Jump to content

Talk:Demolition Man (film)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 109.79.65.37 (talk) at 13:27, 10 August 2020 (→‎Locked: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Plot

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.

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit

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)[reply]

Please update the section Accounting controversy with the reference https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/sylvester-stallone-de and the fact that the lawsuit was settled in 2019.
Although I'd much prefer if the article was unlocked or set to allowed flagged edits, it could do with a lot of work. -- 109.79.75.247 (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. creffett (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Almost any wording would do which is why I left it to the editors discretion, but since you insist on specific wording, then update the section Accounting controversy by adding exactly the following words:
The lawsuit was settled in 2019.<ref>https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/sylvester-stallone-de </ref>
It still doesn't make any sense that this article is locked. -- 109.78.215.21 (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: - that's a dead link and not archived at the Wayback Machine. Do you have a better reliable source?
 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. GoingBatty (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I must have accidentally cut the link short when I cut and pasted it or when I was adding the comment. Was able to find a working link on Variety.com easily enough: https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/sylvester-stallone-demolition-man-settlement-1203208843/ and this time I've formatted it using a citation template too.
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>
Please add to article. -- 109.78.215.21 (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, with a tweaked version of the full reference. GoingBatty (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. -- 109.78.215.21 (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Dahmer

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)[reply]

@109.79.69.228:, your thoughts on this? PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Demolition Man 2

Sequel in early development stage.[1] Stallone Instagram video[2] -- 109.78.202.37 (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Friendly

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)[reply]

I can see Ed Friendly was a producer on Prairie[3], but I can't find anything to show if it was anything more than coincidence. Do you have a source show it was an intentional reference? -- 109.76.134.237 (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganisation

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)[reply]

Merged into Box office section. -- 109.79.169.6 (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

Arguably some of the suggested changes might make sense but the anonymous editor has not yet made any attempt to explain those changes. The anonymous editor needs to at least follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and try to explain the changes with edit summaries, or WP:DISCUSS them here. Other changes such as putting "Legacy" as a subsection of "Other media" does not make much sense at all. -- 109.78.218.56 (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changing "Critical response" to "Critical reception", despite the fact that WP:MOSFILM recommends "Critical response" does not make any sense to me. -- 109.78.218.56 (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please look at WP:MOSFILM. I have deliberately tried to keep the section headings to generic one word titles ("Development"). I do not want to use subsection titles like "Development and Writing" [4] but I have been thinking about breaking "Writing" into a subsection of its own now that the section is a bit longer. -- 109.79.69.228 (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
my editing is correct--2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:131 (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why you think your edits are correct. For starters why do you think it is correct to change "Critical response" to "Critical reception", despite the fact that WP:MOSFILM recommends "Critical response"? Some older articles do use "Critical reception" but that doesn't make it correct. Some older articles, even high quality articles, do not always follow the WP:MOSFILM guidelines, and I understand why you might follow them as examples but that doesn't make them correct either. If you are going to go against what is recommended by the guidelines you will need to provide a better explanation. -- 109.79.69.228 (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC) ok for Critical response but how adaptations ? is more right other media--2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:D5B (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Effects

Found a good source about the frozen body sculptures created by ADI for the film and 80 more for Planet Hollywood.[5] (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.[6]

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.[7] -- 109.79.74.221 (talk) 10:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found Colossal Pictures was one of the companies that worked on the film before they went out of business.[8] 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."[9]). 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.[10] -- 109.79.69.228 (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Leary

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.[11][12])

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)[reply]

If any external source considers important to mention it, it can be included. It wouldn't be the first time that we cite a director/producer/writer etc. that criticizes their own work. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 17:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, nice to know someone has read this. Other sources did mention it,[13] but I don't think it is a good idea to include it in this article.
I'm not against including negative responses and when I first read him calling the film "a giant piece of shit" it seemed like it might be something worth including. But in the context of calling his own filmography "some shitty films I did" he's clearly being hyperbolic, and he doesn't give specific details explaining his complaint. It isn't entirely clear if he thinks the film itself is bad (a) or if it was more that it was a bad working experience (b) or both. If we want to discuss all the different ways in which the film was bad (a) we can quote film critics, and if we insight on how it was to work on the film (b) Nigel Hawthorne was more specifically critical about working with Stallone and delays in filming (see sources already in the article).
But hey, if someone really feels it would be an improvement to include Leary's comments in the article, I'd only be weakly opposed to it. -- 109.78.218.56 (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Snipes

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."https://archive.org/details/starlog_magazine-195/page/n71/mode/1up?q=Snipes+says+he+took+the+role+of+Phoenix+because]

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)[reply]

In issue 197 Starlog they had an expanded feature with Snipes, and the title of it was "Some kind of mutant".[14] -- 109.78.218.56 (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Locked

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.

  • Production section would be more complete if it included information about Effects, but finding more sources of good enough quality is also an issue (see above)
  • Production section would benefit from more details about Filming, Stunts, and set/production design, costumes, but again the hard part is finding more sources
  • I'd like to add something about Nigel Hawthorne to the Casting subsection but without getting a copy of his biography I don't think I'm going to be able to confirm the comments I read elsewhere (that he only took this role to raise his profile in Hollywood and help him get the part in The Madness of King George [15])
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Demolition_Man_(film)&oldid=972153314"