This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Demolition Man (film) 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 |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the comma in the following sentence: "The city becomes a utopia run under the pseudo-pacifist guidance and control of the evangelistic Dr. Raymond Cocteau, where human behavior is tightly controlled." What follows the comma is an essential clause.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update the article to note that the lawsuit was settled in 2019. Maybe also add the review of the film by Emannuel Levy from Variety magazine. -- 109.79.72.198 ( talk) 13:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The lawsuit was settled in 2019.<ref>https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/sylvester-stallone-de </ref>
The lawsuit was settled in 2019.<ref>https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/sylvester-stallone-de </ref><ref>{{cite web |date= 8 May 2019 |last= Maddaus |first= Gene |author-link= Gene Maddaus |title= Sylvester Stallone Settles ‘Demolition Man’ Profits Dispute |url= https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/sylvester-stallone-demolition-man-settlement-1203208843/ |website=Variety }}</ref>
Should Anachronism#Future anachronism apply here? The writers didn't know Dahmer would be murdered so soon after 1993, let alone decades before 2032. Why they thought Dahmer would be transferred from Wisconsin to California, or why they thought a serial killer would be useful to the film's villain, however... PAustin4thApril1980 ( talk) 01:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Sequel in early development stage. [2] Stallone Instagram video [3] -- 109.78.202.37 ( talk) 16:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah but maybe not make second part -- 89.215.121.220 ( talk) 18:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
He happened to be the name of the producer for the "Little House and the Prairie" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinmaharaj1 ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
The article currently contains a short section title "Accounting controversy" about Stallone suing over profit sharing. I was thinking that a different section heading might be better (see WP:CSECTION, for example "Lawsuit" would be simpler and more generic, although perhaps not as immediately informative), or that it should not be a separate section at all, WP:OVERSECTION. I was thinking that because it was about the profits it would be reasonable to include it at the end of the Box office section instead. I'm open to suggestions but if there are no objections or better suggestions I will probably move it into the Box office section. -- 109.78.201.10 ( talk) 03:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking maybe the references to Arnold Schwarzenegger might be a better a better fit for the Legacy section. -- 109.79.74.221 ( talk) 08:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The article currently includes Taco Bell in the Production/Post Production section, because of the Post production stage product replacement of Taco Bell with Pizza Hut for international markets. I'm happy enough with this for now, but depending on how the article develops and what other sources become available this information could potentially might be separated out or regrouped with the information about GM/Oldsmobile into a subsection dealing only with Product placement. -- 109.78.206.55 ( talk) 14:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
An anonymous editor Special:Contributions/89.215.121.220 made various unexplained changes to the article layout. The anonymous editor did not provide any edit summaries to explain those changes and didn't discuss or suggest any changes her on the talk page. I reverted most but not all of those changes. I did keep some of the extra subsections that editor added/restored (older versions of this article has those kinds of subsections), this might lead other editors to complain about WP:OVERSECTION, but at least for now I'm leaving it that way and maybe the small subsections can be expanded a bit so they aren't so small. -- 109.78.218.56 ( talk) 07:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
The Production section still needs more work and I've been thinking about reorganizing it to put the Writing before the director and crew details. Chronologically the script came first, even if it was later rewritten many times. When I've written a little more about the original script instead of jumping in at Daniel Water rewrite hopefully this should make a lot more sense. -- 109.79.69.228 ( talk) 13:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
view other pages and you will see that my edits are not so wrong-- 2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:D5B ( talk) 19:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Hard_Target#Release here is Critical reception -- 2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:D5B ( talk) 19:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Other media is use for here /info/en/?search=Universal_Soldier_(1992_film)#Other_media-- 2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:D5B ( talk) 11:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
and legacy is here add /info/en/?search=Jaws:_The_Revenge#Legacy -- 2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:D5B ( talk) 14:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
You know you're just telling me WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS right? You have shown me that some articles do it that way, you haven't shown that it is better. You certainly haven't shown any good reason to go against the WP:MOSFILM project film guidelines. I know it is confusing that so many articles fail to follow the guidelines but that is no reason to change even more articles so that they fail to follow the guidelines. That Universal Soldier article is not a good example, it is only rated Start class on the Wikipedia quality scale. Jaws The Revenge is another article that is at "Good Article" standard, but again like the Hard Target article you gave as an example it was judged as a Good article ten years ago. [7] (Also it includes recent changes that look a lot like they were made by you.) I thought maybe you might find examples of Featured Articles that were ignoring the guidelines but you haven't even done that.
