Talk:Underworld: Evolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Summary
The film summary was horribly long, dull and badly written. I tried cutting it down, and probably sliced it by half. It's still really long, and maybe someone wants to edit it further. A summary should probably cover the major plot points, but doesn't need to give a total film play-by-play. Davey1107 (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Release Date
Release Date. Question, Is Wikipedia a US project or a world project. Is a movie released the first place and time it goes into the regular screening schedule, or when it screens in US Cinemas? Alex Law 08:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a world project. Kappa 02:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- It was only a half serious question, I've had a few movie articles changed on details / Australian content deleted. But... I thought I'd put a comment here, in the hope that it mught provoke a little discussion.Alex Law 12:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a world project, but its high American traffic tends to tilt it to the the American side of things. If you feel that the article would benefit from your influence in some way because of your location/persuasion, feel free to bring it up on the discussion page. But since Wikipedia can't have specific entry for all of the countries in the world, the overriding factor for something like a release date would be the date accepted by the production company as the release. Theoretically, anyway. Gspawn
- It was only a half serious question, I've had a few movie articles changed on details / Australian content deleted. But... I thought I'd put a comment here, in the hope that it mught provoke a little discussion.Alex Law 12:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Quotes
Why is there a random selection of quotes on this article? They don't add anything and don't actually have all that much bearing in the movie itself... -Localzuk (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, good thing you removed it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickey Ichiro (talk • contribs)
What git went into so much detail about Selene and Michael engaging in sexual intercourse?
[edit] Regarding Inconsistencies
I don't think that some of those inconsistencies make sense, because it appears to be someone else's personal review of Underworld Evolution. Is there a requirement for sources to be cited in such a case?
Darklord of the Sith Daniel Lim 14:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this section requires serious clean-up. If I was familiar at all with the movie or the comic, I would do so myself; I only saw the first movie once. The section has been tagged due to the obvious neutrality issues. Ladyeternal 02:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's an extremely long argument for a series that is only two movies and a small fan group. If there is such a thing as overanalyzing, this has to be it. --Destron Commander 14:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
-It's obvious in the second film (the opening scene in 1202) that Victor lied about the chronology and very origin of vampires in order to amplify the power of the elders and conceal the lycan/vampire connection. In 1202 Victor, Amelia, and Markus are all seen together. The chain had not started yet. I do not think the average viewer perceives that William has been rampaging for centuries, but that the entire history started in the late 1100s and early 1200s. Some of the time inconsistencies are invalid, and I am editing them.
- Sign your posts. The problem with the section has nothing to do with whether there are inconsistencies or not or whether the ones stated are viable. It has to do with the fact that the section is an opinion piece and this is not the place for it. It doesn't need cleanup, it needs deletion. Canonblack 07:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The inconsistancy about Selene's age is false as well. Selene was turned the night after Lucian escaped. It was explained that Viktor went to her house to kill off her family because they knew where William was being kept. Viktor couldn't take the chance Luce would find out about this and free him.Jupiterzguy 02:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
This is incorrect. The first movie states that she is six hundred years old, and the second movie states that she's 800 years old. How can that not be considered an inconsistency? As for the rest of your point, yes, Viktor was revealed in UE to have wiped out Selene's family because they knew of William's hiding place, but nowhere in either film does anyone mention any connection between Lucian and William. This would appear to be conjecture on your part.
User:Oshram 10:15 15 August 2007
[edit] How in any way is this a horror film?
It was an action movie featuring fantasy creatures. It was not frightful nor was it intended to be frightening or disgusting. 71.131.177.48
- Agreed. It's a common misconception reinforced by boneheaded marketing. Canonblack 07:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia doesn't have a category for 'Dark Fantasy', the entry under that title is a reference to a radio series.
- It might be useful to set up an article about Dark Fantasy and a listing of Dark Fantasy films and movies but that would come quite close to Original Research. So for now this should remain listed under horror.David Cheater 16:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The claim that Marcus became a Hybrid after drinking Singe's blood is false. Marcus has the ability to become a bat/hybrid as that is where the vampire abilities come from. Victor even states in the first film, "The sons of Corvinus, one bitten by wolf, another bitten by bat." In the same way that William as the first Lycan was able to transform into a wolf (until he lost his mind and had to remain in Lycan form, Marcus has the ability to transform into what most of modern culture deem to be the origin of the vampire species, the bat. Steve S84.69.168.85 21:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. The fact that nobody seemed the least bit surprised that Marcus was able to turn into a bat-like monster supports this argument. It would seem that Marcus always had this ability. Although, one thing puzzles me is that Selene told Michael that there has never been a hybrid before, and yet she knew Marcus was a hybrid for hundreds of years. Voicingmaster 02:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- But if Marcus truely had that ability all along it would mean that he wasn't really a hybrid, or it could mean she didn't know he was a hybrid.--Marhawkman 13:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- They were talking about a lycan/vampire hybrid, which Marcus wasn't until he was wakened with Singe's blood. LadyEternal 18:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- But if Marcus truely had that ability all along it would mean that he wasn't really a hybrid, or it could mean she didn't know he was a hybrid.--Marhawkman 13:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Awful
I have to say that as it stands, this article is a little bit awful. The plot summary is nearly a blow by blow account of the movie - which is not a summary. I am going to have a go at shortening this and also wikifying it.-Localzuk(talk) 18:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC) >> If you want to shorten it, I'd suggest you bring a chainsaw. Who wrote that sillyness???
While on the topic of awful, what is with that "up the hill, down the hill" thing in the opening paragraph? I don't want to delete it as vandalism, since it might be someone's vernacular. Help? Howa0082 16:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bold?
Why is there a bolded section at the beginning of the article? This is the only article that I have ever seen to have something like that. Delete it? soldierx40k 13:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Most articles are like this. According to Wikipedia:Lead section, "The article's subject should be mentioned at the earliest natural point in the prose in the first sentence, and should appear in boldface." Think outside the box 17:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Underworld2evolution.jpg
Image:Underworld2evolution.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Plot Summary
The current word count for the plot summary is 950 words. That's a little excessive. Is there any way to cut it down by half? This plot is not that difficult that it needs all of this detail. Please remember the old saying, "Less is more." FWIW, J Readings (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, this is taken directly from WikiProject_Films' Style Guidelines:
The plot section is made self-contained (and is a totally separate section designated by ==Plot==), so plot details and actor names already mentioned in the lead section, and/or mentioned in a cast section, are repeated here. Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words (about 600 words), but should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as a complicated plot.