Talk:Cube 2: Hypercube

Spoiler request

I would appreciate it if someone who has seen the movie would fill in what the "banal revelation" at the end of the film is. Put {{spoiler}} before the part where you describe the ending. --66.81.122.242 23:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge request

I don't think it should be merged - all cast is different (clem 00:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC))

If other movies with sequels are handled in seperate entries, so should this.

As a matter of fact all movies and their sequels (or prequels) should be treated in one article. As an example, the movies in the Starwars saga should be in one article containing the 6 movies in chronological order of premier (not of the story). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.89.98.117 (talk • contribs) 2005-09-19 20:03:04 UTC.

• No series of movies has been handled that way, to my knowledge. Uncle G 22:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Rather than merging, I've created the Cube series article that describes and links to all 3 of the movies. -- Bovineone 02:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Plot

More should be written about the plot and storyline. Look at the Cube article, that's a good length and description. 128.6.175.67 20:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Who wrote this plot summary? It's clunky and terrible and misses the subtleties of the movie. Could whoever created the list of traps please write the plot, since that author clearly understood what the movie was about. The plot needs to line up with the traps at the end of the article (eg, the trap list is correct in talking about the shifting of rooms through one another. The current plot summary just calls it "spikes" coming out of the wall. This is wrong!!)

Also, fix the second paragraph of the plot - nothing "gets her from the ceiling". She simply falls upwards, due to the twisted laws of physics in the next room. 210.49.54.79 (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this still a stub?

God knows I've seen shorter articles than this (not labelled as stubs, that is). Jobjörn 21:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Not really. I've removed {{stub}}. In future, be bold. ··gracefool |☺ 22:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Trust?

I haven't seen Hypercube for a while, but this entry mentions "Alexander Trust"... But I only remember hearing it as "Alex Trust", thus leaving the name androgynous; could be a man, could also be a woman. Correct me if I'm wrong.

• Perhaps it was in the DVD or website... ··gracefool |☺ 06:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw Hypercube about 30 mins ago and this is a bit of a spoiler but Sasha is actually Alex Trusk. Not Trust. Kate says that Sasha is a nickname for Alexandera, and finds out that Sasha is Alex Trusk. Max Valentine 19:39, 31 October 2006. (UTC)

Tracton

It's been a really long time since I saw this movie, but I remember in the credits, it lists the man at the end (who shoots Kate) as "Tracton". Would that be worth mentioning? VQts 03:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• He was only identified as Tracton in the alternate ending on the DVD special features when Kate turns to say "Well Tracton, shall we..." Since they didn't use that alternate ending I don't think it's worth mentioning as it does not effect the main story. I tried to find more info about Traction, but it seems everyone else is just as confused about the character. Is it common to credit the actors that didn't make the final cut? Traq 20:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Informality in the Cannabalism section?

In this section the reader is referred to as "we" and the adjective "poor" is used to describe Jerry. Should this be changed? Puff0rx 04:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC) Puff0rx

Time/Space

Sorry, this is me being really pedantic and neeky, but is there a better way of saying that time and space seem to merge into one? It's just, that time and space do merge into one. In real life. sorry, but it'll annoy physics nerds like me. Doctorp9999 10:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Relationships to Izon

Several of the character descriptions were inaccurate or assumed information not given in the film. Assuming characters died of starvation is not supported by any part of the movie. Simon Grady resorting to cannibalism is also not supported despite his references to hunger. If anything the movie suggests this not to be the case as there is no evidence of any blood near his mouth or any other behavior suggestive of cannibalism. There is no reason given as to why the physicist is in the cube or how he died. The previous comments were assumptions. Jerry is killed by spinning razor blades (per the movie) that react to movement, not a tesseract. I corrected these. Leavemade 23:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fair to infer that from one reality the characters did die of starvation. Kate and Sacha find a room where they were formerly sleeping (when Sacha woke up and heard something, Kate asked if she was having a bad dream, culminating in Jerry's death) and see their alternate selves emaciated. They had no food or water; they starved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.160.81 (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Simon Grady resorting to cannibalism is implied during one of the scenes when he asks a Jerry from an alternate reality if he is hungry. This is followed by a scream from Jerry as the camera zooms out. Naturally, to not scare his preys away, it would make sense that he cleans up after each meal. Mysterial 07:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed Redundant Trap

ive removed the "razor cube" trap from the list because it is already listed and explained directly above it(The Expanding Tesseract) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.33.214 (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Logical Question

