Talk:Crank: High Voltage

name

Page title should be changed to Crank: High Voltage, based on Lionsgate Publicity Fact Sheet here: [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.219.184 (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot

How will this start off at the end of the first film if we see Chev Chelios slamming into the ground after falling from a Helicopter??195.11.220.226 (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You didn't watch the ending carefully did you? It ended with a brief blink of the eye and 2 faint Heartbeats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.76.141 (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a detailed spoiler in the plot synopsis! I haven't seen too many film entries on wikipedia, but isn't this just a little too much?--Catblack (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No, we are not trying to cater to audiences actively seeing the film. Film articles are supposed to be comprehensive in coverage, so there is no real reason to hide spoilers. See WP:SPOILER. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Reference to Ichi The Killer

I've not seen any direct reference to Ichi The Killer, a film by Takashi Miike, made in 2001 so clearly pre-dating the Cranks. It could be helpful if someone knows more about that and other links between them and can add detail here, or even in the main article. The comedically gross scene with the nipple cutting was an obvious reference to the tongue slicing that the Yakusa guy Kakihara in Ichi The Killer does as a penance in that film, and there is a moment where someone comments something like 'this is an interesting experience' as he's about to die at another moment, is directly quoting Kakihara's last words before he falls to his death. The styles of these films is also very similar in many ways, and Bai Ling, who has worked with Takashi Miike (in one of the Three... Extremes) is yet another connection. There could be many more worth exploring.

Crow81.187.19.110 (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Who's the hot red head?

In the Car with Smart? (JoeLoeb (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

Pretty sure it's Yeva-Genevieve Lavlinski, as per IMDb. Droidguy1119 (talk) 06:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, very much. (JoeLoeb (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Visual effects

• Pumping up the Wattage with Crank: High Voltage at VFXWorld. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Cut and paste error? That link points to Allmovie.com and a page about Animal House. Only took a decade for anyone to notice the mistake.

• Alain Bielik (April 20, 2009). "Pumping up the Wattage with 'Crank: High Voltage'". VFXWorld. Animation World Network.

I believe this is the source that was actually intended. -- 109.79.160.161 (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Assessment comments

Per a request at WP:FILMA, I have reassessed the article to start-class. Some quick comments: Possible improvements include expanding the article with content from reliable sources, especially the production and reception sections. At almost 1100 words, the plot is very lengthy. Plots should seldom exceed 700 words, per our style guideline. Adding author, publisher and date information to the references would also be an improvement. Regards, decltype (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Somebody messed with the gross revenue

It was like $36 million the thousand other times I read the article, and now it says it's like $46 mil. And the "source" doesn't even link to Box Office Mojo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.232.234 (talk) 07:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Somebody did it again. It might be a good idea to temporarily lock this page or something. DanielDPeterson + talk 23:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Poster

Someone changed the poster, it seems like it was User:You've_gone_incognito and the reason if any for the change is not clear and the previous version has already been deleted. I'm fairly sure that instead of the theatrical releases poster the article is now using a teaser poster (it doesn't include a proper billing block).

I believe the correct Theatrical release poster is this Crank 2 poster. -- 109.79.160.161 (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@109.79.160.161: That may be the correct design, but it's my personal preference to change it with the teaser one because it is a much more visually interesting poster than the generic release one. Besides, WP:FILMPOSTER states that "Ideally, an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded," note that it says "ideally" not "mandatory". You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Ignore all rules, blah. The usual Wikipedia inconsistent mess. The small consensus of people who go around writing these rules don't have even have the conviction to strongly word the rules, let alone do any work to apply them consistently, but back to this article and the poster specifically.

1. The change was unnecessary and I'm not convinced the change of poster is an improvement, and not a big enough improvement to justify ignoring the rules. This poster (yellow background, pointing a gun) is more brightly colored but the other poster showing him putting a jump cables to his tongue is not short of dramatic impact either.
2. There was no indication to the next person (or me) that you were intentionally ignoring the guidelines and that it wasn't merely a mistake. (But thanks I guess for making you intentions clear by discussing the change.)
3. I do not support this change. Sure, break the rules and form a local consensus for things that improve the article, but this isn't one of those cases. -- 109.79.160.161 (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

What makes you think what I uploaded is not an official poster? FYI: the design were also used in some US theaters (Exhibit A and B). Hell, even one of the directors prefers the design in a Tweet he posted to commemorate the movies 10th anniversary: [2]. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The poster you uploaded does not include a full billing block which usually indicates it is a teaser poster (and teaser posters do get put up in theaters, that still doesn't make them the official poster). I don't believe it is anything other than a teaser poster.

