Talk:Demolition Man (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Demolition Man (film) article.
Article policies
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article. Feel free to add your name to the participants list and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Huxley's name

Bullock's character's name, Lenina Huxley, is a mixture of one of the characters from Brave New World (Lenina Crowne) and the name of its author (Aldous Huxley). -- The Anome 21:57, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Father and daughter

A subplot that was shot but not included because of time limits was that Lenina Huxley was the daughter of John Spartan.

Is this true? Was it just something in the script or was it actually shot? (Alphaboi867 22:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC))

  • I don't know where they got their information from, but you need look no farther than the commentary on the DVD to know it isn't so. There was a small (but possibly crucial) subplot involving Spartan's daughter in the original script. However she was NOT Lenina Huxley, she was one of the people in the undercity. (DrZarkov 05:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Dredd/Demolition

It's also been said that this movie took cues from a script meant for Judge Dredd and the comic from which Judge Dredd originated, resulting of coarse in the hackneyed version of Dredd for the big screen. Demolition Man is by far the better movie of the two.

Another thing I had forgotten since I'd last seen Demolition man is the ever talentless unfunny Rob Schneider wound up in both movies. I roll my eyes wondering if it was Stallone's idea to put this non-actor into Judge Dredd.

[edit] Scott Peterson prophecy?

Just watched the movie again on TV last night and discovered something weird. Right after Simon Phoenix escapes from the cryoprison, Sandra Bullock's character asks for a list of convicts scheduled for parole hearings that morning. One of the names listed is Scott Peterson. I kind of wonder if this is worthy of mention in the trivia, a la Back to the Future II. I haven't really heard much about this in terms of urban legends. But it is kind of interesting. Anyone with the movie on DVD/VHS want to double check this?

Just watched this on TBS. It is definitely listed there. Sigz 05:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three Shells?

Any idea or mention of possible theories regarding the use of the three shells, mentioned several times throughout the movie?

  • I was discussing this in IRC a few years ago, and most people made the same assumption I did: they're used to cover the index, middle, and ring finger of the person's preferred hand. It does make sense, since the metal wasn't porous, and hence would be a lot easier to clean. It'd be a way to be rid of toilet paper. (DrZarkov 19:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC))

Alt. definition: The three shells in the movie "demolition man" are used for scooping shit out of ones ass. Each shell scoops different degrees of sh*t or different types of shit.

[edit] Comic book

DC did a comic book adaptation, which featured a scene where Spartan meets his daughter living in the sewers in 2032.

20:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Enda80

[edit] Taco Bell

I'm not sure how accurate the information about Taco Bell is. It says that the Australian release of the film had references to Taco Bell changed to Pizza Hut. I am Australian and have the Australian version of the film (on VHS, so I hope that doesn't matter) and it is still Taco Bell. - Deep Shadow 04:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it does matter wheter it is VHS or DVD. The german VHS also has Taco Bell changed to Pizza Hut, as does the german language track on the DVD. The english track on the DVD is the normal (american I suppose) english track, which says Taco Bell. Aetherfukz 01:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I've only seen the movie once, when it was first released in cinemas in Australia. Although It was several years ago now, I want to say that it stands out in my memory that the Taco Bell references were present in this release. I specifically recall thinking that while I knew about this fast food chain, it would have no meaning for most Australians, making the prominent placement confusing for a large part of the audience. - Nezuji 09:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bizarre?

In the Trivia section, what exactly is so 'bizarre' about the Morning Hearing Schedule? Scott Peterson's name coming up is a little prophetic, I'll agree, but the fact that SP has committed 3 murders isn't exactly bizarre. Nor is the fact that the Morning Hearing Schedule is for parolees. No kidding.

And the name references below that are stretching credibility a bit thin.

