Talk:Shoot 'Em Up

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Name

From googling [1], every single source has this film spelled with a capital E, so I went ahead and moved it. --BigDT (416) 20:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Ignoring the fact that trivia sections are generally discouraged for encyclopedia entries, if this one is to be kept it should be marked with a spoiler warning. The mere presence of a U.S. Senator character in this movie gives away the entire plot to anyone who wasn't born yesterday Noclip 22:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I know it's not normally appropriate to remove comments, but I didn't think the bit of trivia in the article gave away the plot. I did, however, think your comment was completely over-the-top in giving away the plot. A much bigger concern should be the blatant POV problem with the synopsis in the article. It reads like the movie's press release. Chicken Wing 02:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "punctuation error"

To call the inversion of the apostrophe in the title a 'punctuation error' is entirely inappropriate without knowing the designer's intent — it may very well have been a stylistic decision. Considering also the fact that Trivia sections are frowned upon, I am removing this bit of "trivia."

Actually, the designer's intent is irrelevant — this is a major grammatical error, one that is simply wrong, not "artistic." This kind of error on the marketing campaign of a major motion picture does constitute trivia, however frowned upon. I would recommend that it be added back in. 68.186.88.254 03:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)cjw
I am sorry to see my earlier edit about the punctuation error was completely removed by the deletion of the trivia section. It looks like it was an error: it has now been corrected on the DVD case, but I don't believe anywhere else. I have added this information to the marketing section. papageno (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed this again. It should not be reincluded unless an appropriate citation is found. If it's something you noticed, then it's original research. Someone else has to notice it and point out before it warrants inclusion here. You can't show a copy of the film's website and the DVD case and claim that as the reference; you need to find a reliable secondary source which actually talks about the "error" and use that as a reference. Rray (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorporated one piece of trivia

I incorporated the bit about how the project was "sold" into a "production history" section along with a few other tidbits. When we have more of a synopsis, perhaps the wrestler came can be incorporated into that, and maybe we can eventually add a "promotions/advertising" section for the last bit and anything new coming in, so we can get rid of the trivia section? ChrisStansfield 20:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Chemical Romance song

I didn't feel like removing the My Chemical Romance trivia from the article again since it's just going to be put back in and it doesn't offend me either way. However, I moved it to a more appropriate place (IMO). If anyone else wants to try to get rid of it (again), go for it. ;) ChrisStansfield Contribs 04:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


weird...didn't I read somewhere that you were hired to vandalize this article?Mrawesomeguy 17:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
If you read that "somewhere" other than this page or at WP:WQA, I'd love to know where, especially since the last person who accused me of that was soon banned for repeated WP:SOCK and WP:CIVIL violations, and the producer of the film personally apologized to me on Myspace. If I'm being mentioned at all off of this site, I'd like to know about it. And if you're yet another sockpuppet/meatpuppet (as seems possible based on the fact that you've made no contributions to Wikipedia as of yet), well, enjoy yourself for now- but I'll remind you that this has been settled both here and on myspace. I have no COI here and I have every right to edit this page. ChrisStansfield Contribs 20:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)}


sheesh was just asking...defensive much?Mrawesomeguy 04:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the guns

I think it would be awesome if someone were to make a list of every gun in the movie and post it on the article. --KillTheToy 23:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there are numbers big enough to count them all... --Katt 05:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

lol. Maybe there are numbers that big. I don't know. KillTheToy 21:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be against wiki policy. DurinsBane87 01:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I for one would like to see a gun count/shots fired count/body count. Be interesting. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 20:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't as concerned with how interesting something is. Wikipedia is more concerned about verifiability and notabilty. Such things would have neither. DurinsBane87 03:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

