This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cube 2: Hypercube article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I would appreciate it if someone who has seen the movie would fill in what the "banal revelation" at the end of the film is. Put {{spoiler}} before the part where you describe the ending. -- 66.81.122.242 23:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it should be merged - all cast is different ( clem 00:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC))
If other movies with sequels are handled in seperate entries, so should this.
As a matter of fact all movies and their sequels (or prequels) should be treated in one article. As an example, the movies in the Starwars saga should be in one article containing the 6 movies in chronological order of premier (not of the story). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.89.98.117 ( talk • contribs) 2005-09-19 20:03:04 UTC.
More should be written about the plot and storyline. Look at the Cube article, that's a good length and description. 128.6.175.67 20:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
God knows I've seen shorter articles than this (not labelled as stubs, that is). Jobjörn 21:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I haven't seen Hypercube for a while, but this entry mentions "Alexander Trust"... But I only remember hearing it as "Alex Trust", thus leaving the name androgynous; could be a man, could also be a woman. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I saw Hypercube about 30 mins ago and this is a bit of a spoiler but Sasha is actually Alex Trusk. Not Trust. Kate says that Sasha is a nickname for Alexandera, and finds out that Sasha is Alex Trusk. Max Valentine 19:39, 31 October 2006. (UTC)
It's been a really long time since I saw this movie, but I remember in the credits, it lists the man at the end (who shoots Kate) as "Tracton". Would that be worth mentioning? VQts 03:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
In this section the reader is referred to as "we" and the adjective "poor" is used to describe Jerry. Should this be changed? Puff0rx 04:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC) Puff0rx
Sorry, this is me being really pedantic and neeky, but is there a better way of saying that time and space seem to merge into one? It's just, that time and space do merge into one. In real life. sorry, but it'll annoy physics nerds like me. Doctorp9999 10:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Several of the character descriptions were inaccurate or assumed information not given in the film. Assuming characters died of starvation is not supported by any part of the movie. Simon Grady resorting to cannibalism is also not supported despite his references to hunger. If anything the movie suggests this not to be the case as there is no evidence of any blood near his mouth or any other behavior suggestive of cannibalism. There is no reason given as to why the physicist is in the cube or how he died. The previous comments were assumptions. Jerry is killed by spinning razor blades (per the movie) that react to movement, not a tesseract. I corrected these. Leavemade 23:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
ive removed the "razor cube" trap from the list because it is already listed and explained directly above it(The Expanding Tesseract) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.33.214 ( talk) 21:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
If Alex/Sasha wanted to tell the world about the Tesseract/Cube/Hypercube why did she hid IN the Cube, knowing that there was no escape and the Cube would implode/collapse? How was she supposed to divulge the information from inside the Cube? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.1.181.106 ( talk) 18:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I've just watched the DVD and the alternative ending and its different in some respects to what the wiki page says. For instance the DVD says (alternative ending) she was in there for 6mins and 59 secs whereas wiki says 6 hrs, 6 mins and 59 secs. Also wiki says Kate's survival was based on Alex's survival too whereas in the DVD (alternative ending again) Kate says she was terminated as per her orders. Anyone else seen these differences or am I seeing a second alternative ending? Darrenaustralia ( talk) 12:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The current article is disjointed and contains massive amounts of speculation and original research. As best I can tell, someone had their pet theory and decided to interweave it throughout (best indication is that every single character section winds up talking about Kate instead). Needs major fixing. - 166.20.24.144 ( talk) 16:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I've seen this on Youtube, but it was all in German. Usually, I would just use a translater, but I can't because they are all speaking so quickly and unclearly. Does anyone know where I can watch it in English? Do you at least know where I can buy a DVD of it? 24.150.143.48 ( talk) 21:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
...to the point of having most of the section on the Cube describe them, and not very well. Is this because a major audience segment for this and other Cube films are focused on the potential for gore and little else? There are no "traps" in Cube3, it is simply an unstable and dangerous four-dimensional object. Huw Powell ( talk) 03:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Debresser & Millahnna. I have made two edits, the simplification of the genres and removal of the section, The Cube
1. Genres. Removal of psychological horror. WP:FILMLEAD: "The opening sentence should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified. For other applicable elements to add (e.g., reputable director or source material), see WP:LEADSENTENCE. Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." Emphasis added by me, and primary means one. Not every genre. Sci-fi thriller is already a bit of a stretch but could be considered single genre, sci-fi thriller psychological horror is too much and to justify this, the majority of the sources would have to refer to it as such.