If no one has any objections, I'm going to delete all of this part.--Stu-Rat 21:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

When reverting in your comments you states .. it is POV, unsourced, irrelevant, incorrect or all four.
  • POV ? What point of view am I atesting to?
  • unsourced ? If you have a copy of the movie, as I do, you'll find the scene as described.
  • irrelevant ? The point of the entire description is to show that it is real. period. Nothing else.
  • incorrect ? Not in the least.
Would you like an arbitrator? Because all my points are valid. --meatclerk 03:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
POV Your interpretation of name meanings. Unsourced You have provided no sources for these interpretations. Irrelevant Stating where the name comes up four or five times in the trivia section, especially when it has already been mentioned once before. Incorrect 86 is a military term for killing someone, but you make no reference to the 4 or the W, so you're taking things out of context. Picking what you wish and not what you don't. In other words, you premise is incorrect.
There's no need for an arbitrator. Everything I've said is factual. Everything you've said is, as I have already noted, POV, unsourced, irrelevant to the article, and/or incorrect.
In addition, commenting in your insistent changes that we should take this to the Talk section was a low blow. I already had taken this to theTalk section (see above) which you ignored.--Stu-Rat 12:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


In review, and taking your objections into account, I have restored and removed material, which you correct state is "unsourced" - which I take you mean uncited. Any other objections? --meatclerk 05:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute on Triva item "Scott Peterson"

I invite you (Stu-Rat) to use the [Talk:Demolition_Man_%28film%29|talkpage]] to discuss this issue. I have further, in the interest of all editors involved, placed a {{Content}} tag just before the section you have disputed as unneeded. I disagree.

As I've stated before, admittedly to tersely, the item in question seems to be of doubious nature. As such, owning an early copy of the movie I played it. The name (Scott Peterson) does appear, but has less than a few seconds of screen time. Therefore, only person(s) with VCR or DVR or other forms of video playback, may be able to see and re-verify this item of trivia.

Continuing, as such, sufficient material is made available so that persons may be able to find the relative place of the "screen shot". Giving a time mark is not accurate, as different systems use different temporal methods. A longer description will be "unneeded", as you assert is such now.

If you have a suggestion, or other means by which the trivia may be easily identified by a casual viewer of the movie, I am open to such ideas and am ready to research and make available such information. Until then I ask that the section, as such, remain - including a tag to make your concerns apparent.

This statment copied in whole to [Talk:Demolition_Man_%28film%29]].

--meatclerk 18:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

We are already discussing this (see above). While I am willing to assume 'good faith', this e-mail and crosspost seems to be a desperate attempt to shore up a weak argument.
My argument has already been made, here and in my edits. You have, so far, been unable to refute that argument in any way.
That being the case, the SP info has been deleted from the Trivia section once again. Please let it remain deleted. It is already mentioned earlier in the article, there is no need for it to be referred to twice.--Stu-Rat 15:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


Quite apparent is our differnce of opinion. I invite you, again, to use the [Talk:Demolition_Man_%28film%29|talkpage]] to discuss this issue. I also remind you that a discussion involves the exchange of ideas. As such, I have retagged the section {{Content}}. I will leave this in place until you respond. Should you decide that you would NOT like to discuss this I may suggest you try, Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal.

BTW, you did not delete the information below. The logs do not lie. Consistency would serve you well.

This statment copied in whole to [Talk:Demolition_Man_%28film%29]].

I've deleted the text again. Please leave it deleted. As I have stated, countless times now, Wikipedia is not a film trivia site. To include some trivia is acceptable. However, this particular piece of trivia has already been stated in the article. Stating it twice is unnecessary.
Until you can disprove my argument, which you have not done so yet, this text will remain deleted. Thank you.
Again, you 'invite' me to discuss this. Yet I already began discussing this weeks ago. This seems like a poorly veiled attempt to make yourself look like the diplomatic one and to insult me.
I have no idea what you are talking about when you refer to deleting the information below. You can see from comparing the logs that I did indeed delete the relevant text. Either you are mistaken, or - yet again - you are resorting to dishonesty and insults to shore up your weak argument.--Stu-Rat 12:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Just double checked my copy of the movie and the scene occurs 20:45 into the movie. "Peterson, Scott" displayed on the screen and spoken by the computer. - SimonLyall 10:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute up one

I've made several attempts to discuss this issue, but you seemed inclined only to delete the aforementioned entry (in dispute). As such, I have reverted the item again and asked for mediation on this. I have also marked the entire article disputed. As such, we will both learn. Best regards. --meatclerk 08:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

To assist your memory on the edits, I happily provide the links.