I can see some logic in including "Legacy" as a subsection of "Reception", but I don't see any logic or need to include Legacy as a subsection of "Release". If you keep trying to force these kinds of changes to the section headings when the article is unlocked, it is very likely that the article will be locked again, and you might also be blocked from editing for a time. -- 109.78.209.246 ( talk) 22:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not going to accept your changes, you've done nothing except show me you are following the example of old and out of date articles. If you still want to pursue this you could ask for a WP:3RD opinion, and request a neutral editor to take a look. -- 109.78.209.246 ( talk) 23:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
you will make this legacy in reception ? -- 2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:25 ( talk) 09:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
i am with this must have other media and legacy in reception -- 89.253.139.3 ( talk) 13:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
have very people how is right with me ! my edits were returned by a regular user which has no badges and merits to wikiepdia I don't have to read rules I make the rules and they are not wrong also i'm a fan of Stallone I want all its pages in the film to be made in the same way -- 2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:25 ( talk) 16:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
every Stallone main film is with other media not adaptations just here is adaptations very stupid -- 2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:25 ( talk) 16:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
You see Marvel Cinematic Universe film list work the same way i want this for too Stallone films same style for all films -- 2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:25 ( talk) 20:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
can i do such a section ? Release Home media -- 2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:25 ( talk) 22:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
You have caused so much disruption. You didn't follow the simple rules. You ignored the guidelines. You got the article locked. Only then did you finally even try to discuss or explain your changes. You are messing about with section heading in unnecessary ways and are not adding anything substantial, any actual content to the article.
I'll say it again, Go ask for a third
WP:3RD opinion if you want to make changes to the section headings. (The third opinion might also tell you they are unnecessary.) We'd both be better off if you could find reliable sources and add some content to an article instead. --
109.78.211.24 (
talk)
12:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
there is no need for a third opinion nobody likes my the edits and they are not wrong I refuse to edit this article-- 2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:35B ( talk) 12:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
many pages practice my style so in some pages you can in others you can't this style so this not make sence for me /info/en/?search=Men_in_Black_(1997_film)#Release -- 2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:35B ( talk) 14:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
my third opinion is wikipedia pages with my style /info/en/?search=Terminator_Salvation#Release -- 2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:35B ( talk) 14:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
my friend is right must have other media here--
89.253.139.3 (
talk)
15:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
The WP:3RD opinion process I recommended is to get the involvement of a neutral third party. I do not believe the anonymous ip editor 89.253.* and the anonyous ipv6 editor are two different people, but even if they are just friends I have already asked you to get a neutral third party, and stop your unnecessary edits. -- 109.78.206.55 ( talk) 20:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
The same disruptive editor sneaked the change in yet again [10] without any explanation. A sequel is just a Sequel, it was never "Other media" and it will never make sense to put it there. WP:OVERSECTION still applies. -- 109.79.72.156 ( talk) 03:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Found a good source about the frozen body sculptures created by ADI for the film and 80 more for Planet Hollywood. [11] (Picture of frozen Stallone model via Consequenceofsound.com Entertainment Weekly also wrote briefly about how the live scene was shot before the Stallone is frozen. [12]