If Alex/Sasha wanted to tell the world about the Tesseract/Cube/Hypercube why did she hid IN the Cube, knowing that there was no escape and the Cube would implode/collapse? How was she supposed to divulge the information from inside the Cube? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.1.181.106 (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I wondered that too. Darrenaustralia (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That was her character's flaw: She believed she could hide in the cube and not be followed by Izon, when in fact Izon hired Kate to retrieve the chip on her necklace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.160.81 (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternative Ending

I've just watched the DVD and the alternative ending and its different in some respects to what the wiki page says. For instance the DVD says (alternative ending) she was in there for 6mins and 59 secs whereas wiki says 6 hrs, 6 mins and 59 secs. Also wiki says Kate's survival was based on Alex's survival too whereas in the DVD (alternative ending again) Kate says she was terminated as per her orders. Anyone else seen these differences or am I seeing a second alternative ending? Darrenaustralia (talk) 12:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Highly Disorganized

The current article is disjointed and contains massive amounts of speculation and original research. As best I can tell, someone had their pet theory and decided to interweave it throughout (best indication is that every single character section winds up talking about Kate instead). Needs major fixing. -166.20.24.144 (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It still seems to be. The plot summary is very weak, even considering the non-linearity of its subject. One of these days I am going to have a go at it. Huw Powell (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

English Version

I've seen this on Youtube, but it was all in German. Usually, I would just use a translater, but I can't because they are all speaking so quickly and unclearly. Does anyone know where I can watch it in English? Do you at least know where I can buy a DVD of it? 24.150.143.48 (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Showtime or Cinemax, can't remember which channel showed it last night on tv. AcePuppy (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Netflix just added it to their Instant Queue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.160.81 (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Obsession with traps...

...to the point of having most of the section on the Cube describe them, and not very well. Is this because a major audience segment for this and other Cube films are focused on the potential for gore and little else? There are no "traps" in Cube3, it is simply an unstable and dangerous four-dimensional object. Huw Powell (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Genres and 'fancruft' removal

Hi Debresser & Millahnna. I have made two edits, the simplification of the genres and removal of the section, The Cube

1. Genres. Removal of psychological horror. WP:FILMLEAD: "The opening sentence should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified. For other applicable elements to add (e.g., reputable director or source material), see WP:LEADSENTENCE. Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." Emphasis added by me, and primary means one. Not every genre. Sci-fi thriller is already a bit of a stretch but could be considered single genre, sci-fi thriller psychological horror is too much and to justify this, the majority of the sources would have to refer to it as such.

2. The Cube section. This is fan-cruft. It's either repeating content from the plot summary, adding additional plot content that isn't in the summary (which would make it too long per WP:PLOTBLOAT, what's left is unsourced interpretation of narrative events and fails WP:PLOT which requires reliable sourcing, and the tone fails MOS:REALWORLD for introducing non-encyclopedic content.

If you disagree with this interpretation of guidelines and policy, I'd welcome your comments. Scribolt (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:FILMLEAD says the lead should include "At minimum ... the primary genre or sub-genre". If a film has more than one verifiable genre, there is nothing in the guideline to preclude inclusion. To the contrary, we should always strive to be as complete as possible.

In addition, any questions regarding interpretation of WP:FILMLEAD should be discussed there, not here. Debresser (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Debresser

I have no wish to discuss WP:FILMLEAD, I wish to discuss how it relates to this article, so this page is the appropriate place. The minimum is the primary description, which psychological is clearly not. If you continue to read the sentence I quoted, you will see that it does not say we should be always strive to be as complete as possible. I do not know where this is mentioned. It actually says that genre descriptions should be as comply with WP:WEIGHT and the majority of reliable sources. So, let's look at the sources listed in the article. (I'm on a mobile so some of the links are weird for me) Moviefone= Sci fi thriller. Scifimovie page =sci fi. Filmthreat I cannot access. JoBlo = no mention of psychological horror. DVD verdict = no results when searching for cube 2 or cube hypercube. Efilmcritic = sci fi horror. Bloody disgusting = no search rota for cube 2 or cube 2 hypercube. Imdb= sci fi thriller. Rotten tomatoes = sci fi and fantasy. All movies = genre sci fi, sub genres escape film and psychological sci fi.

So, there appears to be little evidence that the majority (or even any) consider it to be a psychological horror and to place this in the lede would be giving it undue weight. Please provide a policy based justification, with supporting sourcing for its inclusion.

Also, please provide a rationale for your reinsertion of the content myself and another editor consider to be against the guidelines and policies I quoted in my previous post which you appear to have ignored. Thank you.. Scribolt (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

All films in the Cube series are horror films. That is mentioned in many sources, e.g. [1][2]. Specifically for this film: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. Admittedly not psychological horror, so I'd have no problem with removal of the word "psychological".