To be clear, on th 23, 24, 25 and 26th you reverted. On the 1st and 2nd, you deleted. I'll leave it at that. --meatclerk 09:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Dispute on Triva "Scott Peterson" and the Tag

This dispute is not on wheter "Scott Peterson"'s name is listed in the movie. The dispute is wheter the screen shot and accompaning information should remain. There are several reasons for this.

  1. Diffcult to believe
  2. His name listed for about two seconds and can be easily missed
  3. Timemarks will not work to identify the location, as there may be different version of the movie available on video (VHS,DVD,etc)
  4. Newer version of the movie might rearrange, or add, scenes.

There are more reason, but I'd be late for work. --meatclerk 17:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this whole thing needs more than a one sentence writeup. It is not a big thing and doesn't justify a whole section (this is not alternative versions of Blade Runner). If a future version removes it then it can be noted. See Terminator 3. Peterson is already old news. - SimonLyall 06:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I would be happy with an acutal screen shot, but I don't have the capture equipment. My copy of the film is in VHS, not DVD or some other easy format to get a shot from. This would be an excellent compromise, but again I can't accomplish this.
Future versions might remove this small video section, but I see that as a minor point. My point is that if using a timemark to find this small section of video may not work as there may be many different editions. Multiple editions are hard to trace. This kind of "edition difference" can be seen with some audio CDs, but it's difficult to document.
Peterson is not old news. I recovered the entry after another editor had deleted it, from an annoymous editor. As such, providing a citation would be ideal, but there aren't many ways to do this. Not many books on this film. Hence, watching it is the only real citation that can be made.
If you have a good way to make a citation, I am open to this. --meatclerk 08:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's Start the Scott Peterson Debate Again

It is my objective to resolve the debate over the Scott Peterson trivia bit in order to remove the unsightly tags from the article page and move forward with achieving FA status. Let's all use the below form to keep the conversation focused and organized.

[edit] Dilemna
  • Whether or not to include the fact that the name "Scott Peterson" appears on screen during the movie in the Trivia section of the article.

[edit] Involved Parties
  • meatclerk wants the factoid to stay in both places.
  • Stu-Rat does not believe the factoid needs to appear in the trivia section since it already appears during the main body of the article.
  • SimonLyall favors a one sentence mention, but nothing more.

[edit] Hot Topics
  • Multiple deletes and rewrites are leading to some borderline uncivil exchanges.

[edit] Suggestions
Please enter any suggestions for resolving this dispute in this section.