The article needs to include details about all the different types of effects, I'm trying to dig up more sources and gather them here before I try to add to the article. Also while I was searching I found a random pic of Jackie Chan visiting Stallone on set. [13] -- 109.79.74.221 ( talk) 10:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I found Colossal Pictures was one of the companies that worked on the film before they went out of business. [14] and apparently they were responsible for the virtual reality sex scene (a montage of flashing colors and faces, which incidentally was described as about "as erotic and confusing as screaming capuchin monkeys trapped in a rave." [15]). I tried hunting through the Web Archive copy of Collosal.com in case there was any mention of Demolition Man on their website, but didn't find anything. BFI credits Collosal for Additional VFX. [16] -- 109.79.69.228 ( talk) 00:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Found some information about a company called VIFX/ Video Image [17] they did the video heads for the video conferencing with Cocteau at least (and it would seem like they did the other video and display screen type effects). VIFX was bought out by Rhythm and Hues Studios in 1999. (Nothing on their old website VIFX.com either. -- 109.78.218.207 ( talk) 01:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I found a trivia item saying Dennis Leary referred to this film as " a giant piece of shit". I found the source of this statement, and it was in the context of him promoting his 2008 book, and reviewing his filmography for Funny or Die. He calls his filmography in general "some shitty films I did" and in that context calls Demolition Man "a giant piece of shit". He doesn't elaborate further in which ways he thought it was shitty. He mentions that Snipes insisted on doing his own stunts, and that Stallone had a driving range set up and his own golf pro on set. (Tangent: Bullock also mentioned Stallone and Golf in some of her interviews. [18] [19])
So while I was able to WP:VERIFY that he did in fact say it, and without context it is amusing and critical self assessment, but in context I don't think it is WP:NOTABLE, or that it should be included in the article. -- 109.79.187.52 ( talk) 15:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
His monologue at 1:25ish is reminiscent of his comedy routines from about that time, and shares some lines with his "Asshole" song. Drsruli ( talk) 09:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Not sure how best to include this in the article but making note of it here for future use.
Wesley Snipes was asked if he thought his character was just another example of the black actor being typecast as the villain. He laughs, rejects the idea, he doesn't think audiences will even consider it:
"Man! There's no way the brothers are even going to see me as black. Just look at the character I play — he has blonde hair and two different colored eyes. I'm not a brother in this film. I'm just some mutant." [23]
Maybe I could squeeze it into the Casting section but it seems like too much of a stretch at this point. -- 109.78.218.56 ( talk) 13:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
So the article has been locked again preventing me from working on it further until I don't know when. I've done most of what I set out to do but there is still more that could potentially be done.
and probably many more improvements I haven't even thought of yet. -- 13:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I've looked more for some location images.
[31]
[32]
For Lenina Huxley's apartment building Sunrise Court, aka the
Pacific Design Center I've found what I hope is a suitable image from Wikimedia Commons
[33] (alternatively
[34]) and I think the viewpoint is recognizable enough. (Youtube clips from the film for comparison
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaaE4bCf1UU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhPn1FstfQI&feature=youtu.be&t=75 scene "The first thing I wanted to do was knit" ...
Betsy Ross etc.)
For the Cocteau
Evil Mr Rogers Center, aka
Los Angeles Convention Center these images might work
[35]
[36] (for comparison this article has a screencap:
[37] this image specifically
[38])
The cryo-prison or
Metro Detention Center is another possibility but there seem to be only 2 images of it available in commons
[39] and I'm still hoping to find better. The
2nd Street Tunnel which was used during the car chase might also be worth considering.
[40]
I'm not going to include anything just yet until I find a couple more images I'm happy with. Flickr might provide some good CC licensed images yet. I'd like to include the location images as a horizontal image strip of maybe four images (I can't recall which article I saw that did it that way but it looked good). It might seem unnecessary to mention all this on the talk page but I welcome feedback (even if that means people saying the images aren't good enough and shouldn't be included) and it's good to keep notes if I get hit by a bus (or give up editing Wikipedia again) there might be enough information here for someone else to continue and improve the article instead. --
109.77.205.42 (
talk)
04:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Things that might be useful later...
This comes pretty close to being Sylvester Stallone's best ever picture; A pretension free, futuristic thriller in which he wisely keeps his tongue stuck firmly in his cheek.
