Talk:The Asylum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.
 

Mockbusters[edit]

I think it is overopinionated to infer that every film produced by Asylum is a "mockbuster" without sources to back up each film claimed as such. Obviously, many of these films appear to be cashing in on the films they are suggested to be "mockbusting", but WP:NPOV doesn't allow us to only go by our own opinions. For example, Death Racers was originally announced as an independent production called Road Rage. There was no mention of Asylum distributing it until it came out. Is there any evidence that this title was produced by Asylum, rather than only being distributed by the company? Are there any verifiable sources referring to the film as a "mockbuster"? This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. (Sugar Bear (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

not every movie the asylum makes is a rip-off but after 2005 they have been milking the cash cow on known franchises. and yes death racers is produced and distributed by the Asylum http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1261046/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heaven's Army (talkcontribs) 07:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
There's a thin connection at best. IMDb lists Death Racers as being produced by the Asylum producers, but there have been many instances in which a distributor attaches its own producers' names to a film after picking up distribution, particularly in the case of low-budget action/horror/exploitation-type films such as this one (Troma does this all of the time). The Hollywood Reporter and The New York Times are good sources, but the blogs have got to go. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC))
Disregard my questions about Death Racers being produced by The Asylum. I can see from the distributor's blog that it is an Asylum production. (Sugar Bear (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Major studio productions and Asylum counterparts[edit]

Okay, I must bring this issue up. The user Magnius has been adding a number of questionable sources that do not appear to be reliable in any way, such as blogs and non-notable DVD review sites. I have brought these up for questioning at the reliable sources noticeboard, but have yet to receive a response. This user's latest, editor, implies a level of bias on the user's part. Citation 15 (LA Times Hollywood Backlot) does not refer to the film Death Racers as a "mockbuster" of Death Race, but only states "No, this is not the Jason Statham film". That is too loose and vague. I was under the impression that it had been agreed that the section should only be used for films that have been factually verified by reliable source as being "mockbusters". Wikipedia goes by what can be factually verified by a reliable source, not by the opinions of its editors. It is required for an article to have an unbiased, factually verified view of its subject. (Sugar Bear (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

  • As of now, I have brought up these issues to this user, who has repeatedly dodged the subject. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC))
  • After receiving a second opinion, I directly removed the poorly-sourced material. Please do not add these titles again, unless a source from the list has been deemed to be reliable, or a better source can be found that refers to a title as a "mockbuster". (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC))
I notice that Princess of Mars has been paired up with Avatar, when surely it would be more logical to pair it with the upcoming John Carter of Mars? I understand that The Asylum mention Avatar on the cover/poster, but they're not actually related, whereas John Carter is based on the same source material. 91.111.65.165 (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Echo Bridge?[edit]

Is Echo Bridge a new name for Asylum? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.251.147 (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I was browsing the $5 DVD selection at my local grocery store and noticed that some of the DVD's had the exact same titles as Asylum releases. I'm not familiar with their work, so I wasn't too sure. Coincidence? Copycat? Is Echo Bridge a distributor for The Asylum? 173.58.251.147 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Films from The Asylum[edit]

Are or aren't these films from The Asylum? http://www.theasylum.cc/product.php?id=162 http://www.theasylum.cc/product.php?id=171 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.43.238.3 (talkcontribs)

They are "from" The Asylum, in that this company distributed them. However, they were produced by other companies. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC))

Leave the table alone.[edit]

Contrary to what some people may think, the table is inherently useful, as it allows users to see all of the studio's knockoffs at a glance. As I see it, removing the table should be considered an act of vandalism. Captainsiberia (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, leaving the table just adds clutter to the article. Even if there is a disclaimer telling users that references to entries are a must, they just proceed to post unverified information on which Asylum movies are blockbusters. The way I see it, leaving the table will tempt people to vandalize the article. - Areaseven (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The table serves the very specific purpose of showing that A corresponds to B. It is imminently valuable to have all of those pairings together in one convenient table. Captainsiberia (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Captainsiberia pretty much for all the same reasons the user has already mentioned. I wouldn't call removing it vandalism though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chessofnerd (talkcontribs) 06:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

i agree that the table should stay. you can't claim elsewhere in the article that they are famous for ripping of other movies if you don't provide a clear list of 'homages' they have produced so far —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.246.160 (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding new titles to the mockbuster list[edit]