Your second question is rather presumptuous. I have not ignored any guideline (not policy), as you falsely claim. To the contrary, I have replied to you based on that same guideline. I am under no obligation to agree with you, and numbers of 2 against 1 are not an indication that you are correct at all. Especially in view of the many sources I provided above. Debresser (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: The selectively quoted WP:FILMLEAD says the lead should include "At minimum ... the primary genre or sub-genre" is very irksome to me, because through selective quoting, the argument suggests that the "at minimum" pertains to genres, when in fact it relates to what the minimum expectations are for the overall shape of the lead. The "at minimum" means we want title, year, and primary or sub-genre. I'm actually stunned that it doesn't mention nation or language of production, which I think are important and non-controversial. Anyway, the language absolutely does not suggest we want people to focus on genre boat. This has been discussed numerous times at WT:FILM, and consensus seems to lean toward including what most reliable sources describe a film in general. My personal approach to genre selection is to find a few reliable sources and see where the descriptions intersect. If the sources don't agree on whether a thing is a suspense or thriller or whatever, then picking the more general description, like "drama", is often the smartest choice. As to Debresser's note "If a film has more than one verifiable genre, there is nothing in the guideline to preclude inclusion. To the contrary, we should always strive to be as complete as possible" well, sort of--while the guideline doesn't specifically preclude inclusion of anything you can source, we do have a synthesis policy which prevents us from drawing conclusions based on a variety of sources when none of the individual sources say that specific thing. So just because someone can find seven sources that describe a film as 1) a drama, 2) a horror, 3) a thriller, 4) a suspense, 5) a film noir, 6) an epic, and 7) a historical period piece, doesn't mean we need to describe the film as "a film noir epic historical period piece dramatic horror suspense thriller". Genre is a persistently irritating subject across the entire Wikipedia project and the smartest approach is to go broad rather than fight over nuance. It's simply just a waste of everybody's time to try to get genre 100% perfect. If you can get genre 50% correct, that's a huge achievement. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb You are of course correct that "at minimum" pertains not only to "the primary genre or sub-genre", but it does pertain to that too among others. In other words, that guideline sentence leaves room for adding more than one primary genre. I of course also agree with you that we shouldn't "scratch together" all the various genres that are ascribed to a certain film, but as I have shown with 9 citations (!), that this film belongs in the horror genre is mainstream. Debresser (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Cyphoidbomb. I agree that we shouldn't list every genre that applies to a film. (I also agree with your point re other information that should also be included ad minimum, but that's a separate issue). While not all of the references provided by Debresser are necessarily reliable sources for film classification (tvtropes, ratemymusic and cube films wikia?) I'd agree horror is a genre that does apply. As a compromise I'd be fine with replacing thriller with horror, would that be acceptable? That would mean we have a primary and sub genre. In response to my second question which you found presumptuous, you appear to have misunderstood me. You ignored my opening post which asked for your rationale for reinserting the section 'the cube', I did not mean to imply that you yourself ignored the policies I quoted. So, so that we are completely clear: That text was removed by two editors and you were provided with a policy based rationale. Could you either indicate why you believe that interpretation was wrong (with reference to applicable guidance or past discussion) or that you will support its removal. Thank you Scribolt (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

On the first issue, I agree with replacing "thriller" by "horror" and use some of the more reliable of the sources above to source it. On the second issue, I indeed seem to have misunderstood you. Isn't that the subject of the section below this one? Debresser (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It is. You still haven't stated why you believe this is suitable content. Replied below. Scribolt (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup and Expansion

This article is incomplete and is missing information on the film's production and theatrical/home media release which needs to be added to the article. There is also some sections that seem unnecessary (There was a section talking about the cube, however it was unsourced and seemed more like a personal opinion so it was deleted). The article also consists mostly of the film's plot and needs to be balanced with the above mentioned information added with proper citations given for its information.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It was tagged with {{Unreferenced section}}. Since it was in the article for about two years, I think we can let it stand with the tag for a while before deleting it. Debresser (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, the only reason it was in the article for that long is because this page doesn't have a lot of watchers but does have (as most horror films do) a lot of anon editors obsessed with adding fancruft. They are no different than the editors that try to insert detailed lists of every single death into the various Final Destination film articles. If you scan the history of the article, you'll see several attempts to reinsert this material, and multiple editors reverting it as WP:OR, which is an assessment that I support. Had I not been wiki light/absent for the last few years, I'd have reverted the last one. Millahnna (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. But let's make one serious effort to source this, and if that will prove impossible, then remove it. Debresser (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