Bits and pieces I hope to use to improve the article, eventually. Other interested editors are of course always welcome to go ahead improve the article sooner. -- 109.76.140.42 ( talk) 05:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
When I added pictures of Stallone and Snipes to the article I did not include a caption because I couldn't think of an insightful or useful caption, and thought no caption would be better than a generic caption. (I did make sure their names were included in the image alt description for accessibility.) I wanted the images of the two leading actors to be in the cast section, and I didn't want to include an unrelated caption.
Without any edit summary to explain the change, an anonymous editor added a very generic caption, listing names and claiming they were praised for their performances. No sources were included to support this claim (although Rotten Tomatoes does broadly support this vague claim I don't think it was something any of the critics were emphasizing.) I think no caption is still better than an utterly generic uninformative caption, perhaps we can come up with a better caption? - 109.79.172.238 ( talk) 22:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
At 50:40, Phoenix actually says "Such a Brave New World." Drsruli ( talk) 09:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
The article previously included the following claim "The film featured the actual demolition of one of the buildings of the no longer operative Belknap Hardware and Manufacturing Company in Louisville, Kentucky."{{Citation needed|date=August 2020}}"
The article also mentions the demolition of the LA Department of Water and Power building, but I would be very surprised if only one building was demolished during the production of this film. I had no reason to believe the information about the Kentucky demolition was false, but I definitely wanted a reference to properly verify it and more specific. I figured that someone with a copy of the production notes or some other source should be able to verify this but it has since been removed. The article for Belknap Hardware and Manufacturing Company mentions that images of the demolition were used to promote Demolition Man, but it also was not sourced. (The end credits only mention a few locations in the "Special Thanks" section but no mention of Kentucky.) IMDB is not a reliable enough source but it did list Kentucky as one of the locations. [41] Found other mentions of it [42] and I would hope that the Kentucky Film Office would be a reliable enough source. [43] Maybe it can be added back.
I also read suggestions about a some kind of a competition winner getting to visit to see the demolition, something to do with a local radio station IIRC, so maybe someone with access to local news archives for a Kentucky based newspaper might be able to find a contemporary source. That could have been the demolition in LA though. -- 109.76.135.9 ( talk) 11:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
An editor removed some of the text about the Plagiarism accusation and tagged it as {{ Better source needed}}. I have concerns about this edit. [44]
If the source is not reliable enough it should be removed. If we are to keep this information, we should try to represent what the source says as clearly as we can. (I think I made some changes for clarity and to deal with the odd translation issues and I think the person making the accusations just sounded a bit hyperbolic to begin with but if I recall correctly I largely preserved what had been added to the article many years before me.) The edit summary dismissed the site as "a blog", but if it was a WP:BLOGSOURCE that would be reason enough to remove it entirely, but when I looked into this issue myself before, it seemed that Origo.hu was a fairly reputable Hungarian media website, and it is certainly cannot be called a blog. I do not think the better source tag is appropriate, again the source seems like a reliable Hungarian media group, and it is an interview with the author making the accusation, so I is I don't think any better source is likely to exist.
I think there still might an argument that this whole thing is WP:UNDUE and that an encyclopedia should not give any attention to a mere accusation, but I did not and would not remove it from the article unless there was consensus to remove it first.
