Talk:The Devil's Advocate (1997 film)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• King, Mike (2008). "The Devil's Advocate". The American Cinema of Excess: Extremes of the National Mind on Film. McFarland. pp. 81–83. ISBN 0786439882.

National Cathedral Lawsuit

Is the sculpture referred to in the movie the one that shows, while Lomax and Milton discuss the 'familial union', various people engaged in sexual activity? If so, I can certainly attest that it has not been edited out of all the TV versions as the article states. -Joshuapaquin 08:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I see that clarifying information has been inserted. So, problem solved. -Joshuapaquin 03:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I changed the legal information. No judgement was ever handed down, a settlement was reached. Unaltered versions were also for sale, with the sticker. Once the altered versions were made, the sticker was removed. Oogles 19:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

recent bullshit showing up about the lawsuit. No - the lawsuit didn't change from almost 20 years ago. Oogles (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Ex nihilo

The Ex nihilo linked from this page is not the one referred to in the article. Am I wrong? Paul Haymon 04:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right -- It was a definition of the term and not a link to the art - but see that was changed :) Oogles 02:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed again and again, link to art, or term. Issues with having a picture of the art online, maybe. Oogles (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There a third party site that has rights to post pictures of Ex Nihilo? Be good to include as a source. Oogles (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Put it up, 6 years later. :P Oogles (talk) 10:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Resemblances?

Cut this:

The film's storyline resembles that of That Hideous Strength by C. S. Lewis. In that, a scientific institution (the N.I.C.E.) is changed to a law firm (Milton, Chadwick, and Waters), and a young philologist is changed to a young lawyer (Kevin Lomax).In the novel by Lewis, the Devil never has a human appearance. Instead, he uses other ways to communicate with his subordinate humans.

This is an extreme stretch: can't think of any other analyses of the film to make this connection. I believe it should be dropped under the "personal essays/original criticism" rationale. Ellsworth 15:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Naked Connie Nielson Pic

It's really getting old. You did the same thing to "Connie Nielsons" page.

Firstly, I don't care about nudity. She's hot, and a pretty funny pic. So I have no "agenda" here.

1 The naked pic isn't even relevent. It's like 2 seconds of the whole film. The main point, my OPINION would be, that the film makers used as the shocking conclusion and devil-driven point of view. (Such as Connie mocking the classical crucifix pose, one leg over other, arms out, head to side)

2. How about we edit every single movie where anyone showed their ass for 2 seconds and put that in there? To meet this can say "Look here, Connie Nielson took her clothes off in this movie!!!!" It's like editing every movie brad pitt has been in and showing his ass. It's just... pointless.

Can we edit the "alexander" movie for the split second his nutsack was shown?

3 It's described as "seduction", yet that occured during the film, such as on Milton's balcony or Elevator, or Kevins fantasies/supernatural halicinations pretending his wife was her.

4 You've done the same thing to Connie Nielsons page, too, dunno why, same image, I mean.

5 I even replaced it with a pic that shows the "final" sexual seduction, with actually Keanu in frame too. Which you also took out for favor of your pic. For some unknown reasons. Maybe you like tits? However, that has nothing to do with encyclopedic description of this film.

Give it a rest man. Really. It sad, at this point.

Oogles 02:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine, it's reverted to your version. -Mike Payne (T • C) 19:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Copy edit

Hi, I took you up on your offer to look over the article. Looks pretty good so far, but I did stumble on this sentence: Ultimately, he wins the case after harshly questioning the young witness (Heather Matarazzo) and reveals that she had other children lie about Gettys, though her explanation is that "she didn't want to be the only one" to come forward. Not completely clear but I'm guessing what was meant is something like Ultimately, he wins the case after his harsh questioning of the young witness (Heather Matarazzo) reveals that she had other children lie about Gettys, though her explanation is that she "didn't want to be the only one" to come forward. (I also moved the quotation mark as she probably didn't actually say "she" but "I".) Gr8white (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and made this change, pretty sure it's correct. Gr8white (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You're awesome. Even though we disagree at times, I appreciate your contributions and editing skills :) (Now to look over the edits and then flame ya :) Oogles (talk) 04:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, looks great. At one point Ex Nihilo linked to the sculpture, but that's seemingly been done away with. Likely for same reasons as done away with in movie :p (tho to wiki fair use image standards), but dead link now, and no one describes the sculpture, just explaination of the term "Ex Nihilo" which isn't really relevent to this article. (Unless you get into talking why that sculpture was used, but not relevent to legal information) Oogles (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, her statement was "I didn't want to be the only one" after Kevin revealed through questioning she had other children lie about Mr. Gettys. Oogles (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been continuing to watch and correct errors as they are added, but I'm wondering how much more the plot summary is going to be expanded. It's supposed to be a summary, if this keeps up we might as well have the entire script. Gr8white (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well... I thiunk I'm about done. Is there a guideline as to how much the Plot secion for a movie page should contain? --J-Star (talk) 10:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not very specific, but The length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28writing_about_fiction%29)