2. The Cube section. This is fan-cruft. It's either repeating content from the plot summary, adding additional plot content that isn't in the summary (which would make it too long per WP:PLOTBLOAT, what's left is unsourced interpretation of narrative events and fails WP:PLOT which requires reliable sourcing, and the tone fails MOS:REALWORLD for introducing non-encyclopedic content.
If you disagree with this interpretation of guidelines and policy, I'd welcome your comments. Scribolt ( talk) 15:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I have no wish to discuss WP:FILMLEAD, I wish to discuss how it relates to this article, so this page is the appropriate place. The minimum is the primary description, which psychological is clearly not. If you continue to read the sentence I quoted, you will see that it does not say we should be always strive to be as complete as possible. I do not know where this is mentioned. It actually says that genre descriptions should be as comply with WP:WEIGHT and the majority of reliable sources. So, let's look at the sources listed in the article. (I'm on a mobile so some of the links are weird for me) Moviefone= Sci fi thriller. Scifimovie page =sci fi. Filmthreat I cannot access. JoBlo = no mention of psychological horror. DVD verdict = no results when searching for cube 2 or cube hypercube. Efilmcritic = sci fi horror. Bloody disgusting = no search rota for cube 2 or cube 2 hypercube. Imdb= sci fi thriller. Rotten tomatoes = sci fi and fantasy. All movies = genre sci fi, sub genres escape film and psychological sci fi.
So, there appears to be little evidence that the majority (or even any) consider it to be a psychological horror and to place this in the lede would be giving it undue weight. Please provide a policy based justification, with supporting sourcing for its inclusion.
Also, please provide a rationale for your reinsertion of the content myself and another editor consider to be against the guidelines and policies I quoted in my previous post which you appear to have ignored. Thank you.. Scribolt ( talk) 19:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:FILMLEAD says the lead should include "At minimum ... the primary genre or sub-genre"is very irksome to me, because through selective quoting, the argument suggests that the "at minimum" pertains to genres, when in fact it relates to what the minimum expectations are for the overall shape of the lead. The "at minimum" means we want title, year, and primary or sub-genre. I'm actually stunned that it doesn't mention nation or language of production, which I think are important and non-controversial. Anyway, the language absolutely does not suggest we want people to focus on genre boat. This has been discussed numerous times at WT:FILM, and consensus seems to lean toward including what most reliable sources describe a film in general. My personal approach to genre selection is to find a few reliable sources and see where the descriptions intersect. If the sources don't agree on whether a thing is a suspense or thriller or whatever, then picking the more general description, like "drama", is often the smartest choice. As to Debresser's note "If a film has more than one verifiable genre, there is nothing in the guideline to preclude inclusion. To the contrary, we should always strive to be as complete as possible" well, sort of--while the guideline doesn't specifically preclude inclusion of anything you can source, we do have a synthesis policy which prevents us from drawing conclusions based on a variety of sources when none of the individual sources say that specific thing. So just because someone can find seven sources that describe a film as 1) a drama, 2) a horror, 3) a thriller, 4) a suspense, 5) a film noir, 6) an epic, and 7) a historical period piece, doesn't mean we need to describe the film as "a film noir epic historical period piece dramatic horror suspense thriller". Genre is a persistently irritating subject across the entire Wikipedia project and the smartest approach is to go broad rather than fight over nuance. It's simply just a waste of everybody's time to try to get genre 100% perfect. If you can get genre 50% correct, that's a huge achievement. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 04:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
This article is incomplete and is missing information on the film's production and theatrical/home media release which needs to be added to the article. There is also some sections that seem unnecessary (There was a section talking about the cube, however it was unsourced and seemed more like a personal opinion so it was deleted). The article also consists mostly of the film's plot and needs to be balanced with the above mentioned information added with proper citations given for its information.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 15:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
As I said, given that there is no indication of editorial control or the author of the piece, it is useless as a reliable source for this topic. Again, I may be mistaken. I think we have used the site before for strictly factual information. But this is not my usual focus on wiki which is why I sought out other editors to look at it. Millahnna ( talk) 18:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cube 2: Hypercube article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I would appreciate it if someone who has seen the movie would fill in what the "banal revelation" at the end of the film is. Put {{spoiler}} before the part where you describe the ending. -- 66.81.122.242 23:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it should be merged - all cast is different ( clem 00:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC))
If other movies with sequels are handled in seperate entries, so should this.