Hopefully we can work through this quickly and reach an agreement which leaves everybody satisfied. Thanks for your participation! →Bobby← 20:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Bobby has summed up the situation perfectly. We all agree that the information should be there. However, what we disagree on is how many times it should be there and how much information should be included.
However, we have two votes for one place and one-sentence, and only one vote for two places and many sentences (which, incidentally, breaks Wikipedia's guidelines).
That being the case, I've tried to compromise. I've deleted the info on SP from the main section and kept it in the trivia section, although I have again deleted all the unnecessary data.
I hope everyone is happy with the compromise.--Stu-Rat 13:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This seems like a reasonable solution to me. If no body can strongly object (with a logical argument which takes Wikipedia's Guidelines into account) I think we can close this issue out, and leave the above debate in place so that this issue doesn't come back again. →Bobby← 14:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. First, the uncivil nature of the edits are a major objection. This seems unreasonable. The reason for compromise is to find a middle ground for all parties. This means all parties should agree to a course of action - first. Attempting to force a course, or coerce a means, is downright uncivil.
Second, a search of the history on the article will show that the Scott Peterson was originally mentioned in passing, not with reference. That link, provided here for convenience. The entire reason for the larger entry is to find a very short clip. The clip is less than 3 seconds. It is in the middle of a frantic scene. So it is very very easy to miss. As a matter of fact, my brother was in the room, and I had to rewind three times just to get it to pause in the right spot.
This second is my entire point. It is easy to miss. Hence, the entry is, in fact, a citation for video. There is no other way to describe it. WP:CITE and [Material likely to be challenged] as has happened more than once - already. --meatclerk 06:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your point about compromise. However, three people are now in favour of trimming this reference down and only one is not. As much as we all may dislike it when we are in the minority, majority rules. I think that's only fair.
A compromise was attempted by removing the first reference and keeping the second. However, once again I state that Wikipedia guidelines are being ignored by including too much trivia. Remember, Wikipedia is not a film reference site. Your information would be at home at IMDB, for one example.
Stating in the article that SP's name is referenced in the movie is a short, acceptable piece of trivia. Adding several paragraphs of text on how to find that scene is not. You do not need to prove that this scene exists.
Of course, Wikipedia desires verifiable content. That being the case, how's this for a compromise? I will remove the information once again. However, I will add a footnote, referring to the Demolition Man trivia page on IMDB, once you have added the trivia there, should you wish to do so. I think that's fair (and the second time we have all tried to reach an agreeable compromise).--Stu-Rat 02:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


Let me first say I don't have The Math (as some suggest there is), but at this point there is your descent. The moderator has "no vote", per say. So, at best you have two (2). Even so, the other person has not spoken, yet.
Second, you've stated several times that a "Wikipedia guideline" state that "too much trivia" should not be included. Okay, please show me this "guideline, so I might consider it.
Next, length of "trivia", as in this context, should be enough to be consider "true". Simply stating something as doubious as this without reference, is asking for problems. On that, IMDB has the same issues we have. They have no definitive source. The only reference on their website is on a talkpage by an annoymous poster. So you're solution has no merit.
Still open to suggestions, and not coerce means. --meatclerk 09:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, the compromise was to provide a citation for the trivia. That would make everyone happy. You'd be happy because the trivia would be included. I'd be happy because the unneccessary info would not be present.
As for IMDB, they have no issue with the trivia. It's a film site, and hosts trivia pages for nearly all of the films listed. You could quite easily post the tivia there then use that as a footnoted citation. So I thought this was a reasonable compromise. Apparently not. It seems that you believe that compromise means you get your own way. Not so.
I notice you are not making suggestions or willing to compromise yourself. At least I, and others, have attempted to do both. You are also willing to coerce others, proving yet again, that you have no supportive argument but to resort to false accusations or insults. Please stop.--Stu-Rat 19:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest moving the "Scott Peterson" item into the section "References to Film and Current Events" (Just my $0.02) Tuttt 15:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It is just a coincidence. B-movies are not prescient. Additionally, there is no evidence supporting claims that any person or object has the power of prophesy. End of Debate.72.195.158.95 21:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Mike Logos

[edit] Does this issue need abitration?

The two sides (meatclerk and Bobby, SimonLyall, and myself) seem to be at loggerheads over this.

I am still willing to compromise. I have suggested two possibilities. I'm trying hard to think of a third. Perhaps removal of the SP info from the article but retaining it in trivia. However, losing the unneccessary info and replacing it with a simpler one-line of text, such as (and this is just for an example):

In an early scene set during a parole hearing, the name Scott Peterson is listed as one of the cryo-prisoners. This is merely a coincidence, however, as Scott Peterson was not a public figure until he was tried for the murder of his wife during 2004-2005. The name appears listed before Simon Phoenix on a computer display.

