Talk:Ultraviolet (film)

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.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating 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.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Comic Release Date

There doesn't seem to be a page for the original comics that this was based on, and I can't find the release date of the comics anywhere. Does anyone know when the Japanese comics were first released? I need to know this for an ongoing debate over whether the rolling-super-soldier thing was stolen from Metroid. Thanks. Village Baka 03:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

That's because there was no original comic that it was based on. It was (supposedly) an entirely original idea by Kurt Wimmer. In fact, some people in the comic book industry attribute the lacking number of comic book fans seeing the movie (whom it seemed to be directly geared towards) to the fact that there was no promo comic or subsequent merchandising release of one (most likely due to it's poor reviews). If you look at the numbers for Aeon Flux (which opened at roughly the same time), the fact that they not only Re-released the Tv Series on DVD but also a Comic Book miniseries, bolstered the numbers of viewers in the comic fan sector. A shame, but if comic creators were mandated to stick to the finalized script for the film, many may have opted out of using their talent and money to promote the film.--JYHASH 09:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IMDB

The plot summary appears to be an identical copy of the text on the IMDB page. It may be a copyright violation. — RJH 21:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. There doesn't seem to be a release on the imdb page. I could rewrite a summary, but it definitely wouldn't be as good as that one. Is there any "precedent" on other film pages here of copying imdb descriptions? --Cbenard 15:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there any relationship between this movie and the similarly named UltraViolet television series?--Anon80
Based on the description of the series on Ultraviolet (TV miniseries) and having seen this movie, I'd say no. -Hawaiian717 20:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


in the plot summary it says that the basic plot was pulled from the movie Gloria. This is stretching to make a comparison as the same basic premise can be stated for a great many movies. There is no dirrect correlation between the two. I think that statement should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.223.44 (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The correlation is that in Gloria a woman is protecting a child from gangsters, and in Ultraviolet, a woman protects a child from a power-mad dictator and his followers. The summary never says that the two movies are identical.

You could also say that the story bears a resemblance to Oliver Twist (i.e. Nancy trying to protect Oliver), but that would be a stretch. AlbertSM 22:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] weighted average

In the response section I changed "average" to "weighted average" with a link to the IMDb ratings explained page. I wasn't logged in at the time, but they do not simply average, and I did not link to the weighted average page, because it's not a simple weighted average. They simply do not post the methods they use, so I linked to their ratings explanation page. --Cbenard 00:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There are similarities between the two but most likely only residual. Both are modern retellings of vampires and both have the vamparism as a blood born disease. But that is probably the real limit of any link between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.223.44 (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Move

  • UltraViolet is the way the film does the title. 132.205.45.110 21:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No. captbananas 13:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. It was my understanding that it was proposed that UltraViolet (the movie) become the main page for a search on "ultraviolet", effectivly pushing aside the type of light. I said no, simply because I didnt feel that the movie was more important than the 'ultraviolet' light article. captbananas 23:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait, where does it say that? IMDb spells it "Ultraviolet." - Hbdragon88 09:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move back

As far as I see, this movie's new title is only there because of the way the movie poster shows the title. Wikipedia doesn't do this per WP:MOS-TM; we don't pay special attentio to certain spellings, using the most common name. IMDb spells it "Ultraviolet," as does RottenTomatoes, most everybody. I therefore am proposing that this be moved back to Ultraviolet (film), as it should be. - Hbdragon88 07:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The DVD release in region 1 has it as "ULTRAVIOLET" all uppercase all one word. The U and the V are in a slightly larger font, but that is all.

[edit] Trivia Error

I have removed the following from the Trivia section, "Kurt Wimmer's films Ultraviolet and Equilibrium are a reference to the process of making ozone and breakdown of it." There is no evidence to support this comment in either film or in anything that the director Kurt Wimmer has stated. (JenGe 16:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Proposed Edit

the line "Screen Gems edited the film from its original length of 120 minutes to 88 minutes, against the wishes of director Kurt Wimmer. He was quite angry with this, and many fans agree that this decision lowered the quality of the film significantly."

should just be edited down to : "Screen Gems edited the film from its original length of 120 minutes to 88 minutes, against the wishes of director Kurt Wimmer. He was quite angry with this." since no fan has actually seen the full movie, how would anyone know if it truly is a better film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Wall (talk • contribs) 04:56, August 3, 2006

Novelization. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It might also be noted someplace that Wimmer had some very sublime moments to hint at things to come. This is especially noticable in the scene where Daxus and Nerva are in the room after Nerva's men kill's Daxus'. In this scene when Daxus shoots the three Hemophages the grab their faces in turn as to where they were shot : mouth - eye - ear , preluding to hear no, see no, speak no evil. Where it comes out later what was told to Nerva by Daxus was something that couldn't be spoke of because Daxus is a Hemophage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.223.44 (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blood platelets -> cells

I just finished watching the film and I don't believe it mentions anemia as a side effect of hemophagia. I edited the explanation of the anemia from "blood platelets" to "blood cells". While platelet disorders can lead to anemia, they do so by causing bleeding. More likely would be a problem with red cell production, but without confirmation in film I didn't feel comfortable changing it to "red blood cells". Jamescookmd 06:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Section

