Wikipedia

Talk:Road to Perdition/Archives/2023/December

< Talk:Road to Perdition
Latest comment: 7 months ago by DebbiePritchard in topic Shooting Locations

Phrase

What does the phrase mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.92.187 (talk • contribs) 05:32, December 19, 2005

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Booker, M. Keith (2007). "Road to Perdition". May Contain Graphic Material: Comic Books, Graphic Novels, and Film. Praeger. ISBN 0275993868.

Rewrite

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Into two seperate articles, one for the graphic novel, one for the movie. I expect that there are discrepancies in plot and detail between the two. Other famous graphic novels, notably V for Vendetta, have seperate articles for both of them. Same goes for books made into movies as well. Thanks, I hope that my suggestion gets worked out in the weeks and months to come.--Mofomojo 03:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I have been going through various entries (especially connected with List of films based on comics) and have split off Tank Girl amongst others, and an identical issue to this one can be see with Bulletproof Monk - based on a comic but there is no actual information on that. All very odd. The original entry should probably by on the graphic novel and then have the film at Road to Perdition (film) - taking our cue from A History of Violence. also there appear to be 5 volumes from Paradox Press: 2 RtP and 3 On the RtP so that might all need clarifying here too. (Emperor 20:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC))
I would support this move... probably would need to establish the graphic novel article as a stub. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
OK cool. I've asked for clarification on the Comics Project and the suggestion is we put the entry at Road to Perdition (graphic novel) or Road to Perdition (comics), the latter being more general. [1] The thinking being that most people would be coming here to look up the film. If the consensus among editoes here is that it is 50/50 then the film entry can be moved and this page becomes a disamgiguation page. Either way the original comic/graphics novel should be at the new entry. Pick one and we can get the ball rolling. (Emperor 22:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC))
Given the fact that there are 5 volumes and so it is a series I'd favour Road to Perdition (comics) as it is more general. (Emperor 02:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC))
That works for me, too. I'd rather have this article as a disambiguation page down the road (pointing to the film article and comics article) for reasons of objectivity, but that's not something that we have to decide now. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
OK started it. We can discuss what we do with this page at soem point in the future. (Emperor 14:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

Citation for Lone Wolf and Cub connection

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, I tried Googling, and someone said Max Allan Collins references Lone Wolf and Cub in the introduction. If someone who has the book can confirm it and add that to the article, that would be great. --Kjoonlee 03:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed sections

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The sections below have been removed because they do not provide encyclopedic content. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted/Extended Scenes

  • Before the Sullivans have dinner, Annie watches the boys play while she washes dishes and cuts her finger. Michael Sr bandages it for her, and there is an extended dinner scene in which each member says grace.
  • There is a longer scene where Annie drinks with the mobsters' wives at the wake, as well as a longer scene of Rooney and the Sullivan boys' dice game. Before the part where Michael goes upstairs to retrieve Rooney's jacket, Peter and Rooney have a conversation that implies Peter's curiosity into his father's working life and Rooney's gentler side.
  • Connor's introduction is also extended, as Michael Jr watches a man get intoxicated and another couple preparing to have sex, before he walks in on Connor smoking and playing the gramophone.
  • Before John Rooney makes his speech of his former associate at the wake, he and Sullivan discuss the deceased man's death, implying it was a mob hit.
  • Rooney and Sullivan drink before the speech, the dance, and their piano duet to McGovern's health. Connor comes downstairs to face his father's criticisms of disrespect for the dead.
  • According to Director Sam Mendes, there was a longer dancing scene, mostly focused on Peter (Liam Aiken) finding a partner and dancing, while Michael Jr repeatedly turns down offers to dance, with his father standing off to the side.
  • The scene before Sullivan learns he was to be killed on his "errand" to the brothel was much longer, showing the place was full of bootleggers, strippers, and prostitutes, indicating that the mob life has degraded into sleaziness since the 1920s.
  • A scene where Maguire goes through the boys' room during Annie and Peter's wake was also cut. He is amused by the several Catholic icons in their home, implying that he is an atheist. After taking a picture of Peter's toy guns, he hears Sullivan calling Aunt Sarah, which would explain how he traced the Sullivans to Perdition. Using a telephone on the upstairs level, he hears they are headed that way and pretends to be Sullivan, so the operator can make the connection, which points to where they are.
  • In a four-minute scene where the Sullivan men go to a church, Michael Sr tries to pray for forgiveness after killing a man the previous night. Although he is sorry for what he has done in the past, he feels that prayer alone will not save him.
  • In a five-minute extension to the second diner scene, Michael Jr goes to the bathroom, which engages Sullivan in a conversation with Betty the waitress (played by Jennifer Jason Leigh's sister). She remarks on what a man Michael Jr is becoming and inquiries about why they are passing through. Sullivan subtly tells her he lost his wife, and she asks him to dance to a radio song. He politely declines.
  • While stopping for the night at a motor lodge, Michael Jr reveals his deep fear of his father dying, leaving him at Sarah's, while he goes off to kill Connor. Sullivan Sr explains that he feels responsible for all of this (referring to an earlier scene where he tells his son that all this was not his fault), and he gives his cold son his sweater. Michael Jr then tells his father of how he misses his mother and Peter.
  • The infamous Capone scene that takes place after the bank-robbing montage, where Al Capone (Anthony LaPaglia) loses his temper at everyone and demands for the Sullivan-robbing team to be stopped, was cut as well. Frank Nitti suggests they try to reason with Sullivan in exchange for the money, but Capone, who has a bad cold, feverishly refuses to make deals with anybody who touches his money. John Rooney only watches the whole event in silence, until Maguire suggests a way to kill Sullivan, tying into the hotel suite trap scene.
  • After Michael Jr stops and convinces the elderly farmers to save his father's life, he feeds the wounded Sullivan Sr soup and play-kills something in the mirror with his father's gun. Sullivan, in a delirious state, awakes and watches his son reenact what he does for a living. It shows his fear of what Michael will become, if he takes that same path in life.