While that is true, people are more likely to go to an article if it has something interesting that gets their attention. That, and it would still be awesome. Its obvious that if someone did make it, it would be deleted as trivia. The only way to do this would be to put it on a seperate website. Or we could ask the studios to make a gun count/shots fired count/body count for us. --KillTheToy 01:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine by me. I would love to see it on any other website. Just not this one. DurinsBane87 01:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok then. I'm guessing that such a webpage would take up 2 or 3 GB of space. Oh well. What matters is that we found a comromise that made everyone happy. YAY! --KillTheToy 21:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


How about we make an informal list? Like, in the talk section of the article, here. That way we can sate the curiosity, and we can keep wiki policy. Galactor213 (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IMDB

Is the IMDB rating considered a reputable source compared to the critics' aggregate sites? IMDB can be voted on by just about anyone, can't it? What makes it any more legitimate as a source than a message board?ChrisStansfield Contribs 18:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A satire?

The feeling I got from this film was that it was a satire of the action movie genre. Take for example the endless flow of bad guys, the unbelievably flamboyant stunts and the cliched script, of which the latter felt more contrived than accidental. Does anybody else agree with this? I propose that the film's genre should at least include that it is a comedy. I've also been trying to look for a reliable source that confirms the film's intentions of being a satire as well, to no avail, and as a result I've refrained from making an edit to the article making such a claim in order to avoid the risk of putting across my personal opinion. --Spobbs 12:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse me for not initially placing my edit under old text. --Spobbs 13:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I second this, it's certainly parody, I believe (under my own understanding of the words satire and parody) that parody is the correct term --iDontHaveAnAccount 19:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC? Whatever time it is in the UK right now) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.37.215 (talk)
I, too, thought it a satire and laughed at some of the overblown violence. But to include that, we ought to have a source that views it in the same way. -- Beardo (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Fact is that every negative review has comments which states that the critic missed the point of "an amazing satire". Would it count as a source if we linked to these responses and then wrote that "it can be interpreted as being a satire"? They're easy to find; Just Google "Shoot 'Em Up Satire". It's for some reason obvious that "Hot Fuzz" is a comedy; Why not this one? Though "Hot Fuzz" has a lot of jokes, most action films has the same amount more or less. So what makes it a comedy when other action movies aren't? Is it the title? Nevermind, I'm tired... The hero eats carrots and comes up with one cheesy oneliner after the other. How can you not laugh?!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.8.173 (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if you find the movie hilarious. If you want it to be marked as comedy, you should add citation. It should only be included that the movie is comedy if it was intended to be a comedy by the makers of the movie. Unless you can prove that the makers wanted to make an action comedy movie, it doesn't belong here. Of course this movie had a few jokes, that doesn't make it comedy. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] songs

Anyone knows what songs wer'e in the movie? I recognized something by AC/DC and Ace of Spades by Motorhead... 88.154.66.195 01:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The first song played is Nirvana's Breed. I thought it was a bit odd to have a Nirvana song in there, but it 'is' one of the heavier ones. 71.60.161.100 (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yahoo! Movies

I was reverted for no good reason. Only because it's redundant to imdb. It's not the same thing, Y!M is a lot different, IMDB doesn't have Greg's Previews. Oh and let me ask you this, can you prove it isn't acceptable per WP:EL? Y!M is no fansite, it's a site owned by a big company, and not everyone can edit it, unlike IMDB, so don't assume it's the same as Y!M, it's not, there is a huge difference. Y!M is used in other articles, and many more. Oh and don't give me the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS note, in my opinion, the reason for being reverted wasn't good enough. Give me a damn good reason why it can't be in external links. "redundant with IMDb" is a very bad reason because it's a totally different site, with totally different features, and totally different style. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You marked it as a minor change, which it isn't. There are many movie sites out there but we needn't list them all. JJL (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
True, but I still disagree with you when you said it's redundant to IMDB, it's ridiculous to say that about a totally different site. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, I ask for which part of the policy WP:EL Yahoo! Movies fails. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
It's Wikipedia:EL#Important_points_to_remember "1. Links should be kept to a minimum." JJL (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Converting links to sources

I just removed these links from the "External links" section:

The Box Office Mojo page should be used as a source for a section about the financial performance of the film. The two interviews should be picked through to see if they can be used as citations. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why was "comedy" removed from the film's description?