Either we need to bring this back much closer to what it was before or we throw it out entirely. -- 109.76.196.74 ( talk) 15:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Reviewing this, I do not think this warrants its own section heading, judging from the lack of detailed information about this accusation. It's a detail that's too unrelated to other details about the film, though, so not sure where else it could belong. Maybe as a sentence in parentheses somewhere in the "Development" subsection? I'm somewhat fine with not mentioning it all too. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I've thought it over and ruminated on it some more. Question: Remove the whole subsection as WP:UNDUE. Yes or No? -- 109.76.196.74 ( talk) 20:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I pulled the trigger and removed the "Plagiarism" section. [45] The section was slashed [46], better sources are not likely to exist (than an interview with author István Nemere accusing the filmmakers of plagiarism), so I have removed the whole section as WP:UNDUE. If editors are interested, there is a still whole other saga about the rights and ownership of the Demolition man script that is reliably sourced and could be used to substantially expand the Production/Development section. -- 109.77.200.34 ( talk) 13:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Demolition Man (film) 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 |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the comma in the following sentence: "The city becomes a utopia run under the pseudo-pacifist guidance and control of the evangelistic Dr. Raymond Cocteau, where human behavior is tightly controlled." What follows the comma is an essential clause.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update the article to note that the lawsuit was settled in 2019. Maybe also add the review of the film by Emannuel Levy from Variety magazine. -- 109.79.72.198 ( talk) 13:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The lawsuit was settled in 2019.<ref>https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/sylvester-stallone-de </ref>
The lawsuit was settled in 2019.<ref>https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/sylvester-stallone-de </ref><ref>{{cite web |date= 8 May 2019 |last= Maddaus |first= Gene |author-link= Gene Maddaus |title= Sylvester Stallone Settles ‘Demolition Man’ Profits Dispute |url= https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/sylvester-stallone-demolition-man-settlement-1203208843/ |website=Variety }}</ref>
Should Anachronism#Future anachronism apply here? The writers didn't know Dahmer would be murdered so soon after 1993, let alone decades before 2032. Why they thought Dahmer would be transferred from Wisconsin to California, or why they thought a serial killer would be useful to the film's villain, however... PAustin4thApril1980 ( talk) 01:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Sequel in early development stage. [2] Stallone Instagram video [3] -- 109.78.202.37 ( talk) 16:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah but maybe not make second part -- 89.215.121.220 ( talk) 18:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
He happened to be the name of the producer for the "Little House and the Prairie" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinmaharaj1 ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
The article currently contains a short section title "Accounting controversy" about Stallone suing over profit sharing. I was thinking that a different section heading might be better (see WP:CSECTION, for example "Lawsuit" would be simpler and more generic, although perhaps not as immediately informative), or that it should not be a separate section at all, WP:OVERSECTION. I was thinking that because it was about the profits it would be reasonable to include it at the end of the Box office section instead. I'm open to suggestions but if there are no objections or better suggestions I will probably move it into the Box office section. -- 109.78.201.10 ( talk) 03:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking maybe the references to Arnold Schwarzenegger might be a better a better fit for the Legacy section. -- 109.79.74.221 ( talk) 08:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The article currently includes Taco Bell in the Production/Post Production section, because of the Post production stage product replacement of Taco Bell with Pizza Hut for international markets. I'm happy enough with this for now, but depending on how the article develops and what other sources become available this information could potentially might be separated out or regrouped with the information about GM/Oldsmobile into a subsection dealing only with Product placement. -- 109.78.206.55 ( talk) 14:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
An anonymous editor Special:Contributions/89.215.121.220 made various unexplained changes to the article layout. The anonymous editor did not provide any edit summaries to explain those changes and didn't discuss or suggest any changes her on the talk page. I reverted most but not all of those changes. I did keep some of the extra subsections that editor added/restored (older versions of this article has those kinds of subsections), this might lead other editors to complain about WP:OVERSECTION, but at least for now I'm leaving it that way and maybe the small subsections can be expanded a bit so they aren't so small. -- 109.78.218.56 ( talk) 07:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
The Production section still needs more work and I've been thinking about reorganizing it to put the Writing before the director and crew details. Chronologically the script came first, even if it was later rewritten many times. When I've written a little more about the original script instead of jumping in at Daniel Water rewrite hopefully this should make a lot more sense. -- 109.79.69.228 ( talk) 13:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
view other pages and you will see that my edits are not so wrong-- 2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:D5B ( talk) 19:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Hard_Target#Release here is Critical reception -- 2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:D5B ( talk) 19:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Other media is use for here /info/en/?search=Universal_Soldier_(1992_film)#Other_media-- 2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:D5B ( talk) 11:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
and legacy is here add /info/en/?search=Jaws:_The_Revenge#Legacy -- 2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:D5B ( talk) 14:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
You know you're just telling me WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS right? You have shown me that some articles do it that way, you haven't shown that it is better. You certainly haven't shown any good reason to go against the WP:MOSFILM project film guidelines. I know it is confusing that so many articles fail to follow the guidelines but that is no reason to change even more articles so that they fail to follow the guidelines. That Universal Soldier article is not a good example, it is only rated Start class on the Wikipedia quality scale. Jaws The Revenge is another article that is at "Good Article" standard, but again like the Hard Target article you gave as an example it was judged as a Good article ten years ago. [7] (Also it includes recent changes that look a lot like they were made by you.) I thought maybe you might find examples of Featured Articles that were ignoring the guidelines but you haven't even done that.