Not sure if there's anything more specific w/ regard to movies. Gr8white (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, here it is: Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words and should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as a very complicated plot.[1] Current word count is 1480. Gr8white (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Edits of 2008-05-20

Making many edits so I thought it best to explain some them since we have a revert-war brewing:

• "He is also having fantasies" -> "He is also having oddly realistic fantasies". A major point of that scene is that it is not he himself that dreams it up, but that he is actually seeing Christabella before him.
• "finding Kevin's name in the company papers as a new partner" -> "finding Kevin's name in the company papers as a partner". Eddie specifically says that "it's like it's been there forever". The fact that Kevin doesn't think he was a partner matters little since Milton all along intended for Kevin to head the firm, as is revealed in the final scenes. "Well Eddie was right, I want you to take over the firm".
• "convinced" -> "mollified". Look it up... it describes the conversation very well I think. Kevin isn't trying to convince Eddie that it is not true but rather tries to calm him down... i.e. mollify him.
• "Mary Ann senses this from her apartment window" -> "Mary Ann sees this from her apartment window". The apartment is directly accross from Central Park, as said by the neighbours when showing the apartment. They also say "Great for jogging", a Chekov's gun for when Eddie is jogging.
• Reinstanting the entire paragraph on Cullen's assistant. It was a prepartion for the testimony, not an interview; and Milton again tested Kevin by offering him to step away from the case, as revealed by the end scenes. "And Cullen, knowing he was guilty, seeing those pictures, what did you do?! You put that lying bitch on the stand". It is important to point out that Kevin was given a choice.

Apart from that I don't think we need to chase words any more. Yes we are above the 900-word limit but exceptions can be made for complex plots. --J-Star (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the first point, about fantasies. It could just be the way it was shown in film. It could simply be a fantasy. If he -really- saw her, maybe he'd jump up, go "what the fuck, how did you get here what did you do with mary ann??". It might have been a strong fantasy, depicted in film as showing her, or it might be supernatural / or "oddly realistic" as you put it. Originally, before the edit, it stated it could be one or the other. Fantasy, or supernatural hallucination. If he "really" saw her, that might be a bit shocking, don't you think? Mary Ann even noticed, saying something like "Where are you?" So obviously he didn't "really" see it, because Mary Ann was there, and noticed his reactions. so... Fantasy... Or... halicination, but most probable a supernatural one... but, it could be any. My OPINION would be supernatural hallucination, but, fantasy also fits. Oogles (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

And if you look at the film, you see that he indeed does react strongly this this, even if he's quickly seduced.

In any case, there is no room to speculate. The plot summary is already straining with the recommended word limit so... "oddly realistic fantasy" I think summarizes it rather well. --J-Star (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Fantasy is less words, the rest is really speculation. Oogles (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC) Plus "realistic fantasy" like what is that?! It wasn't real, so was in his head. Fantasy. Or perhaps hallucination (speculation). Or supernatural one (also speculation). "fantasy" fits better, if you want to remove the "or" for word limit. Oogles (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Went ahead and changed it. Even hallucination fits "oddly realistic", seeing something that is not real, best to just take it to lowest common denominator: Either what was shown was filmmakers depicting a fantasy, or it was something else - That is also a fantasy (but more precisely, an induced one) To fit the word count, you're worried about. It's also an important plot point, re: "pulling strings" or not. But, as far as film itself it's impossible to determine one from the other. Oogles (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

and the concentric fiery circles of Hell as described in Dante's Inferno are included at the end of the movie.

Seems a streach to me.

But taking to discussion first.

There were, in fact, concentric firey circles towards the end / conclusion of the movie.

but "as described"??? all the circles were pretty much the same,maybe could look at it again in slow mo, and see if it's same NUMBER of them, but certainly weren't different depictions of diff levels.

