Talk:Basic Instinct

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References to use[edit]

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • King, Mike (2008). "American Psycho, Blue Velvet, and Basic Instinct". The American Cinema of Excess: Extremes of the National Mind on Film. McFarland. pp. 105–109. ISBN 0786439882.
  • Leitch, Thomas (2002). "Basic Instinct and the Erotic Thriller". Crime Films. Genres in American Cinema. Cambridge University Press. pp. 146–169. ISBN 0521646715.
  • Palmer, William J. (2009). "Sex and the Nineties". The Films of the Nineties: The Decade of Spin. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 167–173. ISBN 0230613446.

cult film?[edit]

Just wondering what the justification is for classifying this as a cult film? It doesn't really seem to make most lists of cult films in the articles and books I've read, and a google search doesn't turn up much. --Misterwindupbird 07:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a cult movie.[1] --Mabm 12:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it so? What sources can you cite?
I agree. There is nothing in any reputable source which cites this as a cult film. Hanoi Road (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Psychologist[edit]

I am always surprised that gays protested (or fell for a publicity stunt) about this film, but psychologists did not. The film presents psychologists as manipulative, unstable types.

Up her dress[edit]

Well she didn't think that a camera would be positioned to see up her skirt, but then why wasn't she wearing underwear? ... Going commando

Wouldn't you put on underwear if you THOUGHT the camera would go up your skirt? I know I would.
It's possible the underwear was removed to prevent "undie lines" being visible on the surface of the clothing, I suppose. Or, maybe that's what she was told, or whatever.
What I'm wondering is why she came back for the sequel if she was so mad at the director for that stunt. I probably would not have, personally. Runa27 05:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palme D'Or[edit]

I removed the mention to Jerry Goldsmith being "nominated for a Palme D'Or at the Cannes Film Festival" for this film. Whoever wrote it has no knowledge of the functioning system of the Cannes Film Festival (or any film festival, for that matter). There's no such thing as nominations in this or that category in Cannes. If a film is in competition, it is assumed that it can be elected for any award that the jury chooses to give it. Besides, the Palme D'Or name refers solely to the maximum prize of the event. Actors, directors and such don't win Palmes D'Or for their given specific works in Cannes. A score award (which would be something extraordinary, given at the jury's convenience, since there's no regular award for that) would be referred to as simply a Best Score Award. If someone wants to reinstate the mention to Cannes 1992, it should read solely that the film was shown there in competition that year (where it won no awards). P.S. I know the mentioning of Goldsmith comes from Imdb, but Imdb is simply wrong in this case. I can't fix it easily there, but I can here, so... Cheers. JimboB 22:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went to Imdb and saw where the mistake comes from. Somehow the page for the Cannes Film Festival 1992 mentions his name alongside with the film's name in the "Films in Competition" section, as if he were the director or producer (in Cannes, the former would be the correct, since they credit mostly the director for the film's accomplishments over there; it's the director who receives the main prize, the Palme D'Or, not the producer, as in the Academy Awards). Since Goldsmith's only the soundtrack composer, this is just blatantly wrong. I'll try to contact Imdb, so it gets changed there. Cheers. JimboB 22:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated it with a reference from the Cannes site. Lugnuts (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Up, Possible Peer Reveiw[edit]

I've recently done an extensive clean-up on this article. Expanded the plot outline, added critical reception, casting and direction background, changed the "pop culture" section, expanded the opening and wrote it in the formal tone expected on Wikiepdia articles, and I believe that it is ready for Peer Reveiw, it is looking closer to the "featured status"... your minor improvements would also really help out. Angel2001 17:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the plot removing what I thought were personal reflections, correcting citations, and tried to keep description to a minimum, as I have noted elsewhere Wikipedia prefers short synopses. I also removed excessive spoilers, hoping to make clear the movie's plot without giving it too much away for someone who hasn't seen the film yet.--David Be 16:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Quality[edit]

I noticed a similarity between the article and the trivia section on IMDb. I believe those footnotes should be removed, replacing the notes with a request for "citation needed", since IMDb can hardly be considered a quality source.--David Be 17:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible source[edit]

The book Impossible Bodies: Femininity and Masculinity at the Movies might be a good source for this article.--BelovedFreak 13:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone else notice that the reference to 'underwear' leads into the Vagina article? heh.