I can see some logic in including "Legacy" as a subsection of "Reception", but I don't see any logic or need to include Legacy as a subsection of "Release". If you keep trying to force these kinds of changes to the section headings when the article is unlocked, it is very likely that the article will be locked again, and you might also be blocked from editing for a time. -- 109.78.209.246 ( talk) 22:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not going to accept your changes, you've done nothing except show me you are following the example of old and out of date articles. If you still want to pursue this you could ask for a WP:3RD opinion, and request a neutral editor to take a look. -- 109.78.209.246 ( talk) 23:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
you will make this legacy in reception ? -- 2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:25 ( talk) 09:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
i am with this must have other media and legacy in reception -- 89.253.139.3 ( talk) 13:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
have very people how is right with me ! my edits were returned by a regular user which has no badges and merits to wikiepdia I don't have to read rules I make the rules and they are not wrong also i'm a fan of Stallone I want all its pages in the film to be made in the same way -- 2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:25 ( talk) 16:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
every Stallone main film is with other media not adaptations just here is adaptations very stupid -- 2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:25 ( talk) 16:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
You see Marvel Cinematic Universe film list work the same way i want this for too Stallone films same style for all films -- 2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:25 ( talk) 20:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
can i do such a section ? Release Home media -- 2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:25 ( talk) 22:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
You have caused so much disruption. You didn't follow the simple rules. You ignored the guidelines. You got the article locked. Only then did you finally even try to discuss or explain your changes. You are messing about with section heading in unnecessary ways and are not adding anything substantial, any actual content to the article.
I'll say it again, Go ask for a third
WP:3RD opinion if you want to make changes to the section headings. (The third opinion might also tell you they are unnecessary.) We'd both be better off if you could find reliable sources and add some content to an article instead. --
109.78.211.24 (
talk)
12:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
there is no need for a third opinion nobody likes my the edits and they are not wrong I refuse to edit this article-- 2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:35B ( talk) 12:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
many pages practice my style so in some pages you can in others you can't this style so this not make sence for me /info/en/?search=Men_in_Black_(1997_film)#Release -- 2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:35B ( talk) 14:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
my third opinion is wikipedia pages with my style /info/en/?search=Terminator_Salvation#Release -- 2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:35B ( talk) 14:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
my friend is right must have other media here--
89.253.139.3 (
talk)
15:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
The WP:3RD opinion process I recommended is to get the involvement of a neutral third party. I do not believe the anonymous ip editor 89.253.* and the anonyous ipv6 editor are two different people, but even if they are just friends I have already asked you to get a neutral third party, and stop your unnecessary edits. -- 109.78.206.55 ( talk) 20:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
The same disruptive editor sneaked the change in yet again [10] without any explanation. A sequel is just a Sequel, it was never "Other media" and it will never make sense to put it there. WP:OVERSECTION still applies. -- 109.79.72.156 ( talk) 03:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Found a good source about the frozen body sculptures created by ADI for the film and 80 more for Planet Hollywood. [11] (Picture of frozen Stallone model via Consequenceofsound.com Entertainment Weekly also wrote briefly about how the live scene was shot before the Stallone is frozen. [12]
The article needs to include details about all the different types of effects, I'm trying to dig up more sources and gather them here before I try to add to the article. Also while I was searching I found a random pic of Jackie Chan visiting Stallone on set. [13] -- 109.79.74.221 ( talk) 10:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