As a matter of fact all movies and their sequels (or prequels) should be treated in one article. As an example, the movies in the Starwars saga should be in one article containing the 6 movies in chronological order of premier (not of the story). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.89.98.117 ( talk • contribs) 2005-09-19 20:03:04 UTC.
More should be written about the plot and storyline. Look at the Cube article, that's a good length and description. 128.6.175.67 20:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
God knows I've seen shorter articles than this (not labelled as stubs, that is). Jobjörn 21:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I haven't seen Hypercube for a while, but this entry mentions "Alexander Trust"... But I only remember hearing it as "Alex Trust", thus leaving the name androgynous; could be a man, could also be a woman. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I saw Hypercube about 30 mins ago and this is a bit of a spoiler but Sasha is actually Alex Trusk. Not Trust. Kate says that Sasha is a nickname for Alexandera, and finds out that Sasha is Alex Trusk. Max Valentine 19:39, 31 October 2006. (UTC)
It's been a really long time since I saw this movie, but I remember in the credits, it lists the man at the end (who shoots Kate) as "Tracton". Would that be worth mentioning? VQts 03:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
In this section the reader is referred to as "we" and the adjective "poor" is used to describe Jerry. Should this be changed? Puff0rx 04:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC) Puff0rx
Sorry, this is me being really pedantic and neeky, but is there a better way of saying that time and space seem to merge into one? It's just, that time and space do merge into one. In real life. sorry, but it'll annoy physics nerds like me. Doctorp9999 10:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Several of the character descriptions were inaccurate or assumed information not given in the film. Assuming characters died of starvation is not supported by any part of the movie. Simon Grady resorting to cannibalism is also not supported despite his references to hunger. If anything the movie suggests this not to be the case as there is no evidence of any blood near his mouth or any other behavior suggestive of cannibalism. There is no reason given as to why the physicist is in the cube or how he died. The previous comments were assumptions. Jerry is killed by spinning razor blades (per the movie) that react to movement, not a tesseract. I corrected these. Leavemade 23:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
ive removed the "razor cube" trap from the list because it is already listed and explained directly above it(The Expanding Tesseract) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.33.214 ( talk) 21:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
If Alex/Sasha wanted to tell the world about the Tesseract/Cube/Hypercube why did she hid IN the Cube, knowing that there was no escape and the Cube would implode/collapse? How was she supposed to divulge the information from inside the Cube? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.1.181.106 ( talk) 18:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I've just watched the DVD and the alternative ending and its different in some respects to what the wiki page says. For instance the DVD says (alternative ending) she was in there for 6mins and 59 secs whereas wiki says 6 hrs, 6 mins and 59 secs. Also wiki says Kate's survival was based on Alex's survival too whereas in the DVD (alternative ending again) Kate says she was terminated as per her orders. Anyone else seen these differences or am I seeing a second alternative ending? Darrenaustralia ( talk) 12:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The current article is disjointed and contains massive amounts of speculation and original research. As best I can tell, someone had their pet theory and decided to interweave it throughout (best indication is that every single character section winds up talking about Kate instead). Needs major fixing. - 166.20.24.144 ( talk) 16:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I've seen this on Youtube, but it was all in German. Usually, I would just use a translater, but I can't because they are all speaking so quickly and unclearly. Does anyone know where I can watch it in English? Do you at least know where I can buy a DVD of it? 24.150.143.48 ( talk) 21:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
...to the point of having most of the section on the Cube describe them, and not very well. Is this because a major audience segment for this and other Cube films are focused on the potential for gore and little else? There are no "traps" in Cube3, it is simply an unstable and dangerous four-dimensional object. Huw Powell ( talk) 03:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Debresser & Millahnna. I have made two edits, the simplification of the genres and removal of the section, The Cube
1. Genres. Removal of psychological horror. WP:FILMLEAD: "The opening sentence should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified. For other applicable elements to add (e.g., reputable director or source material), see WP:LEADSENTENCE. Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." Emphasis added by me, and primary means one. Not every genre. Sci-fi thriller is already a bit of a stretch but could be considered single genre, sci-fi thriller psychological horror is too much and to justify this, the majority of the sources would have to refer to it as such.