Garble[edit]

The line "Stone, who refuses to use a body double in films is identified by name by Verhoeven in the audio commentary track of the 1997 DVD release of Basic Instinct." makes no sense in the context of the article: I didn't check but presumably it is an attempt to "correct" an earlier edit that porn star Ashlyn Gere body-doubled for Sharon Stone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.132.8 (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

non free use[edit]

I'm generally very cautious and wary about non-free use. However, there is extended description of Sharon Stone's uncrossing of her legs in this article. Does this qualify as non-free use to insure proper understanding of what the article is talking about? User F203 (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queries[edit]

In the love scene between Michael Douglas & Jeanne Tripplehorn, what happen at the last moment? Was it cut or Michael just stopped? All I see is Jeanne saying "stop" and Michael what appears to be ripping something off (maybe her under wear) - it's unclear from the VHS TV version... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andwan0 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need help on the photo[edit]

Does anyone know who is the lady between Douglas and Verhoeven ? I'm guessing she could be one of the producers, but I could be wrong. Thanks. JJ Georges (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone cares except for me :), I could identify her as Paul Verhoeven's wife, Martine Tours. JJ Georges (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page Name[edit]

This page should be moved to Basic Instinct (movie) because Ciara's 2010 album is called Basic Instinct and is located at Basic Instinct (album). Because visitors looking for either page are liking to just type Basic Instinct into the album this page should become a disambiguation page. Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DNA[edit]

Should the article mention the major plothole that the film ignores DNA? (92.13.54.84 (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Requested move September 2010[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. Closing early per WP:SNOW as this goes against fundamental naming conventions, disambiguation, crystal ballism and already has overwhelming consensus.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Instinct → Basic Instinct (film) — A previous discussion note was opened previous above yet no one responded to it. Therefore I went ahead and moved the article because there was no obvious cut considering that a highly notable US singer, Ciara is releasing an album of the same name. However a few days later the move was undone. This is incorrect. Basic Instinct should be a dab page. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should formally request a move through the WP:RM process if you think a move could be controversial. In this case, I believe it is. — AjaxSmack 22:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The film should be at Basic Instinct without a disambiguator per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If the notability of the album warrants a future change then it can be carried out at that time. Remember, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — AjaxSmack 22:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per AjaxSmack. The album hasn't even been released yet, much less reached a level of notability equal to that of the film. PC78 (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair play, I recognise that actually this may be premature. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 23:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the film is still the primary topic. If you go up to someone and ask "Have you seen Basic Instinct", 9 times out of 10, they won't say "No, it's not out yet." Powers T 00:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, and someone please move this talk page to match the article; at the moment it's showing up wrong at RM and in the box above.--Kotniski (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Nymf hideliho! 13:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC --JaGatalk 22:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. The film is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and consensus is clear about this too. Closure of previous poll per WP:SNOW was correct. Reaffirming. Born2cycle (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move?[edit]

Basic Instinct → Basic Instinct (film)

  • And Basic Instinct (disambiguation) to Basic Instinct. The previous discussion's closure after about 30.5 hours open is rather quick. Is the film likely to be permanently notable enough to be the long-term dominant meaning, or will it go the way of most routine thriller films? To many people 'Basic Instinct' means 'basic instinct'. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Persistent addition of unsourced material[edit]

IP addresses have persistently restored the unsourced claim that "The film was also widely ridiculed because in reality the police would have solved the case using DNA" to the lead of this page - I'd like to ask other editors to help keep this out. It does not benefit the article in any way to have unsourced claims like that here. If need be, I'll ask for the page to be protected. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (December 2010)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved - no support forthcoming in either this or the previous discussion on the same topic. Kotniski (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Basic Instinct → Basic Instinct (film) — There is an album by popular American singer, Ciara which is of the same name. According to recent page view statistics (based on December 2010), the film receives, on average, 1,800 views a day. This is in comparison to the album, which on average, receives around 3,000+ views a day. Surely there is enough evidence there to warrant this page move and to turn Basic Instinct into a disambig. page.... ---- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 21:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. This is a close call, but, with the exception of December, the film and album have been getting close to the same amount of pageviews over the past few months. With only two possible articles using this title, it's better not to have a dab page, where no one wants to be. If the album continues to get so many more pageviews than the film over the next 2 or 3 months, then I might favor reversing the titles, putting this at "(film)" and the album at the plain title. In the meantime the album should be linked directly from the hatnote, which I've just done. Station1 (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A just-released album that, according to a source for the article, "[had] a meek debut at #44, with sales of nearly 37,000 copies" is not much competition. — AjaxSmack 03:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Those recent page stats are heavily skewed based on recent events, and might not reflect long-term page searches and views. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose A movie that is one of the great classics of the nineties, compared to an album by a C-list r'n'b singer? This is wasting people's time. walk victor falk talk 04:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That comment made above is not WP:Good faith at all. There are two bodies of work with the same name. I merely opened the discussion to see if one or other other was more significant. There was no need for a rude comment about wasting people's time or the need to be rude about Ciara. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 20:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you took my comment personally. It's just that I find that very little reflection is needed to decide that one of Hollywood's biggest hits would be the primary topic compared to an album that charts at #42. I do assume good faith and that you misjudged their relative cultural impact, not that you are trying to unduly promote this artist. But then, we all can make mistakes. walk victor falk talk 21:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the case... (and in the interest of not wasting time) perhaps this should be speedily closed as no action required? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I feel quite sure that the album title was chosen with the film's notoriety in mind. Deb (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