Differences between novel and film

In the graphic novel, the principal characters' surnames are O'Sullivan and Looney.

In the book, O'Sullivan makes contact with Eliot Ness, the one law enforcement agent he could trust, to supply incriminating information to ensure that The Untouchables would move against the Looneys. Looney is sent to jail in the novel, rather than killed, in order that he live the rest of his life in jail knowing his son is dead.

The graphic novel gives far greater weight to the religious themes of the material. Michael O'Sullivan is dubbed "the Angel" or "the Angel of Death", playing on the angelic connections of his first name. Several key plot elements were also more religious in their depiction than in the film, including the final fate of Michael Jr.

Michael Jr. ends up killing at least twice in the graphic novel.

The scene involving the gambling boat Quinlan is not featured in the film.

Jude Law's character, Harlan Maguire is not a character in the original graphic novel, but an addition to the screenplay by writer David Self. Law later said that he disliked playing the role since he had to undergo the physical transformation of trimming his hairline, staining his teeth and keeping his appearance pale to play such an ugly character[citation needed].

In addition, Capone's men never made a move against O'Sullivan in the novel. Out of respect for O'Sullivan's work for them, they only hid Connor, and did not try and kill Michael. This arrangement ends with the loss of revenue from the explosion of the Quinlan, due to a fire set by O'Sullivan.

Trivia

  • Australian actor Anthony LaPaglia played notorious mobster Al Capone in the film, but his one and only scene was cut from the theatrical version, removing him from the cast. This was apparently done because the film makers decided it would be more sinister to never actually have Capone grace the screen with his presence. The deleted scene can be found on the DVD of the film.
  • A trademark of this film is that water is shown in a scene when a death occurs. Sam Mendes has stated that he puts this in because, '"like death, we cannot control water. It just comes."' In the scene where Connor kills McGovern, it is raining outside, just like it is in the climax where John Rooney and his bodyguards are gunned down in rain. Sullivan's wife Annie and son Peter are killed after Peter finishes his bath, Connor gets killed in the bath, Rance gets shot after he takes a drink from a glass of water, Michael Sr died with the lake as a backdrop etc.
  • Paul Newman was the first to be cast by Sam Mendes.
  • Tyler Hoechlin won the role of Michael Jr out of a casting call of 2,000 youths in North America.
  • Sam Mendes has a cameo as one of Rooney's guards in the final shootout towards the end.
  • Apart from Michael Jr, Frank Nitti, and the off-screen Capone, none of the characters mentioned by name survive the film.
  • This film and the graphic novel are actually based on a real enforcer for Capone who went on a vendetta with his son for the murder of his family. There was a real mobster family under Capone called the Looneys, as the real influences for John and Connor, but the name was changed to Rooney, at the request of the relatives to the author.
  • This is the second film starring Tom Hanks to be released by 20th Century Fox and DreamWorks, the first being Cast Away.

