electronics unless they were protected by lead. My understanding is that lead is protection against nuclear radiation and would offer no protection against electromagnetic radiation. I'm not an expert at this, but I would believe that only a Faraday's cage would protect electronics against an EMP attack. Tobtoh (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benedict and Wynn

Part of the article seemed to claim that Benedict was based on the real-life casino owner Wynn. And since I'm pretty sure the character of Benedict is morally reprehensible, I had to delete the comparison part. Wikipedia demands this kind of stuff; you can't even come close to comparing real life people to fictional scumbags. Policy is to err on the side of caution in deleting. Lots42 (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rusty_Ryan_(2nd_nomination)

Bradd Pitt character in the film. Ikip (talk) 06:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

To use with this article.--J.D. (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]