Talk:Assault on Precinct 13 (1976 film)

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

Merge Street Thunder with Assault on Precinct 13 (1976 film)[edit]

I fail to see the logic of having an article specifically about "Street Thunder". The page for the movie is hardly too big to handle this content. Cleduc 04:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the gang are quite a large part of the film, and quite different from antagonists in other films, and therefore justifying the separate page. Also, many films and books, described on wikipedia. have separate pages for their characters/entities (Eg Terminator franchise, T-1000, T-X, T-850; Alien, Weyland Yutami Corp). Anthony 23:20, 24 December 2005

I second Anthony's opinion. Sullenspice 01:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge done. Certainly no reason for a seperate article. Dan100 (Talk) 00:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge undone. This merge was poorly conceived. You essentially deleted a fairly detailed mid-length article, whittled the content down to a poorly-written synopsis, and pasted it into this article with no regard for how it fit (stylistically or thematically).
More importantly, Anthony made a convincing case (see above) for keeping the Street Thunder article, and nobody else refuted his argument--a fact you completely ignored (or deliberately disrespected). The treatment of Street Thunder should have been decided by consensus on this talk page before any action was taken. One random person's opinion is not sufficient reason to make such a drastic, rash move. You should reflect on this because, judging by some of the other comments on your user talk page, you seem to have a made a habit of disregarding ongoing discussions on article talk pages and acting impulsively. Sullenspice 01:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Despite this well reasoned defence by Anthony and Sullenspice , Street Thunder still redirects to this Assault on Precinct 13 (1976 film) page. Why? Has Dan100 remerged on the sly?--Timtak (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have reversed the merging of Street Thunder, which was done most recently by Hnsampat against the majority opinion on this talk page. I have also fixed the ridiculous mess of redirect pages created by said user. I am utterly sick of random people, such as Hnsampat and Dan100, merging the articles. These people have never taken part in this discussion, they rudely disregard the opinions of the people who have, and someone (i.e., me) has to clean up the mess they make. Sullenspice (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, there are 3 voices here saying the article should be merged (me, Dan100, and Cleduc) and 3 saying that it shouldn't (Sullenspice, Timtak, and Anthony). Doesn't look like there's a consensus or "majority opinion" about anything to me. So, rather than get hostile, how about recognize the fact that a genuine disagreement exists? Now, let's talk about that disagreement. I've seen that in the past year, there has been no significant improvement to the Street Thunder page. There is also nothing in it beyond plot summary. There are no third-party reliable sources cited to show why the fictional gang has real-world relevance. As such, I see no reason why that article shouldn't be merged into this one. The articles about villains such as T-1000 exist because they have been shown to have real-world relevance and have been discussed in third-party reliable sources. Also, keep in mind that because anybody can create an article on Wikipedia, the mere existence of some articles doesn't automatically justify the existence of others. Also, note that the only actual article that links to Street Thunder is this one. (The other links to Street Thunder are a few talk pages and an AfD.) It's an orphaned article that can easily be merged into this one. So, let's merge it. That's what I say. --Hnsampat (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with the above user's sentiments. The article itself feels like a completely unnecessary addition. I don't see any reason why anyone would search for Street Thunder on wikipedia. I myself had no idea that that was the name of the gang even after watching the film just minutes beforehand. Since it is an orphaned article, it does seem like a bit of a useless page in my opinion. Feudonym (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accordingly, I have now merged that article into this one. --Hnsampat (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack[edit]

I just added a soundtrack section since I was surprised to find that there was no mention in this article of its score which is actually considered particularly influential. To be honest I was shocked to find that a film which has seperate articles for some of its characters and even the silent gang didn't mention its score which is considered by many to be its most prominent feature (and by some the only part of the film worth mentioning)! Anyway it's done now and I hope people are happy with it. --Thetriangleguy 17:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poster image vs. DVD cover image[edit]

Please leave the 1976 poster image at the top of the article. It is always preferable to use original movie art. In this particular case, the poster art better represents the movie. The DVD cover art, which is of much more recent date, depicts a New York skyline when the movie is actually set in Los Angeles.

There should be "DVD release" section in the article, and the DVD cover art could be placed there.


Sullenspice 15:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Also, please remember that original poster art speaks to the graphic sensibilities that were actually contemporary with the movie's release. Finally, there is a wikipedia consensus that original art is what goes into the infobox (wherever possible.)
Reimelt 21:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know the poster isn't the US theatrical poster, its actually the Australian, because it has the Australian R18+ rating near the title.

      • Great catch, I've edited the caption and description to remove "US." In my defence, the source I used (IMPAwards) uses US posters almost exclusively, and is usually careful to identify the Non-US versions. I will try to reearch this further, because I feel a US film ought to use a US poster from the time of the film's release. However, I've found that frequently "foreign" posters of US films are slighly modified versions of the US poster. I sort of hope that's the case here, b/c I've grown fond of the image. However, it's still more appropriate for the infobox than any DVD cover. Reimelt 02:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh's job[edit]