Filming location

Much of the film was filmed in the Historic Pullman neighborhood of Chicago (see Pullman, Chicago). The opening scene shows the Pullman car factory as it once was. Many of the street scenes were also filmed in Pullman.

Themes

The film's central themes include the bond between fathers and sons, betrayal, loyalty, revenge, and the search for redemption. The title is a dual reference, firstly to a town called Perdition, and secondly to the threat of eternal damnation that in Catholic theology accompanies murder.

Critical reaction

Tom Hanks was praised heavily for playing a grim, hardened figure -- a far cry from his memorable performances in Big, Forrest Gump, etc. Paul Newman returned to the screen after a short absence, and was nominated for the 2002 Best Supporting Actor Academy Award, but lost to Chris Cooper. Daniel Craig gave a performance which was, according to Roger Ebert, "of an unloved and bitter child who takes such extreme steps to win his father's love and acceptance." This led to him being cast in Layer Cake and becoming the next James Bond, replacing Pierce Brosnan in the film Casino Royale. The biggest surprise to critics came from Tyler Hoechlin, who credits the film with him getting the role of Martin Brewer on 7th Heaven.

In addition, smaller supporting characters were praised, including Jennifer Jason Leigh, who despite her small amount of screen time, was given positive reviews for her role as a devoted yet troubled wife of a hitman. Jude Law, renowned for The Talented Mr. Ripley and Enemy at the Gates, was also lauded by critics for his sadistic portrayal of a psychopath and ability to transform himself to play such a character. Liam Aiken, who played Tom Hanks' younger son Peter, impressed many with his small role as the curious and inquistive brother that leads Michael Jr. to discover the truth about his father's world.

References to use

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
References to use. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A couple more for the GNs from Paradox Press via DC:

Some reviews/interviews:

I can fancy them up later. (Emperor 00:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

Production notes (which exist on the official site, but are locked in a stupid Flash format)

It's readable this way, and we can cite the official site's production notes. Shouldn't be any difference. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

*Rick Lyman (2002-07-14). "No Goons in Spats, No Rat-a-Tat-Tat Dialogue". The New York Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
More references. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Articles from Time. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Background for the DVD subsection. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Print

Below are print sources that have information about the film. If anyone has access to these sources and can include whatever new information is in them, please feel free to help out! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Marc Oxoby (December 2002). "Road to Perdition". Vol. 32, no. 2. Film and History. pp. 110–112.
  • Colin Kennedy (October 2002). "Everyone loves Uncle Sam". No. 160. Empire. pp. 72–76.
  • Kevin Jackson (September 2002). "Anatomy of melancholy". Vol. 12, no. 9. Sight & Sound. pp. 16–18.
  • Simon Braund (September 2002). "The killer elite". No. 159. Empire. pp. 58–65.
  • Anne Thompson (August 2002). "Sam Mendes". Vol. 15, no. 12. Premiere. pp. 38–41.
  • Mike Goodridge (2002-07-19). "Close up: Sam Mendes". No. 1364. Screen International. p. 14. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Mike Goodridge (2002-07-05). "24-carat cast shines in Mendes' dark tale". No. 1362. Screen International. p. 17. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Den Shewman (July 2002). "David Self". Vol. 9, no. 4. Creative Screenwriting. pp. 39–46.
  • David Orr (July 2002). "Road to Perdition". Vol. 9, no. 4. Creative Screenwriting. pp. 40–44.
  • Adam Minns (2001-01-05). "Newman set to hit Road for Mendes". No. 1290. Screen International. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Move?

Latest comment: 16 years ago21 comments5 people in discussion

Was it really needed? Road to Perdition just redirects to Road to Perdition (film) so it might as well be in the top slot. Most people coming here will be looking for the film so it might as well have the top slot, which is in line with disambiguation guidelines (I asked for clarification of this on the comics project talk page and the suggestion along those lines [2]) (Emperor 01:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC))

