Talk:Catch Me If You Can

	Catch Me If You Can has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 7, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: Canadian / American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Comedy Low‑importance 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Catch Me if You Can/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the Plot section, this sentence ---> "Frank Abagnale Jr, 15-years-old, lives happily in 1963 New Rochelle, New York with father Frank Abagnale Sr., and French mother Paula", needs "his" after with, unless his father was a priest, then its fine.

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the Plot, it would be best to add the actors' names after their respective characters. (Ex: American Graffiti). Same section, "Barry Allen", "FBI" and "Bear Exam" are linked twice, it would be best if it were linked once, per here.

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Wildroot for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished read the book ("Catch me if you can" by Frank W. Abignale, with Stan Redding, UK 2003 edition), and i am deeply moved. However the auther _does_ describe his exit through the toilet of the VC-10. So it seems to me that the information in the wiki article is wrong this occurrence would have been invented by Mr Spielberg. Mathi80 (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read one of the interviews listed in the "References" section of this article, Abagnale says that Stan Redding made up some stuff for the book. I can't remember, but it is with an interview with IGN and it's in the article. I think it actually might be on Frank Abagnale's website, which is listed in the article. Even Spielberg admitted the toilet scene was made up. —Wildroot (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the official quote, "I was interviewed by the co-writer only about four times. I believe he did a great job of telling the story, but he also over dramatized and exaggerated some of the story. That was his style and what the editor wanted. He always reminded me that he was just telling a story and not writing my biography." It's from Abagnale's own website. —Wildroot (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am not sure whether the toilet in the VC-10 is any smaller or larger than that in the Boeing 737, but there's still the small matter of fuselage restrictions to deal with. Take a look at the cutaways sometime. Many things are written in celebrity autobiogrophies, but that doesn't necessarily make all of those things true. Not even Abagnale was that slipperly. But Spielberg certainly is - that's why he's (still) rich. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone misunderstands this. He didn't escape THROUGH the toilet itself. Rather, the toilet assembly bolts to the floor and he unbolted it and dropped to the tarmac after landing - after swinging the toilet assmebly open from the fusalage as per the ground crews do for cleaning it. 216.153.214.92 (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The film, and book, are full of fiction. Abagnale is not reliable, and exaggerated his story. I am not surprised to see some obvious errors. Incidentally "fictions" is of course not a real word.124.197.15.138 (talk) 04:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That was a quote of Wildroots was in regard to the veracity of the original book, which has (according to the Wikipedia article) been held up to scrutiny and found wanting (it has been suggested that the story was largely made up, and many of Abignale’s supposed cons didn’t happen); the film based upon the book clearly fabricated material - the agent played by Hanks is an example of such, given that he was created for the movie - so it’s hard to see that a fiction based on at best an exaggeration is going to withstand much in the way of criticism. Jock123 (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This so called comedy drama appeals to me a trajic comedy. The backround of the figures leads to lacks in their personal lifes, which are not so comical._ and how the story is told isn#t comical either. The structure of the film is much more trajic, than a circeling comedy. May be you change the declaration!--94.220.243.161 (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hanratty realised that the person he is chasing is named after a comic book character. However that does not mean he is "just a teenager". Many adults read comics - including the late President Reagan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 05:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but that scene is in the mid 1960s when comics were seen very much as a children's thing, at least by those who didn't read them, and the adult cult following hadn't gained much attention. It's a natural conclusion for an FBI man of the era to reach. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Strong's parents don't "disown her, until they meet Frank, Jr". Frank first meets the parents when Brenda invited her home for dinner. She obviously is neither disowned nor 'grounded'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 05:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From her account they threw her out the house after her abortion but Frank believes she will be accepted again if she turns up with a respectable suitor. I think the problem is in the cutting as we go straight from the scene where he proposes this to the dinner table so we don't actually see her contact them and get accepted again. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The plot contains a lot of colloquial and sloppy English. Such as "has not only changed to becoming a doctor and being a lawyer" (he didn't changed from being these, he changed from inpersonating them!). The cheques were not "deemed" to be printed in France, but identified as such. To say that the sentence "He is cornered by Carl, demanding again how he cheated on the Bar Exam, who insists that Frank will return at the end of the weekend, since there is no one chasing him, and that he is just a kid" is sloppily written would be an understatement. Someone, preferably a non-American adult speaker of English, must tidy up the article.

This article should be listed under Catch me if you can (2002 movie) with a link from disambiguation page. There is no reason for it to be featured like this, it is not the first film of this title and it is derived from a book of that title. Don-t know how to change that, please change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milan studio (talk • contribs) _Catch_me_if_you_can_(2002_movie)" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">07:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines don't say it has to be the first of that title to have a name without a specifier, just the most prominent, i.e. the one that most people would be likely to be looking for. Incidentally, the preferred term is "film", not "movie". I think the current name is ok, though the hatnote could possibly point to the book first and then the disambiguation page. --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the Casting starts by saying that James Gandolfini was cast as Carl Hanratty. If this is an error and it should say Tom Hanks, then it needs correcting.

Otherwise, if it is simply saying that Gandolfini was initially cast as Carl Hanratty then it ought to tie up that loose end and say what happened ie. he dropped out, the producers changed their mind etc. and there should be a little more clarity as to how/why Tom Hanks was chosen as a replacement, if that information is available.88.145.99.212 (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All movies portraying real people take some liberties with the historical truth. Catch Me If You Can is somewhat unique in that the real-life Frank Abagnale greatly embellished his own life story. The film, as a dramatization of that embellishment, has always aired more authenticity than it should. There were 3 liars in Frank Abagnale's actual appearance on To Tell the Truth, two instructed to lie and himself. And I'm sorry if I shock anyone by claiming Frank Abagnale is a skilled liar. When in 2002 he admitted to "exaggerat[ion of] some of the story", he deflects blame to the writers of the film who interviewed him. But in fact he was incarcerated before adulthood, during the time when his most outrageous scams, posing as a doctor and as a prosecutor, were to have occurred.

I don't want to get into an edit war, but my single-word edit to the introductory section was reverted even after a discussion:

The film is loosely based on the life of Frank Abagnale, who, before his 19th birthday, successfully performed cons worth millions of dollars by posing as a Pan American World Airways pilot, a Georgia doctor and a Louisiana parish prosecutor.

In truth the edit should have gone a lot deeper. The film itself only claims to be "inspired" by his story, while the sentence above makes it sound like Frank Abagnale pulled off these stunts in real life. It should be reworded to more clearly indicate that this is what the film portrays him as doing, as it's a great disservice to readers to continue to perpetrate his myth. DAVilla (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do the film credits say with regards to this, and what wording have reliable sources used? Without context, for us to say "loosely" is us applying our own editorial judgment, which I don't believe is appropriate. At that point, where's the line between an adaptation and a loose adaptation? If the film credits say the film was "inspired by" Abagnale's life, then I would be fine with that wording. If sources have typically used "loosely", then I similarly wouldn't see an issue with that, but I don't believe we should be applying such qualifiers solely on our own recognizance. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the trailer, it says "inspired by" a true story.--Countryboy603 (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather refer to the credits then the trailer, as movies don't typically have a single trailer. DonIago (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article gives someone the impression that the real Frank has done some or many of those things. Lets be clear at least here on the talk page: very little of it is true. Read the Frank article. He did not in real life escape from prison, or from an airplane, or work for the FBI, and most likely he did not manage to fly free more than once or twice. Kotika98 (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do the credits say with regard to this point? DonIago (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]