If you completely agree, why not remove it now and add appropriate enclopedic content later? And just to re emphasise in case it disappears with the thread switch, it is not just a matter of sourcing, please see my initial post in the thread above. All of those concerns would have to be addressed. Scribolt (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

As I said, because I think an editor should at least make an effort to find a source before removing material (unless the material is not relevant or incorrect). If we started removing everything that needs a source, this encyclopedia would be the worse. So we have the moral obligation to give it a try first. That is why we tag it: to ask people to give it a try. Debresser (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't find much from more or less reliable sources, but I think we could use some information from this article, like: "cube 2 is a quantum experiment that has a tesseract slowing closing in on itself", "In “Cube 2: Hypercube”, the death traps were abandoned in place of the complexities of a quantum-based tesseract. So the dangers would revolve around the physics changing and the occasional execution motion-based configuration shape that could shred its victims", "there is the threat of dealing with the complexities of time warping. This aspect was demonstrated when captives would later return aged or in an alternate reality starved and deteriorated from old age. The clues for this threat pointed to the idea that the group should never stop moving (or possibly face time acceleration)" and "“Cube 2: Hypercube” is a time based puzzle that closes in on itself (implodes) based on a quantum (parallel) reality. Alex Trusk is the hacker genius who first designed it for Izon thinking it was only to be used for a game and not in reality. The cube’s purpose in this case was to test teleportation. The puzzle ends on the exact time of 6:06:59 of which Kate jumps into. To further play with your mind, we are told that the whole experience lasted only 6 minutes and 59 seconds, which was obviously warped in quantum physics terms". Debresser (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

"If we started removing everything that needs a source, this encyclopedia would be the worse." Moving past the fact that this is pretty much against everything that Wikipedia stands for (see WP:5P2) the content was NOT removed because it was unsourced. It was unsourced, but it was removed because for all of the reasons I listed in my first attempt to engage with you, which you have not responded to. I summarise it here in an attempt to understand why you believe this content should remain in the article. 1. It is written in an in-universe perspective. This is not allowed outside of the plot summary per MOS:REALWORLD. 2. As it stands it is contains a mixture of repeated content from the plot summary WP:PLOTBLOAT and unsourced speculation WP:OR. This would have justified removal to begin with. Even if you manage to find another article, we would have to decide, as per WP:WEIGHT that the content "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The amount of content describing the nature of the cube does not reflect published opinion. I'm certainly not saying that a line or two could be included in the reception section or something similar. But the content as written is never going to meet our standards and that's why it should be removed. So, once again, please respond to the following question. Do you have a policy based reason for disagreeing with our assessment of the text under discussion as being unsuitable for Wikipedia? Because if not, the best way forward would be to remove it and then any re-written content can be added as appropriate. Scribolt (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I have seen many editors like you, who just repeat the same question, after it has been answered many times. Please continue the discussion in a way that may actually improve the article, instead of quoting policies and guidelines regarding a text that all agree needs improvement. Specifically:

Please comment on the source I brought above, if you think we can use it. I am sure we will reach agreement on the amount of text that is acceptable to all policies and guidelines, while still including some of this interesting material. If you'd like to give it a try, please go ahead. Debresser (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing usable in that article. It's entirely editorial speculation with no clarification as to why the author's analysis should be valued (or even who the author is). I think (but am not certain) that we can and have used that site as a source for factual details such as casting. But that? It's useless, albeit interesting. Millahnna (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Really? Complaining about editors who don't answer questions while not answering a question? Where exactly have you addressed my question? As to the source, you just pasted it on the page instead of answering why you believe the disputed content was appropriate. I explained that it is irrelevant to what we were discussing and asked what I first asked you 2 days ago which you are just ignoring. And for what it's worth, I believe the source is also inappropriate as per Millahnna. Now,will you address the issues that we have both raised? We wish to remove the material as we consider it to be unencyclopedic and have provided reasons. Scribolt (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Millahnna "useless, albeit interesting" I don't think usefulness is the primary concern of an encyclopedia. My question was about how reliable it is as a source. After reading the About Us page, I think not so much. Then I am afraid I have to agree this interesting information must go per a lack of reliable sources. @Scribolt, a shame you continue your unreasonable vein of belligerence without contributing anything of worth to this discussion. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

As I said, given that there is no indication of editorial control or the author of the piece, it is useless as a reliable source for this topic. Again, I may be mistaken. I think we have used the site before for strictly factual information. But this is not my usual focus on wiki which is why I sought out other editors to look at it. Millahnna (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)