Just checking the incoming links and nearly all of them are for the film, there are also a number of double redirects which is currently breaking things. I'd suggest we move things back and discuss a possibly move and see if we can reach a consensus. (Emperor 01:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC))
Either the move should be undone, or Road to Perdition should be turned into a disambiguation page. A redirect to here is useless, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
If it is made into a disambiguation page (do we have sources for it as a term before this? A page with just 2 links on seems a little skimpy especialy if there is little chance for expansion) then there is a lot of work that needs doing to stop this all being a bit of a mess. Given our discussion above I lean towards keeping the top entry the film one at least until we have had a chance to discuss the alternatives and seen what they would look like. (Emperor 02:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC))
As far as I know, it's just the film and the graphic novel. Let's request an undo. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sincere apology for my undiscussed action. My only goal is to differentiate the 2. If you feel my redirect is unjust, I have no problem if you guys will revert my edit provided we reach a proper/agreeable consensus. I agree that a disambig page isn't necessary, because we'd only have 2 entries if that's the case. One question though, how can you people tell that most people commonly seeks the film and not the graphic novel? Any statistical citation pls? †Bloodpack† 22:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand the attempted objectivity, but the move would require Road to Perdition to become a disambiguation page with only two items. I'm not sure how it can be clearly proved to you that the film takes precedence over the graphic novel. Like Emperor said, the majority of incoming links were film-related. In addition, citations in the article reflect that the graphic novel's reputation was of a lesser nature. Here, the author even says, "The comics press hasn't even noticed that a Tom Hanks/Paul Newman/Jude Law/Sam Mendes movie has been made out of a graphic novel. Even my good friend Maggie Thompson omitted 'Road' from a 'CBG' [Comic Buyer's Guide] issue entirely devoted to upcoming comics movies. Spider-Man' is seen, by comics fans, as a big deal; 'Road to Perdition' rates a 'huh?'" Another quote from him here: "In 1998, when the book finally came out, 'Road to Perdition,' I was very proud of it and thought it was the best thing I had ever done in comics by a long distance and I thought 'Finally, they're going to notice me in comics.' It came out, it sold maybe 3000-3500 copies, got a couple of good reviews, no Eisner nominations, nothing- I was devastated. So I quit comics. The problem is, nobody noticed!" From my time putting the article together, the graphic novel actually gained recognition because of the film, and that kind of symbiotic relationship basically defines the film as the primary, "popular" subject. Let me know if you need further detail before you're convinced. Oh, and one thing to note: Road to Perdition (comics) was only created May 21, 2007. This should indicate the extreme lack of reputation that the graphic novel had, even after the film adaptation came out. In contrast, Watchmen was created on November 1, 2001. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks much for clearing all that up. So I guess the film's redirect should be reverted to its normal "Road to Perdition" title, but what about its corresponding graphic novel? Does it mean we're retaining the "Road to Perdition (comics)?" No problem there, but I find it odd to have "Road to Perdition (comics)" and then a plain "Road to Perdition" article. I mean, one ordinary reader would say "what's this?" †Bloodpack† 23:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we can make it pretty clear from the disambiguated top-links what points to what. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Oki doki. We'll just leave the {{otheruses}} sentence on top of each article =) Thanks! And happy wikiying with you! †Bloodpack† 01:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes part of the reason I raised this topic on the comics page for clarification was because I spotted a number of films based on comics had nothing about the comic and I thought it best to work to rectify that. This seems largely to be because they were based on more obscure comics titles (although I was also concerned the film was "blocking" the creation of the comic title - I think the other explanation is possibly more accurate - they are rather obscure and unloved). So it would make sense that the film is the top entry. There are non-mainstream titles that get the top slot (like Tank Girl and A History of Violence) but they'd won awards and got a high profile. In most cases the fact that someone never made the entry is probably a sign of its lower notability (although we'd need to judge each one on its own merits). (Emperor 13:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