LaserDisc, VCD, Betamax[edit]

I've seen versions of this movie in other formats than just the two mentioned in the article. I also own the "international" version of LaserDisc and VHS, released in a blood-red cover instead of a white cover. Apple8800 (talk) 11:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality controversy[edit]

I was just wondering what would happen if I did a web search like this: https://www.google.com/search?q=nc17+film+murderous+lesbian

And this article was the #1 hit out of millions. Which leads me to ...

  • Groups including the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation opposed Basic Instinct’s depiction of a sex-crazed bisexual novelist being investigated for murder. Several gay groups boycotted the film’s opening, charging that the character of Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) was offensive and homophobic. Film critic Roger Ebert, however, noted that the film’s heterosexual characters are equally unethical, and bisexual writer Camille Paglia called Basic Instinct her “favorite film.” [2]

The quote above is from The Advocate, presumably a gay-friendly source.

I take it that the gay community is (a) mostly against the film or (b) evenly mixed; but which is it? Seems to me that the proportion of bisexuals in the USA is supposed to be 10% (if Kinsey's data is still considered reliable). So has Hollywood over-representing or under-representing homicidal maniacs, in terms of this statistic? That is, are more than 10% of the crazed killers we see in movies portrayed as gay?

And this is not a debate point: I know that, "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." I'm just asking how we should describe the controversy. For example, is a movie "antisemitic" if it shows a soldier shooting his commanding officer without even saying, "Halt! Who goes there?" as in "Cast a Giant Shadow"? Or do we simply report without comment or analysis whatever any "reliable source" says? --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We report what the WP:RELIABLE sources say, without our own analysis, or WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. You kbow, WP:NPOV. If you want to publish your original thoughts or opinions or "analysis" on the subject of homosexuality in films, the door is thataway because Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Heiro 04:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To quote the famous black actor in Field of Dreams, "Do we have a learning disability here?" I just said I wasn't bringing up a debate point; I'm just asking how we should describe the controversy. If you don't have any ideas on improving the article, you need to be elsewhere.
I'm asking for specific suggestions, and if any part of my comments above are distracting you feel free to strike them out and then focus on what remains. (Just this once, okay?) --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Or do we simply report without comment or analysis whatever any "reliable source" says?" Find a reliable source describing it a certain way or are you learning impaired? One would think after your glorious years here you would have read the policy pages I linked to above and understood them by now.Heiro 04:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I don't lecture you about ignoring all the great advice (not to mention rules) about afd, which after all the times you "already told me" this and that you show no signs of having read. Is this about you and me, and our different approaches to improving WP, or about how we can describe the controversy over a lesbian character being shown as a murderer in a movie? If I have to start quoting English Wikipedia behavioral guidelines, I guess I could start with, "This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines" such as:
  • The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration.
  • No personal attacks: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person
  • Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page
With this in mind, do you have anything to say about how to incorporate the Advocate quote above? Some groups called the character of Catherine "offensive and homophopic", while one "out" writer called "Basic Instinct" her "favorite film". Which of these would make good additions to the article? --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More about the director's intent[edit]

  • Some members of the gay and lesbian community objected to the premise of a homicidal lesbian maniac terrorizing the men of San Francisco in Basic Instinct. Carolco Pictures was asked to cancel the project, and when that was not successful, the screenwriter, director, and others associated with the film were asked to make script changes that would portray gays and lesbians in a more positive light. The requested changes were largely ignored, leading to protests designed to disrupt the filming on city streets, and, eventually, protests outside theaters where the film was being shown. One group even attempted to give away the ending of "Basic Instinct" in hopes that it would dissuade movie-goers from seeing it. In the original cut, suspect Sharon Stone taunts police with a daring panty-less flash while being interrogated. The scene was later modified to be less graphic. Later, police detective Michael Douglas has rough and not-quite-voluntary sex with girlfriend Jeanne Tripplehorn, a scene that was also toned down. Some say the director seemed deliberate in his attempt to either offend or titillate everyone, and this amoral attitude is perhaps at the heart of the objections to this film.

