Talk:Half-Life: Uplink (film)

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 October 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was redirect to Half-Life (series)#Cultural impact.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Half-Life (series)#Cultural influence and reception]] The anchor (#Cultural influence and reception) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Bothering

I've fianlly bothered to add this page. --Wiki Fanatic | Talk 09:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize the planethalf-life article is a joke right? There is no Uplink film.

Please sign your posts. Its not a joke. Its an actual film. It was never released. There are other websites that reference it. Most websites removed their references after it Sierra forbid its release.--Wiki Fanatic | Talk 07:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I remember this. Kinda sucked that sierra decided to pull out after they realized how bad the film was. I would love to be able to see this gem. Uselesswarrior 22:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know if the dissued USAF base in the film was RAF Chicksands? It seems to fit the description Artw 04:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

As far as I can tell this is a rather minor event in the community history of a video game. Does Wikipedia really need this article? 81.151.88.192 13:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor? This was a heavily hyped up "film" done by a "professional marketing agency" based on the then (and still) ultra-hot property that is Half-Life, hence coverage from sources such as Blue's News and CNET thanks to all the promoting from the game's then-publisher Sierra and the questionable Cruise Control itself. (The many other sources covering this topic have since vanished, which considering that this did happen eight years ago, is not too surprising.) When the awaited date of release came, the movie was conspicuously absent, apparently because Sierra and Valve somewhat regretted the end result. Then came the infamous and controversial release made anyway without permission, thus leading to the rather poor general reception and bringing about all the legal backlash. This caused quite a stir way back when, and understandably so. I honestly don't see the question of notability. This is, in fact, a very real film that created a lot of publicity and controversy in 1999, and it still continues to be referenced even until today. MarphyBlack 18:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been months and there has been no refutation. I'm going to remove the tag since the reasoning for its inclusion is flimsy, if not simply incorrect. MarphyBlack 19:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisBIrchLondon 13:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)I made the Half Life film back then, we were provided sound fx by Sierra and on an ultra low budget were given the task of making a guerilla style film which would give the games magazines and websites something to talk about - which it did, it was always intended to be a rough, amateur looking movie, seeing as it was made on a shoestring and provided a month long promotion for Sierra and generated considerable pr coverage for them. It was never meant to be a professional movie with starwas quality sfx (which would have added several 0's to the budget). It's notable the Half Life went up again in the charts in the January the film was released, which itself was sometime after the release of the game. Finally we were actually given the go ahead by Sierra's UK office to release the film and then Valve changed their mind.[reply]

The base in question is RAF Alconbury which is a fantastic airforce base containing three major underground bunkers capable of withstanding direct nuclear hits, a perfect setting for the film. Last time I visited the SAS had blown the doors of one of the bunkers and left scores of bullet holes in a training mission 'allegedly'.