Before adding a title to the List of mockbusters section, it is very important that you provide reliable references that clearly state that the title is a mockbuster of a better-known movie. Reliable sources include newspaper or magazine websites such as The Chicago Tribune or Entertainment Weekly. Entries without references will be deleted immediately. Use of The Asylum's official site is greatly frowned upon, so entries using The Asylum as a reference will also be deleted. - Areaseven (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

What about 2012: Doomsday? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1132130/ IMDB reports The Asylum's division Faith Films as the Production Company. Do Faith Films movies qualify for the mockbuster table? Archangelsk (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
You'll need a more reliable source than IMDb to add a mockbuster. Also, The Asylum has three movies related to the year 2012. - Areaseven (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

They really tricked people with 11/11/11. ITs a mockbuster of 11-11-11. Its their biggest fraud yet. And yes its real. Its all over netflix and redbox tricking millions and really giving the original a bad name as most people dont know they have duped. Habving the movie in your hands apparently isnt a good enouph source, lol. A company like Netflix actively renting the film is not a verifiable source. You just need Chicago tribune? Has wiki gone full Retard? who is the Mod on this page and why arent they fired? Where can I make a complaint? The mod is no doubt working for Asylum so they can scam more people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.44.191 (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Netflix isn't a verifiable source because you need a membership to access information on their page, which is not applicable in countries outside the U.S. Also, the next time you add an entry, be sure that the source film has a working article link. The reason why your last edit was reverted was because you placed a dead link for 11-11-11.
BTW, Wikipedia is non-profit and people are free to voluntarily edit or correct entries here. - Areaseven (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Removing the list[edit]

On February 13, Wisdomtenacityfocus removed the list comparing major movie releases and Asylum's derivative releases. This came as quite a shock to me when I was telling my friends about The Asylum and what they do and came here to show them the list to drive home what an awful company they were only to find it missing. I could remember a couple of movies offhand, but it was disappointing not being able to show them the full list of rip-offs that was once here.

I don't understand Wisdomtenacityfocus's stated reason for removing the list of "it's not important to include a list here as there is already a template, and many sources simply refer to the films existing, not always labeling them as mockbusters." I'm not trying to insult him, I simply legitimately can't understand what he means by that. Can someone think of a good reason that the list should have been removed, or clarify what he meant with his reasoning? Personally I feel like it was a wonderful part of the page that pretty much summed up what The Asylum is as a company very well, almost making the rest of the article moot, and now that it has been removed I feel like it's really lost something.

Dilcoe (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Having just a list of mockbusters is tricky as it leaves the door open to original research and a full list of titles would be too big. What I'd not be against is taking the list (as it was here) and splitting that off to its own page (e.g. List of The Asylum films) that covers all the films they've produced (not what they've distributed, although that could be a separate list on that page). If you then have a good source for it being a mockbuster then feel free to add it in, but you'd want to be strict on this and trim out what has the whiff of OR. A navbox isn't the best way to deal with this, as you can't add redlinks into it, so it'll never be complete, plus you can't add sources to it, so a list is preferable. (Emperor (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

11-11-11[edit]

What happened to 11-11-11 , the spoof of 11/11/11? As well as countless films to dupe moviegoers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.102.130 (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


Titanic II[edit]