I found Colossal Pictures was one of the companies that worked on the film before they went out of business. [14] and apparently they were responsible for the virtual reality sex scene (a montage of flashing colors and faces, which incidentally was described as about "as erotic and confusing as screaming capuchin monkeys trapped in a rave." [15]). I tried hunting through the Web Archive copy of Collosal.com in case there was any mention of Demolition Man on their website, but didn't find anything. BFI credits Collosal for Additional VFX. [16] -- 109.79.69.228 ( talk) 00:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Found some information about a company called VIFX/ Video Image [17] they did the video heads for the video conferencing with Cocteau at least (and it would seem like they did the other video and display screen type effects). VIFX was bought out by Rhythm and Hues Studios in 1999. (Nothing on their old website VIFX.com either. -- 109.78.218.207 ( talk) 01:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I found a trivia item saying Dennis Leary referred to this film as " a giant piece of shit". I found the source of this statement, and it was in the context of him promoting his 2008 book, and reviewing his filmography for Funny or Die. He calls his filmography in general "some shitty films I did" and in that context calls Demolition Man "a giant piece of shit". He doesn't elaborate further in which ways he thought it was shitty. He mentions that Snipes insisted on doing his own stunts, and that Stallone had a driving range set up and his own golf pro on set. (Tangent: Bullock also mentioned Stallone and Golf in some of her interviews. [18] [19])
So while I was able to WP:VERIFY that he did in fact say it, and without context it is amusing and critical self assessment, but in context I don't think it is WP:NOTABLE, or that it should be included in the article. -- 109.79.187.52 ( talk) 15:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
His monologue at 1:25ish is reminiscent of his comedy routines from about that time, and shares some lines with his "Asshole" song. Drsruli ( talk) 09:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Not sure how best to include this in the article but making note of it here for future use.
Wesley Snipes was asked if he thought his character was just another example of the black actor being typecast as the villain. He laughs, rejects the idea, he doesn't think audiences will even consider it:
"Man! There's no way the brothers are even going to see me as black. Just look at the character I play — he has blonde hair and two different colored eyes. I'm not a brother in this film. I'm just some mutant." [23]
Maybe I could squeeze it into the Casting section but it seems like too much of a stretch at this point. -- 109.78.218.56 ( talk) 13:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
So the article has been locked again preventing me from working on it further until I don't know when. I've done most of what I set out to do but there is still more that could potentially be done.
and probably many more improvements I haven't even thought of yet. -- 13:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I've looked more for some location images.
[31]
[32]
For Lenina Huxley's apartment building Sunrise Court, aka the
Pacific Design Center I've found what I hope is a suitable image from Wikimedia Commons
[33] (alternatively
[34]) and I think the viewpoint is recognizable enough. (Youtube clips from the film for comparison
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaaE4bCf1UU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhPn1FstfQI&feature=youtu.be&t=75 scene "The first thing I wanted to do was knit" ...
Betsy Ross etc.)
For the Cocteau
Evil Mr Rogers Center, aka
Los Angeles Convention Center these images might work
[35]
[36] (for comparison this article has a screencap:
[37] this image specifically
[38])
The cryo-prison or
Metro Detention Center is another possibility but there seem to be only 2 images of it available in commons
[39] and I'm still hoping to find better. The
2nd Street Tunnel which was used during the car chase might also be worth considering.
[40]
I'm not going to include anything just yet until I find a couple more images I'm happy with. Flickr might provide some good CC licensed images yet. I'd like to include the location images as a horizontal image strip of maybe four images (I can't recall which article I saw that did it that way but it looked good). It might seem unnecessary to mention all this on the talk page but I welcome feedback (even if that means people saying the images aren't good enough and shouldn't be included) and it's good to keep notes if I get hit by a bus (or give up editing Wikipedia again) there might be enough information here for someone else to continue and improve the article instead. --
109.77.205.42 (
talk)
04:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Things that might be useful later...
This comes pretty close to being Sylvester Stallone's best ever picture; A pretension free, futuristic thriller in which he wisely keeps his tongue stuck firmly in his cheek.