This trims down the article, cleans it up, gets rid of unnecessay info (or rather compiles it into a shorter version), and limits it to one place, not two, which makes me happy. It's not quite one sentence but it's a lot shorter, so hopefully SimonLyall will be happy too. And it still keeps most of the relevant data plus the first and last sentences explain where in the movie it can be found, which will hopefully make meatclerk happy.

Does that seem acceptable to everyone?

If not, I'm afraid this will have to be taken to abitration. I'd rather not do that, of course, as I'm sure no one wants it, but it seems like the only solution right now.

Any thoughts or suggestions?--Stu-Rat 19:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll be plain on this. If you get a sense of being insulted, it is just you. As for any counts you may have those are your counts. If it there are any us vs. them themes here, it's me and you. My guess is the other people careless.
NOW, PUTTING THAT ASIDE. Your latest proposal, is better, but I am going to make one more change to see, if both of us (me and you) are happy.
Also, please note I am writing this message before I edit. I'll leave it at that. --meatclerk 05:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Is meatclerk's latest edit acceptable to everyone? If so, let's close this issue and work on improving other aspects of the article. →Bobby← 16:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Accepted, with a small change to punctuation (the removal of the unnecessary dash).
The 'us vs them' idea you seem anxious to avoid is not simply me-versus-you. Bobby agreed with my compromise and this one. SimonLyall agreed with me about cutting the trivia down in size. If you wish to ignore the fact that several people disagree with you, then that is of course your choice.
As for insults, well, obviously that is my reaction to your behaviour. And your behaviour was, frankly, despicable. Throwing around false accusations is not a pleasant way to behave.
But that's my last word on the matter and at least we have finally reached an understanding.--Stu-Rat 17:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Accepted. Subject closed. Will use restrain. Pulling tags. --meatclerk 18:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hail to the Chiefenator

I started this thread in response to this:

               the possibility that the U.S. Constitution could 
               be amended to permit foreign-born citizens to 
                        serve as President.

Do we really need that line. There is no way that Conan or any foreigner stands a chance of becoming President. Is it possible, yes, in the same way that it is possible that Stalone will win an oscar for his performance in a hamlet remake or that Demolition Man will come to be viewed as the crowning artistic achievement of Western Civilization. It is possible but astronomically improbable. So, unless the eight people who support Conan for President manage to gain an electoral advantage against the 300,000,000 citizens who recognize that would be a bad idea, unless Tom Arnold gains more influence than the Founding Fathers, 200+ years of fractionally sensible statesmen, and the entire, current political establishment, and unless the "It's time we change the Constitution just for the hell of it" grassroots campaign ever gains the ability to overwhelm even the most childish logic, it's not going to happen. I question the relevancy of the statement's place in the article.72.195.158.95 21:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Mike Logos

[edit] abortion

i dont recall it ever being mentioned that abortion was illegal, and it doesn't seem to fit in either since "fluid transfer activites" were not allowed --Ditre 16:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"Abortion is illegal; but then again, so is pregnancy if you don't have a license" was the exact line if I remember correctly, and I know this script better than any other film :) Chris Cunningham 19:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gilmore

In the opening scenes, in a B-Roll segment a voice calls the warden to a hearing for "Gilmore" (vocal, no spelling given), in reference to Gary Gilmore, who was executed in 1977 via firing squad.

But with the movie being made in 1993, they wouldnt make reference to someone who'd been confirmed dead for 60+ years... I dont think this is an actual reference. 68.209.116.39 14:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

1993 is "60+ years" after 1977?? 82.153.230.138 17:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Removed. Thanks. Argh, this article is a mess of silly observations and commentary. Chris Cunningham 22:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Demolition man.jpg

Image:Demolition man.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) 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category

Shouldn't this be added to the category "Stories set in features now past"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.229.162.128 (talk) 10:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)