Requested move

The film article was moved from Road to Perdition to Road to Perdition (film) without discussion, and the former link is redirected to the latter, making the move unnecessary. Another editor and I dispute this move because the film is more prominent than the graphic novel itself, as reflected in the records by the numerous links that point to the film article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Support Revert this pointless page move, the user who made it doesn't appear to understand what disambiguation is for as they also moved Unbreakable to Unbreakable (film). I've reverted that one, and this one should be reverted too. Masaruemoto 18:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I was bold and moved it back. The fact that the move was opposed makes it controversial, and should be run thru the RM process to reach a consensus. Note: I am neutral on the discussion, and do not particularly favour either option. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 08:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the above discussion, noted you have reached a consensus. However, whichever of the two is the primary use should be at the disambiguated title. Since the undisambig title redirs to the movie, the movie should be there; the redir is unnecessary. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 08:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a question: How does a non-admin undo a move? I didn't try, but I thought that attempting to move Road to Perdition (film) back to Road to Perdition would not be possible, since the latter existed as a redirect? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
A non-admin can't (stops move wars for one). I think an admin can either remove the reidrect and then move the page or they can just force it. (Emperor 13:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC))
Is SigPig an admin, then? I guess I'd like some clarification about the process for future reference, especially with future films like The Mummy 3. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not an admin. You can undo a move if the page moved from has not been edited since.
Here's what happened: I saw the proposal on WP:RM, hit the (Discuss) link, and came to this section. What I gleaned from the brief discussion after the words "Requested move" was that the move was opposed/done without consensus, and that it should be immediately reverted; in addition, the undisambig title merely redir'ed to the new one. So I was bold and moved it back (reverting to the antebellum status quo), suggesting that a consensus be reached BEFORE any further moves. After I saved my move, I noted that much of the discussion above the "Requested moves" section took place SUBSEQUENT TO the discussion below; it appeared that some consensus had been reached, although I must admit I'm not exactly sure what the consensus was (i.e. a move back, or leave as it was before I came along, etc.). Rather than undo my move, I struck out my rationale for the move, but added my opinion that the undisambig title should be the primary article, not a redir. So I apologize if I have only added confusion to where there had been harmony. If you want to move the article again, you can do so without an admin if the page you move to has not been edited since.
Hope this explains. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 14:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense now. Just to clarify, as I don't want to go about testing it on the mainspace, do I just use the conventional "move" feature, or is there a specific "undo move" feature to enable? Also, the discussion above "Requested move" was with the person who moved it in the first place, Bloodpack. We were able to discuss the proper titling of the articles, and the original status was determined to be proper. I only put in a request because I wasn't sure if the move wouldn't be contested. The discussion here should set the consensus for the proper arrangement for the articles about the film and the graphic novel. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Nope, just the "move" button will suffice. You could conceivably move article "Name1" to "Name2" and back again, ad infinitum, as long as your target (which will be a redirect) has not been edited in the meanwhile. Cheers. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 14:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Positive

Negative

Reviews to use. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

GA pass

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Good, good. A few notes;

  • Lead should say "The film was released on..., and recieved highly positive reviews".
  • In reception, Once Upon A Time in America came out in 1984, not '82.
  • In infobox, just keep the flags for releases.
  • In infobox, write US$, not USD$.

All very minor, and overall, excellent article. Could do with some pictures, something behind-the-scenes if you're really uptight about fair use. Alientraveller 20:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made the changes. I actually forgot about including images; I got rid of the previous ones before revising the article. I've re-included one of Newman/Hanks, and I may put one of Hanks/Hoechlin in Cast. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Lampman (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Steven Spielberg

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Would Steven Spielberg be considered an executive producer for this movie for setting it up at DreamWorks and giving Hanks a copy of the comic? 70.240.76.129 (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Genre in lede

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Do we need to make the point that this is a period dram crime film? It makes little difference to me one way or the other, but the main characters are all criminals, and story revolves around murder and bank robbery. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 17:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I would be fine with just calling it a crime film or a gangster film. I think "period drama" is most suitable when no other genres fit a film set in a non-contemporary period. (Kind of like how films that aren't in a specialized genre are usually just drama films.) Erik (talk | contribs) 17:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, when I see "period drama," I think of The Age of Innocence, Howard's End, or The Remains of the Day. Crime or gangster film is more appropriate here. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 02:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Anthony LaPaglia

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why is LaPaglia listed in the cast section when all his scenes were cut? He is not a member of the cast. He should be mentioned in the production section, but not in the cast. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Genre in lede (again)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This film is not a thriller. The "thriller" article here on WP says "Thrillers are characterized and defined by the moods they elicit, giving viewers heightened feelings of suspense, excitement, surprise, anticipation and anxiety." Road to Perdition has almost none of that, in fact, it's pacing is very deliberate and slow, with very few "thrilling" surprises. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Road to Perdition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Music

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I came to Wikipedia hoping to read about the haunting musical score that Thomas Newman is credited for. I consider myself lucky to have come away even knowing that that's his name. If someone knows a Wikipedian who is well qualified to comment on the relationship between the score and the visuals, please let them know that this aspect would be an excellent complement to the article. Note: Today is August 24, 2021: and Road to Perdition, currently available on Netflix, is scheduled to be removed on August 23.2603:6010:4E42:500:6D7D:F3D5:4C52:6D8F (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Shooting Locations

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The scene where one of the characters is in a Saloon & the other is in a hotel & crosses the street to enter the Saloon was shot in West Dundee, IL DebbiePritchard (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Road_to_Perdition/Archives/2023/December&oldid=1215087808"