Article states that among the staff on board at the station are the station's two secretaries, Leigh and Julie. I always thought Leigh was a detective: she certainly seems to act like one, greeting Bishop on his arrival, expressing her failure to save the life of a murdered co-worker, unlocking the cells, arming her self with a shotgun while showing no unease (apart from her arm injury) at having to operate or load the weapon (she knows how to do it without being shown). Furthermore Bishop has no qualms about her being armed and attempting to shoot dead intruders: he would hardly allow a secretary to do that without any firearm instruction? Wells even calls her a cop and neither she nor Bishop correct him. If she was a mere secretary, her attraction to Wilson hardly carries the same sting that it does if you think of her as a detective. However, I have seen the film many times and it does not actually explicitly clarify what her job is. Format 03:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Granted, there is no dialogue in the movie that explicitly states what Leigh's job is. While it is not beyond the realm of possibility that she is supposed to be a "plainclothes" officer like Starker, it seems more likely that she is a secretary. I think the choice to have her dressed in a manner similar to Julie (who is clearly a secretary/switchboard operator) is deliberate. If John Carpenter had felt strongly enough about making the point that she was an officer, he probably would have had her in uniform or explicitly stated it in the dialogue.
Also, there is absolutely no reason why a secretary wouldn't know how to fire a gun--especially if she worked with police for years (as Leigh indicates later in the film); and she would probably have to know how to lock and unlock cells in case of emergency. Regardless of what her job description actually is, Leigh is clearly a strong, tough, self-reliant character--that's the most important point. That she is a secretary (or a "mere secretary" as you rather unfortunately phrased it) doesn't take that away from her. In fact, one could argue that Carpenter is deliberately subverting gender stereotypes by portraying a woman in a traditionally "female" occupation as a force to be reckoned with. Furthermore, Bishop gives convicted killers guns, why would he have qualms about giving a gun to an intelligent, reliable, strong woman just because she happens to be a secretary?
Why would she bother to correct Wells, anyway? Wells is about to go out and do something extremely dangerous, why would she (or anybody for that matter) pipe up and say, "...well, no. I'm actually a secretary." In Wells's world view, he probably defines everyone associated with the police as "cops." I think the sentence should be left as is unless there is a reliable source that contradicts it. Sullenspice 14:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Strong reaction for a question, posed on a talk page! If you read the context of the sentence where the word mere is used, maybe you'd understand why that word was used there? Format 19:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly a strong reaction as you put it. Seems like a fair point by point analysis and refutation of your point in my opinion. Quite rightly so too. Feudonym (talk) 05:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was addressing your question point by point. That's what talk pages are for. This is one of my favorite movies, and I happen to know quite a bit about it. I've read and re-read your question, and I still think "mere secretary" was unfortunately phrased. I make no apologies for pointing that out. Sullenspice 19:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not alter the names in the cast list[edit]

There is no reason to alter any of the names in the cast list. The actors are listed in this article under the names they used in this film's credits. Nancy Kyes is credited as "Nancy Loomis" in AOP 13 (as she is in most of her film appearances). I created a "Nancy Loomis" redirect page last year, ergo the "Nancy Loomis" link on this page goes to the "Nancy Kyes" article. Changing it to "Nancy Kyes/Loomis" as 24.195.208.152 did is utterly nonsensical.

Sullenspice 03:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Assaultalbumcover.jpg[edit]

Image:Assaultalbumcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logic / context ?[edit]

"break a blood-filled "cholo" on the precinct's front steps,"

This does not seem to make sense with the term linked to, and I don't know what it is supposed to be from the context, never haviing seen the movie. Please fix. Thanks. Ingolfson (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've included a definition of the "cholo" in the Street Thunder article. It is a specific type of blood oath and the material symbol of that oath. This term and the way it is used in the film is a classic "Carpenterism." It bears no relation to the way the term is used (vis-a-vis Latino culture) in the real world. I'm going to de-link it from the main "cholo" article. Sullenspice (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

END OF DAYS: End user agreement... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.175.56 (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can we get this to be a featured article?[edit]

Any suggestions?

Al Fecund (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-release due to excessive violence?[edit]

I saw this movie a long time ago, but I clearly remember that - for the scene in which the little girl was shot by Street Thunder's gangbanger - the camera view was located in the driver's section of the ice cream truck, enough for the viewer to see a massive bullet hole form in her chest. Upon the shooting, she lingered there for a second, then dropped the ice cream cone and fell to the ground. A re-release was done with that scene eliminated - no one needs to ask exactly why, but, it was done. In the re-release, they nixed the frontal camera angle completely and just showed the girl falling to the ground from a distance.

Can anyone corroborate this? I've been trying to find information on the intarwebs to back up my memory but . . . no such luck. 75.131.47.176 (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany[edit]

In Germany was the title "Assault - Anschlag bei Nacht", the title of the remake was "Das Ende – Assault on Precinct 13" --212.122.206.18 (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed - May 27, 2016 - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Assault on Precinct 13 (1976 film). 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) 02:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Credditing Deborah Hill as assistant editor?[edit]

"Debra Hill acted as an uncredited assistant editor."

I'm looking at a print of the movie right now and she's credited for script supervision and assistant editing.

Indieshack (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Budget - $100k or $200k?[edit]

The "Principal photography" section currently contains this sentence about the film's budget:

Assault started in November 1975 and was shot in only 20 days, including Thanksgiving, on a budget of $100,000. 'Footnote:' Variety incorrectly reported in 1977 that the film cost $200,000.

This figure is supported with three references (John Carpenter's audio commentary, Joseph Kaufman on the 2003 DVD's Production Gallery, and Muir's The Films of John Carpenter), plus the December 14, 1977 issue of Variety for the footnote.

I don't have that 2003 DVD to check the production gallery. But on Second Sight's 40th anniversary Blu-ray, there's an interview featurette with Joseph Kaufman ("Producing Precinct 13: An Interview with Executive Producer Joseph Kaufman"), in which he states that he recently looked at some old documents from the production, and found that the budget was actually closer to $200,000. He says that he thinks the $100,000 budget has been popularised via a "print the legend" situation. (Unfortunately I do not own my own copy of the BR, so can't transcribe the exact quote.)

So, it sounds like Kaufman gave different figures on the 2003 DVD and 2016 Blu-Ray. And the assertion in the footnote that "Variety incorrectly reported in 1977 that the film cost $200,000" might not not have been so incorrect after all! --Nick RTalk 17:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assault_on_Precinct_13_(1976_film)&oldid=1199098979"