Talk:Battle: Los Angeles/Archive 1

Archive 1

wtf

how is there reviews if it has'nt came out yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.173.114.213 (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

March 11 is the date of the film's commercial release. However, the film can be screened for critics beforehand. That's why newspapers publish reviews for films on Friday as the film comes out, so people can read them and decide whether to see them or not. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Review on The Film Programme (BBC)

The film was reviewed on The Film Programme and described as being (if memory serves) "2 hours of fighting and nothing else". Anybody want to find and add the quote? (Yes, I am that lazy) ConconJondor (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

For the money this is a good film

$70 million dollar budget is not bad for this film as there is no expensive ripoff actors on here. Money is clearly in the editing, location shots and marketing. I am glad they didn't decide to find a ripoff actor in this film and made it more on the story than the looks of somebody. The movie plays out well, the SGI could of been better like in District 9 as far up close alien encounters. Anyway the plot is good, the action is busy and continues all the way the way to the end.--Globalstatus (talk) 07:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not a forum, please take your comments elsewhere. BOVINEBOY2008 11:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Globalstatus. I'm glad you enjoyed the film, but like Bovine said, the talk page of a Wikipedia article is not for general discussion. It's meant to be used for discussion of article improvement. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Bad and/or Incomplete plot section

The plot sounds like it was written by a middle school child, and it also seems rather incomplete.

66.69.60.237 (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty normal this soon after a highly publicized action flick is released. Over the next week or so, someone will go in and smooth stuff out a bit. Then, we'll be fighting off fancruft additions for a month or two. Then the whole process will start all over when the DVD comes out. Just a normal day at WP:FILM. Millahnna (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

- Yeah I just fixed some of the errors my self, whoever wrote it clearly never saw the movie or was not paying attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.115.234 (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I did a major revision last night, cutting down the length. One question: Do we really need to know that the platoon is "Echo Company, 2nd battalion, 5th Marine regiment"? I had deleted that detail (well, I left the words "Echo Company"), but somebody added it back in. What possible relevance could these details have? It's not as if it's a historical movie and these details have significance that way, and it's not as if the movie points out some big difference between 5th regiment and 4th regiment, or whatever. Sonicsuns (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It is presumably accurate as the motto of the 2/5 is infact "retreat, hell," as mentioned in the movie. If it can be verified through the movie, it should be put back in. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Battalion,_5th_Marine_Regiment ThaWhistle (talk) 05:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Rephrase

The film was promised to have moviegoers starting from its opening Friday due to its catastrophic disaster content in timing with the 2011 Japan tsunami and quake.

- This needs to be rephrased as it makes little sense as it stands. Is it saying that the movie will suffer because of the timing? If so, it needs to have a source and it needs to be rephrased to say, "Blank of Blank believes that the 2011 Japan Tsunami and Quake will have an impact on the potential audience of Battle: Los Angeles, due to the timing of the release so soon after the disaster and the content of the movie itself." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.140.175 (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Good eye. I removed it since it's unsourced and written terribly. Millahnna (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

On the movie

I have not corrected of correcting the atrocious grammar in the first part of the plot summary. Since I have not had the misfortune of watching this movie (and no, that does not count as a POV violation, as I am not editing for content) I would like a few other points clarified and issues resolved:

• I used the term "aircraft" in my discussion of the marine's introductory scene--could someone knowledgeable of the movie please disambiguate the exact class (an airplane or helicopter) of aircraft involved?

• The phrase "The scenes then shifts to the various other marines in the group, conveying their various personalities" while grammatically infinitely better than the previous statement, is stylistically completely atrocious, but unfortunately cannot be improved further in this respect without knowing further details as to the marines in question. Clarification of this matter will not only improve the sentence stylistically, but will also improve the clarity and emotional depth of the plot summary, capturing more of the movie's (admittedly foul) essence.

I will come back later and correct the rest of the plot.

74.74.250.114 (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Plot section

My addition of {{unreferenced|section}} to the plot section was reverted on the grounds that the movie itself is a reliable source for this information. This is bogus: plot sections are not exempt from our guidelines on references upon the release of fictional works. This tag should be re-added until the section is properly referenced. In addition, the requirement for key plot points to be properly referenced should hopefully dissuade people from constantly adding more cruft to said section, which is always the biggest problem with plot sections on articles on popular cultural works. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

We can reference the primary source as long as we provide only a basic description. If you really want to add citations for that, feel free to copy American Beauty (film) in the citation style it uses. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether we use a primary source or not, a complete lack of inline references in a section is a good reason to tag it with {{unreferenced|section}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Can improvements be made easily? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they can be. Why did you bother with the template in the first place? You have time to discuss its removal, and you should have time to add some kind of reference to the section. I've done it for you. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not a bogus reason, WP:MOSFILM states "Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary." What's right now on the page is just silly, the same reference after every (minus one ?) paragraph, which is just the movie itself again. May I suggest you guys take a look at some featured film articles? Perhaps; 300 (film), Casablanca (film), Casino Royale (2006 film), Jurassic Park (film), etc. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 16:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Nantz's old platoon

It's a pretty major part of the plot that Nantz previously led a platoon in Iraq. There was some sort of incident (possibly his fault) and a lot of his men died. One of the guys in Nantz's new platoon is Corporal Jason Lockett (Cory Hardrict), who is the brother of one of the dead guys from the old platoon. This causes tension. Near the end, Lockett openly doubts Nantz's ability to lead, and Nantz has to convince him that he deeply regrets what happened in Iraq, and that he can in fact lead the platoon. Could someone explain to me why this entire plotline has been removed from the plot section? Sonicsuns (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Cast list vs. table

Please do not place the cast list in a table format, it is entirely excessive for this type of content. And it should not be done per WP:FILMCAST: "Cast lists should not use table formats". _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 16:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Typhoon966 (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Grounded in reality?

I suppose it is a good illustration of how poorly conceived this film is that it was meant to be "grounded in reality" by being inspired by the so-called Battle of Los Angeles. The said battle was a ridiculously overblown false alarm- simply anti-aircraft batteries firing at nothing. It was not a "falsely suspected air raid of Los Angeles" (the grammar of the description also being suspect). It is true that some crazy Ufologists believe UFO's were responsible. But that does not make this event the "basis for the film".

Yeah, I tried to correct that a bit, could probably use a little more editing. --Kai Carver (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Independence Day

?Has anyone else noticed just how similar this movie is to Independence Day?

Whatever happened to the idea for a sequel to ID4? Maybe it became Battle: Los Angeles. What do you think?

Allen 00:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC) QuickiWiki Look Up

I think without a reliable source it's original research. Doniago (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sequel

I saw that recently (March 2012), it was announced that they're writing a script and added it in. Does this mean that there will be an official sequel? Or is it still being considered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.133.74 (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)