Talk:Death Race 2000

	Film portal 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 discussion 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.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Science Fiction Mid‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

Senn, Bryan (2006). "The Sport of Violence: Death Race 2000 and Rollerball". In Hogan, David J (ed.). Science Fiction America: Essays on SF Cinema. McFarland. pp. 207–216. ISBN 0786421495.

Cult film

I find it incredible that the cult film category has been removed from this twice by ThomasK. A google search of "death race 2000" +"cult film" gets 1400 hits, which seem to almost all be on topic, and it is certainly considered one of the archetypal cult films. For the sake of open debate, please explain how this isn't a cult film before simply removing the category again. --Misterwindupbird 03:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Cult films --ThomasK 03:55, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Speculation tag

Specifically I was referring to the suggestions that it inspired Carmageddon and the like, as well as the plot/character analysis. This is all OR without a source.--Drat (Talk) 10:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, doesn't one of the Death Race 2000 cars actually appear in Carmageddon? Long time since I've played it. Mark Grant 00:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carrmageddon went through several phases of development, starting as a simple banger reacing game, then it was to have a mad max theme, after the licencing fell through, it was to have a Death Race 2000 theme, which also fell through, Carrmaggeon is basicly the final Death Race 2000 theme with all branding removed.{{unsigned|81.86.51.104}]

You still need a reliable source to back that up.--Drat (Talk) 20:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could source Wikipedia itself. The article on carmageddon gives said information.--Hazel77 07:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot cite another Wikipedia article.--Drat (Talk) 07:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but that page itself must be sourced from somewhere meaning that we can, hence, source this article from there.--Hazel77 13:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a third Carmageddon game titled Carmageddon: TDR2000 (which is to say The Death Race 2000) Although it doesnt specifically say that it means The Death Race, i read a review of it once in PCZone when it first came out, and it stated that this is true.

Mobygames states that "Carmageddon: The Death Race 2000" is the full title for the game. I do not know where they have sourced that from. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.49.118 (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Death Race 2000.jpg

Image:Death Race 2000.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Plot summary

Since its earliest days this article has had a long, unsuitable, blow-by-blow account of the plot, including a score list of points scored for killing pedestrians. I've decided to take the step of removing the whole thing and invite someone who has seen the film recently (I last watched it in the year of its release) to produce a brief summary of the essential plot details. --TS 18:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One question: Why? I see no reason to remove the entire plot section of an article, nor to be excessively brief. I watched the film a few months ago and read the wikipedia article shortly after that, I really don't feel the urge or see the need to rewrite the whole thing. There are some problems with it, but I think they can be sorted out without the need for a rewrite.--Hazel77 (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The passage I removed is nearly 3,000 words in length--about twice the current length of our plot summary for the Tolstoy novel, War and Peace. I've called an RfC to see what other people think; perhaps we can find somebody willing to provide a summary in a few hundred words. --TS 21:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the current plot summary is some 80% of the article. This is definitely far too long. --TS 22:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too long? Yes. Worthy of deletion? No, not in my opinion. I am willing to help rewrite the article myself, am just see no need to start from the beginning. I'll have a stab at removing some of the outrageously long-winded bits now.--Hazel77 (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First RfC response: Well, we all seem to agree that the plot summary is too long - waaaay too long (which is great since this is usually the biggest bone of contention). I've never seen the movie, so can't help there. If I were y'all, I might sniff around to see if a userbox exists for this movie and then invite some seasoned editors who are using it to help out. I might also ask some recent editors to the article to help. In the meantime, my general opinion is to keep bad sections (unless they are copyright violations, libelous, NPOV, or otherwise unsalvageable) until they are good, since most stuff on Wikipedia starts out pretty bad. For example, I don't delete trivia sections on sight; I integrate what I can into the article and chuck the funcruft. If I can do neither at that moment, I tag it, hoping someone else does. There is often good information in the thick of bad information that can be salvaged. Also, since your casual Wikipedia reader doesn't have a clue what a good plot size is, the article is probably better off having a bad one than none at all. In this case, if you all can't find anyone who's seen the movie recently, you can read this virtual re-creation of the movie that already exists, and probably cut away enough to still have a decent plot review until someone else comes along to tighten it up some.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, better an excessive plot section than no plot section at all. I currently have a copy of the film on my external hard-drive, so I can easily watch that to refresh my memory.--Hazel77 (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I watched the film again just two nights ago - while the summary seems accurate, who knew that there was so much plot in the film? I agree it needs to be tightened. I'll see if I can expand some of the other sections to help balance things out a bit, when I get some free time. Bilby (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll place a very brief skeleton synopsis here:
  - /Plot rewrite
- Hopefully it can be fleshed out to give a reasonable summary of the film in somewhat less than 3,000 words. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've written a first draft, about 400 words Please edit mercilessly. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, things went awfully quiet there. I propose to copy my draft, currently about 420 words, into the article in place of the current plot summary. My grounds for doing so are as follows:

it is much better written than the existing summary

it is much briefer than the existing summary

it gives a much better understanding of what the work is about

If there are missing elements, of course it should be expanded (all of Wikipedia is a work in progress) but I believe it's better than what we've got there now. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 09:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a good job to me - I made very minor edits, but probably moved things around rather than improving anything. I'd be happy with it as a plot summary.

btw, I've grabbed some material to use to build up the other sections - there's a nice comparison of Death Race 2000 with Rollerball in a recent edition of Deathray which should be worth adding, and I've got a few other more formal sources. It should help balance out the article. Bilby (talk) 09:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted it into the article. We'll see how it goes. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 09:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second RfC response: At the moment the plot summary is being used as a coatrack for an in universe description of the film; the fictional elements are being treated as if they are real which contravenes WP:WAF. Unless the in universe content is edited out, the plot summary completely fails WP:NOT#PLOT; I would expect a very brief skeleton synopsis of less than 150 words will be sufficient.--Gavin Collins (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines for film related articles state: "Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words and should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as a very complicated plot." (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Plot) I'm not sure where you got the 150 words guideline from, but it might be something you would like to discuss at the talk page for the film plot guidelines. Rray (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I was just thinking about this article the other day and wondering whether someone had pruned down my incredibly long synopsis. Thanks to everyone who contributed to doing so -- this version looks much better! Azure Haights (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar!

No offence, but some of the grammar on this page is awful! I have edited most of it, but I've probably missed quite a bit, as well. Just to let you know! --Timdpr (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cars

I've removed quite a bit of unsourced material, apparently original research, about the cars in the film. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scoring

I thought the scoring was given as women being 10 more than men, not as women being 10. The actual amount is never discussed as it's supposedly the same as the previous year. If anyone agrees I'll change it Ianbeany1989 (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I watched a scene from the film where it says that each lucky woman brings 10 points to the driver. Toddlers... 70 points. Ninahexan (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adults were 20, teens 30, toddlers 70, elderly 100, and everyone female was +10 over that score. Just watched the whole thing. 90.247.229.178 (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1971 film?

Apparently this was first made in 1971 and the 1975 film is a remake??? Why isn't this in the article? --24.21.220.126 (talk) 09:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And in the credits on the DVD, it claims to be 1977. Mebden (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stallone Breakout role?

Is this not considered his big break? It's the first time he gets a staring role in a major picture. Given this films cult status and the fact that almost no one has heard of his other role two years prior to this, with henry winkley, it could be argued that this was his first break, prior the Rocky series — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:12C0:5340:E88D:D53B:7831:28BF (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]