Concentric or rings/levels is what it has going for it. Oogles (talk) 06:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

At the very end

The character at the very end looks directly at the camera. In the context of the rest of the film...is this noteable? A case for yes could be argued. It -is- creepy. Lots42 (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It's there: After Kevin and Mary Ann exit the courthouse, the reporter transforms into Milton and says with a grin, "Vanity...definitely my favorite sin". Oogles (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It`s arguable that Milton break the fourth wall, he could be speaking to himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.74.12.96 (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That's true that it's arguable. But, he didn't (or any other actor) do it anywhere else. As someone mentioned, it is creepy. Oogles (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Antichrist

Just saw the movie. Unless some changes were made for the tv version, the concept of the Antichrist was never confirmed. Mentioned, yes, but not confirmed. Pacino just says 'Whatever'. Lots42 (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well when he says "Whatever" he's pretty much just leaving out "...you want to call him." It might be considered original research but it's not like it's a stretch of the imagination at all. In fact I may just have to consider perhaps dropping a borderline insult about your intelligence if you don't see my point of view and thus arise the ire of you or a moderator. Nevermind!

OH, I almost forgot to throw in this point: I'm sure if you read up on some scripture (I'm not a fan so I can't fully say), the offspring of Lucifer producing a child will mark the Antichrist, or something to that extent. Once again I'm not 100% on that, but I'm sure it all adds up to the opinion that you seem to be casting aside here. 64.253.217.148 (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Dude, what? Why the anger? It is not needed. The movie said what it said. I'm all for figuring out what the intent was, by CITES. Was there director's commentary on the issue on the dvd? Lots42 (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure why anger was there with guy who responded. "Whatever" is done sarcastically in answer to Kevin's question. This movie has a lot of possible meanings for things, based on what is seen or said on film, and based on what is assumed. I think antichrist is one of the more safe assumptions since Milton did reveal himself as Satan. No, Milton does not say "YES I WANT A CHILD FROM KEVIN LOMAX AND CHRISTABELLA, AND IT SHALL BE THE ANTICHRIST" on film, but the fact Milton is known as Satan, wants a child, has a "prophecy" of his own, and then Kevin flat out states it, and met with a sarcastic "whatever" is enough to include it. Oogles (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

New York City empty streets

I did not find any source about how they filmed the empty streets in New York. And many other people seeing that film are curious about how they done it. Sadly there´s no information on Wikipedia. Anyone know if they shoot it for real or is it just an CGI-effect? --93.133.221.254 (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I know it isn't much but the commentary for 'Vanilla Sky' said that when they wanted to film Times Square empty, they just asked New York really really nicely. Lots42 (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I found some information on the director´s commentary: "We shot this at 7:30 on a sunday morning, cleared 6 blocks and the last 5 blocks were digitaly erased." That makes sense, cause first it looked so real - but closing down 57th Street, one of the busiest streets in New York all the way up to 10-12 blocks was something I couldn´t imagine. --93.135.118.43 (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I remember listening to Howard Stern the morning when they were filming that scene and there were a TON of very angry New Yorkers because that one shot messed up their commute for hours. If you can find the clip, you can get an independent source from an outsider's perspective. Hope that helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.255.60.83 (talk) 05:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Dropped ext. link

• http://movies.warnerbros.com/devils/ which was formerly the official web site now redirects to "Batman Under the Red Hood" as of 7/26/2010. Ellsworth (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• You could have done a search on that page and changed it. It's now

http://www.warnerbros.com/devils-advocate instead of http://movies.warnerbros.com/devils/

Oogles (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I also like how on their official page, it's Devil's Advocate, but their youtube posting on warnerbros is "the". Oogles (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

THE? Devil's Advocate

why is this article titled "The Devil's Advocate"? when the films actual title is "Devil's Advocate" the only place where I could find that it DOES have a 'The' in the title is on the book

everywhere else, VHS covers, DVD covers, posters. all say "Devil's Advocate".

even imdb says "The Devil's Advocate". i realize that this is extremely petty, but if it was me in the future trying to find a rare copy of this film, i'd be pissed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.90.167 (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Very good point, the film is universally marketed and sold as 'Devil's Advocate' [2],[3],[4],[5][6] but equally is reviewed and referred to in journalistic sources as 'The Devil's Advocate'. [7][8][9][10][11] The one exception is of course Mr Ebert. [12] Personally I don't know what the procedure is here but I'll try and raise it with someone who knows films.