Official Theatrical release posters generally have a full billing block, which the jumper cable on tongue poster does include (incidentally of the posters listed it is the only one available in the highest resolutions). There is another yellow poster that does include a full billing block and if you'd claimed that was the official poster I might believe it was an official poster in at least some regions.

You can argue the Wikipedia rules are stupid and we should use a different poster. I'm saying the article was using the Theatrical release poster until recently and there isn't any good reason to ignore the rules in this case. -- 109.79.190.97 (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

You complain about the poster's lack of a billing block too much. It's not like it's the only primary source of the entries in the infobox; fact is the movie's also considered a primary source to those, the opening/closing credits to be exact. As I said, Wikipedia's guideline is not inherently opposed to using a different design other than the official poster. I rest my case. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The only case you made was that you like the yellow poster image better. I prefer the other image, and it was the Theatrical release poster which is was what the guidelines recommended. I think I'll have to ask for WP:3RD opinions. There should be a consensus if you're going to ignore the guidelines. -- 109.79.190.97 (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

FWIW We can easily rule out the Hand poster as being a teaser poster [3] [4]. -- 109.79.190.97 (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I concur with 109.79.190.97 about using the original image. It is not because I prefer one version over another, but selecting poster images is extremely (and tiringly) subjective. Oftentimes, none of the images are "bad" or "inappropriate", and anyway, they're not going to line up with what shopping websites show (e.g., DVD covers, streaming options). Judging from the file description page, it was the same image for over a decade. Per MOS:RETAIN, we should continue retaining that image. There was no inherent problem with that image to warrant replacing it. If there is still a stalemate here, I suggest notifying WT:FILM for additional input. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Personal preference is not a legitimate criteria for image selection because it will ultimately lead to disputes like this one. The original theatrical poster is usually more widely circulated than the teaser poster and therefore more strongly associated with the subject matter. Betty Logan (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I yield. I have reverted the poster to the original design. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Betty Logan, curious to ask. What if the situation was reversed, that the teaser poster was there for over a decade? Would you still favor replacing it? I feel like I am a mindset that technically, any poster image would do. It's not like the films' home media covers consistently emulate the posters. It seems like ideally, we want to stake out the final theatrical-release poster to be decisive in general, but it does not (to me) necessarily mean we are compelled to hunt down poster images that do not fit that (and have not for years) to replace them. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

A poster is a poster at the end of the day. Generally if the original theatrical poster is available and somebody wants to use it in the article I would favor that position, at least for articles going through a GA or FA review. Outside of a review though I wouldn't be going out of my way to replace posters, but if there is a dispute about a poster I suppose it is good practice to support the general guidelines. Betty Logan (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

That said I can think of two plausible reasons for not following the guideline: for example, if you have a situation where one poster is free (say pre-1964 US poster) and a copyrighted original release British poster (for a British film) then a free alternative exists and we should use the free poster. I also generally think we should use posters where the title on the poster matches the title of the Wikipedia article (if our FUR is primarily to identify the work), so if a French film is on Wikipedia under an English title I think there is a strong argument for using an English title poster. But the original theatrical poster should always be the default option. Betty Logan (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for resolving this discussion. If there's discussion and a local consensus there's an exception to everything, but with an adequate default there's no good reason not to use it. (I can in theory imagine a case where a reasonable argument can be made that a different poster is objectively better for the purposes of an encyclopedia article, perhaps because it actually shows the cast, or in some way better represents what the film is actually about.) It didn't happen this time but my usual compliant is that someone has changed an image but failed to also update the WP:ALT image description, and a wrong description is worse than none at all. -- 109.79.172.205 (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Just seen this pop on my watchlist - Many thanks Betty Logan for resolving this - Official posters should always be used especially over teaser ones and I'm slightly bemused that someone would think and act differently on this, Ah well. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 18:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes people make good faith changes, and it isn't always entirely clear which poster was the official theatrical release poster, but yeah, default poster. -- 109.79.172.205 (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)