Why it's not allowed to add Titanic (1997 film) to the table in the line of Titanic II? It's clearly visable from the camera ankles and some of the score and even from the line about the "Ismay-Rosejack threshold", which is a direct reference. 93.217.216.232 (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you speak English so that everyone can understand what you're talking about? - Areaseven (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I do, don't I? So don't insult me. But anyway: I've seen that film. The camera views and some of the music score is similar to "Titanic" by James Cameron. Also there is a line in the movie that the "Ismay-Rosejack threshold" has been exceeded. Ismay is surely a reference to Bruce Ismay and Rosejack is a reference to the two lead characters from James Camerons movie. Isn't this reference enough to show that "Titanic II" is a mockbuster to Titanic (1997 film)? Right now it says: "Do not add Titanic (1997 film) to this section!" Why not? P.S.; Was that english enough? 87.143.192.43 (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I added it. Its obviously a mokubluster of it. Any random idiot is obviosuly going to assume Titanic 2 is a seuqal to Titanic 1...especially since Asylum never fucking made a Titanic 1. In fact it is maybe the only true title that would be hands down forced to change if Jsmes Cameron took them to court. You can't call something a seuqal if there was never a first movie to begin with...unless you are trying to trick people into thinking your movie is a sequal of another movie...which they are. ‎108.71.88.88 (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI, mockbusters are made to piggy-back on the success of a blockbuster film released within the same year. Therefore, Titanic II is not a mockbuster of Cameron's 1997 Titanic film, and there is no viable proof of such claim.
BTW, is English your second language? You seem to be having difficulty with your spelling and grammar. - Areaseven (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, that time it was also announced that Titanic will be re-released as 3D, wasn't it? I guess that made this the idea. And yes, English is my second language. Can you please correct me? 93.217.222.73 (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
If that's the case, then show me proof that this was The Asylum's motivation to produce the movie. - Areaseven (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is an article about the announcement of the 3D re-release of Titanic: http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=67688 The article is from July 2010. So the announcement itself was earlier and according to IMDB the movie was released August-September 2010. And I read many articles about how these low-budged movies are made and the longest production time is 3 month. So there is also less. In this case it would be 1,5 months, which is normal for trash movies.

Furthermore, The Asylum never explains the inspirations for their movies. They never say: "Our latest movie is a mockbuster to the blockbuster XYZ of we want to catch profit from.", because they might get arrested for copyright infringement. Furthermore many movie reviewers and critics see it that way. Here is a line from a german critic site "Filmstarts" for Titanic II (quoted in the german article) "The worst trash ... and the only connection with the original (they mean the 1997 movie) is the iceberg". Do you think, it is enought? 87.143.200.165 (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope. The movie still does not qualify as a mockbuster. Also, please create your own Wikipedia account instead of jumping into different IP addresses. - Areaseven (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

2012: Ice Age[edit]

So Areaseven reverted my edit of adding 2012: Ice Age to the list because it's not a mockbuster of 2012 and The Day After Tomorrow. I do admit that I was wrong to put The Day After Tomorrow but it still looks like a legitamate mockbuster of 2012. Heck, the only reason I know about the movie is because my friend watched it thinking it was 2012's sequel. So are we really gonna say that 2012: Ice Age isnt a Mockbuster of 2012? I mean, the date 2012 isnt even mentioned in the movie, so it was clearly added to confuse people into thinking it was related to 2012, even if 2012: Ice Age came out in 2011 and 2012 came out in 2010. Plus even if it's not a mockbuster it still at least should be on the list. It IS an Asylum movie. Smear-Gel (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no solid proof that 2012: Ice Age is a mockbuster of 2012. If anything, the actual mockbusters are 2012: Doomsday and 2012: Supernova, which were released before 2012. - Areaseven (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I take it back. I dont think it's a mockbuster anymore. It came out around a year and 6 months after the 2012 film and that's kinda too long a distance. It was probably trying to piggyback off of the actual 2012 doomsday myth, since it came out in 2011. But it's still an Asylum movie so it should at least be on the their list of movies even if it's not a mockbuster.Smear-Gel (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)