The article was created as Devil's Advocate and moved unilaterally 5 years ago by User:TigerShark stating that "The correct full title is THE Devil's Advocate". Bob House 884 (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be "Devil's Advocate". That is the name of the movie. Being the devils advocate, it's also a phrase...often used with "the"..Mistake for reviewers. Find a dvd, vhs, tv/cable release or blu-ray with The on it. Find a movie poster. Oogles (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Article still says "The" the image posted clearly does not include that. Was it ever, anywhere in english-speaking world, have "The" in it? (No) The opening sentences "marketed as the devils advocate" well maybe THE refers to the THE movie, and not the title (Regardless of reviewer mistakes), is there a poster, an image, a dvd, a VHS, a blu-ray or any ways it's sold that has the word "THE" in it, or is it just reviewers making a mistake, or you misinterpreting the to refer to a movie, or common phrase, or ancient 'reviewers' of the movie making a mistake? Oogles (talk) 05:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The marketing materials say just "Devil's Advocate" but the on-screen title at the beginning of the film clearly shows "The Devil's Advocate." Wouldn't the most official word on a film's title be what the movie calls itself? Vader47000 (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I've boldly moved it. If anyone thinks that was inappropriate they're welcome to revert, but at that point I think we need a more serious discussion and a formal move discussion. I'm not too familiar with page moves, so someone might want to make sure I didn't miss anything critically important. Doniago (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It really is The Devil's Advocate; it's clear in the film's opening credits and a fair portion of searches for the film (granted on sites we consider non-usable such as imdb, etc.). It's also how it's listed on Rotten TOmatoes, Metacritic, and many of the reviews out at the time of the film's release. That said, I don't know if the move is all that big of a deal since many of those reviews also call the film it's non-the title, and the home media releases omitted the "the", as well. As long as we have good redirects in place for whichever option we go with, I think it's a little pedantic to move the page back and forth. THe title in the lead should have it, though. Millahnna (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have it in front of me, and the opening title clearly says "The Devil's Advocate. Furthermore, IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes and all other movie sites also call it THE Devils Advocate. So, I've changed it accordingly, and have also added (1997 film) to the article name, in order to distinguish this from the The Devil's Advocate (1977 film). I think we can lay the issue to rest now. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Pope

Supposedly this movie was condemened by the Pope. If true, should be talked about on the article. Lots42 (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Can cite it if so. There was a lawsuit, involving fred harts work, in a catholic cathedral. Under copyright law in the USA. Prolly what you mean, as it's pretty easy to cite the pope.Oogles (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Fourth wall

Was the fourth wall really broken during the last few minutes? Lots42 (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah he looked right into the camera, perhaps addressing the audience. It's last few seconds though, not minutes. Oogles (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I second Lots42 opinion. This look at the camera itself is imho no metafictional breakdown of the fourth wall, it is merely the expression of inner thoughts the other characters should not be aware of. Therefore this classifies as an aside. --Murata (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Er, an aside is a fourth wall-breaking device. DonIago (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Either way, no actor in this particular movie ever used that method once. Except at the end, before the credits. So maybe not 4th wall, but the only aside - looking into the camera. Oogles (talk) 01:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Attribution

Mgrē@sŏn 17:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverted someone who reverted back

You do realize 12 monkeys and this movie are 2 years apart, but NO JUDGEMENT was handed down, settlement? AND why does it have to be in the OPENING paragraph? I reverted you reverting me.. You can talk about the "legal action" here.Oogles (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

First off, you have to cool down and keep a more civil tone. "Bullshit" and "vandalism" and WP:ASS is not acceptable. Nor is leaving completely bizarre and incomprehensible messages on my user talk page [13]. You obviously have strong feelings about this, although I can't imagine why.

Perhaps you're not familiar with how Wikipedia film articles have evolved in the past several years (expectations have been raised). I've been expanding it with a possible GAC in mind sometime in the future. Per WP:LEAD, it is expected the lead will summarize the article. When the lawsuit has its own section, and has relevance to production, release and tangentially, themes, it is of course an important subject that must be mentioned in the lede, even if briefly. It doesn't matter if it was settled- that doesn't effect the importance. This article should have a longer lede, not a shorter one.

Second, no one says the case has changed in 20 years. If you read the expanded and referenced section, and read it according to its literal meaning, you'll see that it discusses the arguments that would support the lawsuit when it launched, NPOV balanced by defences Warner could cite, all backed by reliable sources, before stating, in chronological order, that the case was ultimately settled. And 12 Monkeys came out in 1995, before (not after) Devil's Advocate, so of course the case regarding that film would be relevant to later similar cases (see legal precedent). It would have been impossible for a newspaper article from the time of the Devil's Advocate lawsuit to mention the 12 Monkeys lawsuit if that hadn't come first, and wasn't relevant.

Third, although less of a big deal, the "look into the camera" at the end of Plot. I know you'll see this stepping out of WP:INUNIVERSE in Plot sections is common in Wikipedia, but mainly in older, low-quality articles. You have a point that it is unusual that this is the only time it happened, but if a ref is provided it could go in Production or Reception (or Themes?) instead.

If this is all unconvincing to you or you can't understand what I've written, we could seek a WP:3O, but I don't anticipate that'll do well for your cause. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Fourth, I do not have a 'cause' - I'm fine with deleting the "Plot" if that is what is desired by WP. And not "high quality". Legal action, however, is pretty cut and dry. Oogles (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)