Thanks for this source. Sounds like the consensus is that the director was not so much anti-LGBT as out to rock everyone's boat. Perhaps this could be made more clear in the article. Unless there's controversy about that, in which case (NPOV, you know?) we should present the various sides on this aspect. --Uncle Ed (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Sex Scene[edit]

According to IMDb, "no body doubles were used in any of the sex scenes", and "according to director Paul Verhoeven, the woman in the opening scene was Sharon Stone and not a body double". http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103772/trivia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.221.111.247 (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Aggressive sex"[edit]

The mentions of the sex scene between Nick and Beth are in the plot section and in the overviews of varying cuts released to VHS, etc. The words "has aggressive sex with", "almost rapes" and "penetrates Beth from behind as she reaches orgasm" are used. What is "almost rape"? When one person "has aggressive sex with" someone else, isn't that rape? I interpreted this scene as a rape, as she tells him to stop and he is very forcible. I wonder if there should be some discussion of the wording in the article. Thegirlnextdork (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never actually seem the movie, so I can't comment on the scene in question (although it sounds like rape to me). Do you know if there are any reliable sources that describe it specifically as a rape scene? Kaldari (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


++It's angry sex. Can you provide any outside source to back up the use of the word rape, the kind of source that is demanded anywhere else on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.208.126 (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was rape, as she clearly said, "No." (2A00:23C4:6384:FE00:C405:1D9F:7A5B:EC0D (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]

leg-crossing scene[edit]

The paragraph has several problems.

:In a 2006 interview, Stone alleged that the infamous leg-crossing scene in which her vulva was exposed was filmed without her knowledge; Stone had been wearing thin underwear for the scene which Verhoeven said reflected light on the camera lens; and it was not until Stone saw the film in a screening room with a test audience that she became aware of it, leading her to slap Verhoeven in the face and leave the screening.

  1. I can't imagine the scene was filmed without her knowing so, as claimed by the first sentence. She was in it. Possibly the author tries to say her vulva was exposed without her knowledge.
  2. What is the significance of telling us her underwear was thin? Nothing, of course. You might think they were too sheer, too thin, but Stone didn't wear underwear at all. What the text should be saying is Stone claims Verhoeven told her her underwear reflected light badly as an excuse to ask her to remove them.
  3. While flawed, all of this is presented uncritically. In reality, lots of people think Stone is making all this up as a cover, and the paragraph needs to indicate that the sequence of events is controversial.
  4. Finally, the interviews with Stone ends with her admitting she would have kept the scene in the movie if she was the director.

CapnZapp (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the source supporting the claim in the reference is a DVD, we can't all see it! And there's a reference in the film, when Curran takes her home, she says 'you know I don't wear any underwear'. While her claim is implausible, we do have a source backing it up, albeit one only those of us with access to the DVD can check. We could plausibly dump it all together until a publicly available source is found. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Basic Instinct. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 01:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Basic Instinct. 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) 21:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help![edit]

I did a mistake. I added that the sequel "had not only negative reviews, but also and moderate reviews" and something went wrong with the link sourse. Can anybody fix it, please? Sorry... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antikeimenikos (talk • contribs) 07:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC) That was the link: http://www.metacritic.com/movie/basic-instinct-2 Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antikeimenikos (talk • contribs) 07:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

What does the title mean?

And I just checked, neither words appear in the script. Maikel (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

Box Office Earnings - Source?[edit]

The paragraph on box office ratings seems to have some countries' intakes unsourced - Iceland is the one I remember off the top of my head.

Also, the currencies are all over the place. Some, like the UK, are listed in their own currency - pounds. Yet others are listed as "$" - I'm assuming USD - even though they definitely don't use that currency. ElleBlair (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

  1. https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/625697736/?terms=%22glaad%22&match=1

Films Made in San Francisco[edit]

2601:646:201:57F0:6212:537F:CE85:5A2B (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cannon resumes drinking with a double "Black Jack" (Daniels) at Tosca Cafe[edit]

see:

2601:646:201:57F0:6212:537F:CE85:5A2B (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Basic_Instinct&oldid=1220588801"