2. The Cube section. This is fan-cruft. It's either repeating content from the plot summary, adding additional plot content that isn't in the summary (which would make it too long per WP:PLOTBLOAT, what's left is unsourced interpretation of narrative events and fails WP:PLOT which requires reliable sourcing, and the tone fails MOS:REALWORLD for introducing non-encyclopedic content.
If you disagree with this interpretation of guidelines and policy, I'd welcome your comments. Scribolt ( talk) 15:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I have no wish to discuss WP:FILMLEAD, I wish to discuss how it relates to this article, so this page is the appropriate place. The minimum is the primary description, which psychological is clearly not. If you continue to read the sentence I quoted, you will see that it does not say we should be always strive to be as complete as possible. I do not know where this is mentioned. It actually says that genre descriptions should be as comply with WP:WEIGHT and the majority of reliable sources. So, let's look at the sources listed in the article. (I'm on a mobile so some of the links are weird for me) Moviefone= Sci fi thriller. Scifimovie page =sci fi. Filmthreat I cannot access. JoBlo = no mention of psychological horror. DVD verdict = no results when searching for cube 2 or cube hypercube. Efilmcritic = sci fi horror. Bloody disgusting = no search rota for cube 2 or cube 2 hypercube. Imdb= sci fi thriller. Rotten tomatoes = sci fi and fantasy. All movies = genre sci fi, sub genres escape film and psychological sci fi.
So, there appears to be little evidence that the majority (or even any) consider it to be a psychological horror and to place this in the lede would be giving it undue weight. Please provide a policy based justification, with supporting sourcing for its inclusion.
Also, please provide a rationale for your reinsertion of the content myself and another editor consider to be against the guidelines and policies I quoted in my previous post which you appear to have ignored. Thank you.. Scribolt ( talk) 19:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:FILMLEAD says the lead should include "At minimum ... the primary genre or sub-genre"is very irksome to me, because through selective quoting, the argument suggests that the "at minimum" pertains to genres, when in fact it relates to what the minimum expectations are for the overall shape of the lead. The "at minimum" means we want title, year, and primary or sub-genre. I'm actually stunned that it doesn't mention nation or language of production, which I think are important and non-controversial. Anyway, the language absolutely does not suggest we want people to focus on genre boat. This has been discussed numerous times at WT:FILM, and consensus seems to lean toward including what most reliable sources describe a film in general. My personal approach to genre selection is to find a few reliable sources and see where the descriptions intersect. If the sources don't agree on whether a thing is a suspense or thriller or whatever, then picking the more general description, like "drama", is often the smartest choice. As to Debresser's note "If a film has more than one verifiable genre, there is nothing in the guideline to preclude inclusion. To the contrary, we should always strive to be as complete as possible" well, sort of--while the guideline doesn't specifically preclude inclusion of anything you can source, we do have a synthesis policy which prevents us from drawing conclusions based on a variety of sources when none of the individual sources say that specific thing. So just because someone can find seven sources that describe a film as 1) a drama, 2) a horror, 3) a thriller, 4) a suspense, 5) a film noir, 6) an epic, and 7) a historical period piece, doesn't mean we need to describe the film as "a film noir epic historical period piece dramatic horror suspense thriller". Genre is a persistently irritating subject across the entire Wikipedia project and the smartest approach is to go broad rather than fight over nuance. It's simply just a waste of everybody's time to try to get genre 100% perfect. If you can get genre 50% correct, that's a huge achievement. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 04:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
This article is incomplete and is missing information on the film's production and theatrical/home media release which needs to be added to the article. There is also some sections that seem unnecessary (There was a section talking about the cube, however it was unsourced and seemed more like a personal opinion so it was deleted). The article also consists mostly of the film's plot and needs to be balanced with the above mentioned information added with proper citations given for its information.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 15:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
As I said, given that there is no indication of editorial control or the author of the piece, it is useless as a reliable source for this topic. Again, I may be mistaken. I think we have used the site before for strictly factual information. But this is not my usual focus on wiki which is why I sought out other editors to look at it. Millahnna ( talk) 18:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)