I had added the genre of "dark comedy" to the description title of the film and now I see that it was removed. Why? The film does not just contain comedic elements, it is a comedy. It is in fact more of an action-comedy than it is an action-thriller.

First look a the other works of Michael Davis in which he is credited as the writer and director...all comedies. Second look at the film and its cartoonishly drawn characters. Take the principal villain: an ugly, balding, pimple-faced, necrophiliac, premature-ejaculating, murderous, sadistic, baby-killing nerd whose failing marriage is due to the fact that he is dominated by his wife over the phone. These many flaws are used for their comedic effect. And the protagonist: the archetypal brooding loner who is a prodigous marksman and hates everything in the world except dogs, C.D.'s Oliver Twist and carrots. Non sequitor anyone.

While it may not have been marketed as a comedy--due to the fickle public--it was clearly written and directed as one. Can anyone give me a reason why dark comedy should not be included in the description title?

190.58.189.219 (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


Sorry for posting again under my original post but I see that some other contributors found it to be the case that comedy should be included in its description. Can IMDB be used as a source because they have it listed under the comedy genre? And again look at the body of work 'written and directed' by Michael Davis--this should clearly imply that it was intended as a comedy.

190.58.189.219 (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because the director's other movies have been comedies doesn't mean that this one is too; there are lots of directors and writers that produce films for different genres. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Look, dude. You're probably right, but you should look for an official source. I own this movie on DVD, and DVDs are reliable sources, so if there is any mention there we will use it. Until there is an official source we can't mark it as comedy, it isn't that I don't believe you, it's just that Wikipedia needs reliable sources. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll give you my word: I will look at every special feature, expect for audio commentary and see if I can find anything that shows that it is in fact intended to be a comedy. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Check out this Michael Davis interview about the movie where he says that it is the "dark humour that elevates it above the genre [of action films]."

http://www.ioncinema.com/news.php?nid=1091

Is this evidence enough that Mr. Davis intended the film to be a dark comedy? 190.58.190.127 (talk) 05:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems official. Unless anyone disagrees, this source is good enough, looks like a real interview. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Filming locations

Could a larger note be provided about film locations as well as the dates of principal photography? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Cites

Note that author name is indicated, last name, first name. Is there any reason why all dates in the article do not conform to a single system? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Cast list

I altered the cast list to reflect the main credits. these are the people listed "before the title" and thus are considered the "main cast" regardless of anyone's *opinion* of who is a main character.DragonsDream (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because the actor doesn't have its own article, and am unsure if it's even for real. I agree that the mother shouldn't be in the main cast, but I somehow doubt your addition belongs there either since Wikipedia doesn't recognize that actor. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
For actors that don't have their own articles, I believe a source would be needed at least. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The source is the movie itself. The "opening" credits (which actually play at the end) feature 5 names before the title and no other actors after. The complete cast list is not in order of appearence or alphabetical meaning it's in order of impotance the mother is 10th billed, below the Lone Man (Greg Bryk) and the guy who played the senator and the 3 children who played Baby Oliver. As for it being "real" check IMDB, who's credits follow the cast list order from the end of the film. Having a Wiki page is NOT a criteria for being in the main cast of a film. Lots of people don't have Wiki pages. Are you suggesting none of them can be listed as a main cast member in a movie? Rather than ignore an objective method of determining main cast because Greg Bryk doesn't have a page, how about making a page for him? I'm reverting it back until you can provide an *objective* reason for including a tenth billed character in the cast list. I would be open to simply dropping the 5th name all together as the poster only lists the first 4.DragonsDream (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting none of them can be listed as a main cast member in a movie? After making such a good point on the talk page you can't really expect me to answer that. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)