Bits and pieces I hope to use to improve the article, eventually. Other interested editors are of course always welcome to go ahead improve the article sooner. -- 109.76.140.42 ( talk) 05:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
When I added pictures of Stallone and Snipes to the article I did not include a caption because I couldn't think of an insightful or useful caption, and thought no caption would be better than a generic caption. (I did make sure their names were included in the image alt description for accessibility.) I wanted the images of the two leading actors to be in the cast section, and I didn't want to include an unrelated caption.
Without any edit summary to explain the change, an anonymous editor added a very generic caption, listing names and claiming they were praised for their performances. No sources were included to support this claim (although Rotten Tomatoes does broadly support this vague claim I don't think it was something any of the critics were emphasizing.) I think no caption is still better than an utterly generic uninformative caption, perhaps we can come up with a better caption? - 109.79.172.238 ( talk) 22:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
At 50:40, Phoenix actually says "Such a Brave New World." Drsruli ( talk) 09:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
The article previously included the following claim "The film featured the actual demolition of one of the buildings of the no longer operative Belknap Hardware and Manufacturing Company in Louisville, Kentucky."{{Citation needed|date=August 2020}}"
The article also mentions the demolition of the LA Department of Water and Power building, but I would be very surprised if only one building was demolished during the production of this film. I had no reason to believe the information about the Kentucky demolition was false, but I definitely wanted a reference to properly verify it and more specific. I figured that someone with a copy of the production notes or some other source should be able to verify this but it has since been removed. The article for Belknap Hardware and Manufacturing Company mentions that images of the demolition were used to promote Demolition Man, but it also was not sourced. (The end credits only mention a few locations in the "Special Thanks" section but no mention of Kentucky.) IMDB is not a reliable enough source but it did list Kentucky as one of the locations. [41] Found other mentions of it [42] and I would hope that the Kentucky Film Office would be a reliable enough source. [43] Maybe it can be added back.
I also read suggestions about a some kind of a competition winner getting to visit to see the demolition, something to do with a local radio station IIRC, so maybe someone with access to local news archives for a Kentucky based newspaper might be able to find a contemporary source. That could have been the demolition in LA though. -- 109.76.135.9 ( talk) 11:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
An editor removed some of the text about the Plagiarism accusation and tagged it as {{ Better source needed}}. I have concerns about this edit. [44]
If the source is not reliable enough it should be removed. If we are to keep this information, we should try to represent what the source says as clearly as we can. (I think I made some changes for clarity and to deal with the odd translation issues and I think the person making the accusations just sounded a bit hyperbolic to begin with but if I recall correctly I largely preserved what had been added to the article many years before me.) The edit summary dismissed the site as "a blog", but if it was a WP:BLOGSOURCE that would be reason enough to remove it entirely, but when I looked into this issue myself before, it seemed that Origo.hu was a fairly reputable Hungarian media website, and it is certainly cannot be called a blog. I do not think the better source tag is appropriate, again the source seems like a reliable Hungarian media group, and it is an interview with the author making the accusation, so I is I don't think any better source is likely to exist.
I think there still might an argument that this whole thing is WP:UNDUE and that an encyclopedia should not give any attention to a mere accusation, but I did not and would not remove it from the article unless there was consensus to remove it first.
Either we need to bring this back much closer to what it was before or we throw it out entirely. -- 109.76.196.74 ( talk) 15:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Reviewing this, I do not think this warrants its own section heading, judging from the lack of detailed information about this accusation. It's a detail that's too unrelated to other details about the film, though, so not sure where else it could belong. Maybe as a sentence in parentheses somewhere in the "Development" subsection? I'm somewhat fine with not mentioning it all too. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I've thought it over and ruminated on it some more. Question: Remove the whole subsection as WP:UNDUE. Yes or No? -- 109.76.196.74 ( talk) 20:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I pulled the trigger and removed the "Plagiarism" section. [45] The section was slashed [46], better sources are not likely to exist (than an interview with author István Nemere accusing the filmmakers of plagiarism), so I have removed the whole section as WP:UNDUE. If editors are interested, there is a still whole other saga about the rights and ownership of the Demolition man script that is reliably sourced and could be used to substantially expand the Production/Development section. -- 109.77.200.34 ( talk) 13:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)