NOTE: This section was removed, but I reverted it. If you remove it, a new one will surely pop up again (It has before). This way, everyone can see why the article doesn't mention that the movie is (supposedly) bad (the response; "That would be POV..."). Also, most of the comments are about the criticism section in the article. I've renamed this talk section from "Random Criticism" to "Criticism Section" to help keep it on track. --Scarlet-=Spider-DavE=- 07:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be noted how aweful this movie is. I can't imagine having to sit through it for 120 minutes (God bless Screen Gems). The director was great with Equilibrium, what happened? (Nbmatt 03:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC))

That would be POV. The fact that you did not like a film should not influence it's encyclopaedia entry. Moreover, this page is not a forum for discussing the film. Geoff B 14:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with both of you. And I would add 1) the criticisms section seems little different from an opinion-oriented review, at least to me, and 2) the section on fictional technologies is far more interesting than the film, and 3) I'm not sure if this film meets any standard of notability I could agree with, except for the fictional technologies described in the article. In fact I'm not entirely sure what notability is supposed to mean in the Wiki-context. Have the technologies described here been used in any other fictional works? (I'm new around here so go easy if you think I'm all wet.) Cryptonymius 07:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
1) Yeah, I feel the criticisms section still needs a lot of work (though it has improved). The article can't note how awful the movie is; only how awful sources say it is. Needs a little less "The movie is awful, here's why, and here's a source to prove it", and a little more "These sources say the move is awful". Look at this one: "One flaw that may have been responsible for Ultraviolet's poor reception by movie critics [6] is its thin plot." There's a source in there, but it's wrapped in an opinion sandwich. The article should be neutral towards the movie. 2) I'm not sure that's really a problem. The technology is a big part of the film. 3) It doesn't take much for a film to be notable enough for Wikipedia. Take a look at the proposed policy for film notability, and the Wikipedia guideline on notability. --ScarletSpiderDave 11:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm...actually I'm thinking that a twelve-year lifespan is something of a novelty within the small universe of vampire fiction, so the film could be seen as notable in the convential sense on that basis alone. (Thanks for the notability links.) Cryptonymius 20:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daxus

Daxus was not the first person infected. I've seen this pop up a number of times in the article. It is incorrect and not based on anything in the film or the novelization. Yes, he was infected but by working in the lab. Nowhere does the film/novelization support or state the notion that he was first. This is an assumption that some people are making.

As to the reason to his life span the film makes it clear in several scenes that Daxus already had some type of cure. - (JenGe 19:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC))

Actually, at the start of the movie, it said very clearly that the original virus has been around of centuries. He was a reasercher who was trying to turn it into a more powerful form, thus creating the HGV Virus. In the novelization, it said that the reasercher who cut his finger left the building, which most likely spread the disease into the general population. In the movie, Daxus revealed that he was the one who cut his finger on the slide and got the virus Spyco 23:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sword

Is the writing on the sword just random characters, or does it actually mean something? 172.195.242.182 00:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's supposed to be a script written in the film's language, which seems to be a hybrid of Thai and Hindi. If you want to study it, eBay has replicas of the sword used in the movie.Spyco 23:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional Technologies - Self Heating

Does it say anywhere that the mug of coffee was self heating or is it just a guess? If it's a guess, then it should be removed Spyco 23:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, Milla Jovovich mentions it in the commentary.

Seems like that this, as were many of the plot points, was lost in the brutal editing. It would be nice if Wimmer could say something about this.. but i'm guessing he has been gagged.. shame as he's coping a good deal of flack for what could be things he's not responsible for.--Nasher 20:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Milla does mention the self heating mug in the commentary, right after she says that it was sterile. But when she says it was self heating she laughs like the self heating part was an inside joke. But also as it is only in the commentary from Milla maybe it should not be included because we do not know for sure as this was the intention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.223.44 (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In the paper cell phone section, yes there is some basis in technology but there needs to be a citation that Epson had anything to do with it. The current situation is that a group of scientist are working on it as a joint effort (no involvment of Epson) http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/21/scientists-synthesize-plastic-suitable-for-printing-electronics/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.223.44 (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 21st century?

Where does it say that the movie takes place in the late 21st century? I've just seen the movie, some of the commentary, some of the production documentaries and the official website and I can't find any mention of when Ultraviolet is set. The unusual names and the written language imply that it's set further into the future. Also, where is the comic that's supposedly on the official website?

[edit] Cult Film

Should we put this as a cult film, because that is basically what it is. Small group of people like it a lot.--Mugatu3333 06:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Should the page be moved to UltraViolet? Or should the text be changed to Ultraviolet? 71.51.113.204 (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gun Kata

Can someone please point to some source stating that the gun play/martial arts shown in this movie are directly linked to the gun kata style in Equilibrium? It is specifically called that in the first movie, but if it is not specifically referenced as that, we should remove the claim that it is the same thing from the articles (and from Gun fu.) Slavlin (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hemoglophagia

Shouldn't we just delete this section? It seems to be too long and useless. I mean, come on, a fictional disease. I wish I was infected with this thing. Ha.-- Vintei  Talk  18:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

"UltraViolet takes place in the year 2076" where did this happen? There was no such indication in the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.174.66 (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scene reminiscent of Escape from LA

I hope you all know what I am talking about. For anyone who've seen Escape from LA that scene where Violet's hologram was being shot by hundreds of man must seem like a blatant copy or reference to the scene toward the end of Escape from LA. Just think there should be a trivia section that mentions it. Passerby 10:50, 19 March 2008 (EST)

Only if there is a source that says the 2 are related. An observation that 2 things look similar is not verifiable. Also, it is general practice to add the new comments to the bottom of the talk page, so I went ahead and moved it down for you. Slavlin (talk) 02:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)