Jump to content

Talk:DOA: Dead or Alive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Game/Film Deviations

[edit]

I notice my discusion entry here has been deleted, so I can only presume that someone disagreed. However aren't we suposed to respond to discusion and decide whether any changes are a good idea rather than flat out silencing it? Maybe I missed a reply before it was removed, I don't know and its rather frustrating. I was basicly asking whether the article would have use of a section that high lights the masive contridictions and diversions from its game source. Its not as if I blazed in and started mindlessly altering the article, and to have my input removed like this is realy annoying. So, a short list of game/film deviations? Yes, No? Why? UnknownSquid 01:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the links to the ResEvil films, they were useful to base the table on and makes it more consistant with other articles. I've started a bit, may add more latter (wish the short list i put here in discusion wasn't removed, woulda helped). Anyone feel free to correct and add stuff. (What am I saying, this is wiki, duh...) UnknownSquid 00:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 0_o Its gone again...and no mention of the deleteion here. If someone disagrees with what I'm saying I soding wish you'd at least say so. I didn't spend an hour on that just for it to be anoymously deleted. Thank you very much! Fine, whatever. I'm not going to try to write that out again. This has been a big waste of time. -_- UnknownSquid 01:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

[edit]

Could someone please expand the plot section to maybe two or three paragraphs. Of course it should not be too long, but right now it is only a couple of lines. So if anyone has good knowledge of what the film's plot is about, then please edit that section! thx.Comitmanto 09:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not adviceable, at least not until the movie comes out. This way we can tell which pieces of info are BS (ones without source) and once the movie comes out (hopefully) enough people have seen it so they can recognise made up information for themselves. This is the reason why I deleted any unsourced info relating to the plot a while back. -TheHande 19:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd help..but I haven't seen it yet.. - EmeZxX 10:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its out in Aussie now. I have expanded it, though I read up on the net a little to refresh my memory of all the details. It is all correct though. Valet5 14:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Release

[edit]

One part of this article says it gets released on December 8th, then another part says it's been delayed. Will this movie be in theaters Friday or not?


I've not heard anything about it after Dec. 8th. It's quite irritating. The S 00:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitomi

[edit]

"Hitomi" was the guy in yellow who fought Helena. "Hitomi" couldn't have fit with any other character. Zack fought with Max. -- Casiyoda 19:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, am I misunderstanding you? Your saying hitomi is a guy? Er, No. No she's not... (edit) I apologise. I see what you were saying. For the film makers to change the genders of characters is really takeing the piss in my oppinion. --UnknownSquid 12:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reception

[edit]

Shouldn't there be a critique response or 'audience reception' section? Although I didn't watch the movie itself, I saw the trailer which I thought was terrible and absolutely abysmal - at first I thought the movie was just a lame excuse to capitalise on the lucrative DOA series...I was hoping to find more on what critics said about it but IT WASN'T THERE!! T_T

I find it funny how people form such strong opinions on movies they've never seen. I don't know why there's no critical receptions section. The fact the film has only had a theatrical release in a few countries might be the reason. -TheHande 07:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I've watched it and it deserved all the bad rep it's got. Believe me. --Dez26 20:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I've also seen the film and my views on it are pretty much the opposite. I am aware that the film received a lot of accusations of being a Charlie's Angels rip-off but I for one don't see the resemblance and furthermore any such info is useless without reliable sources. I'm not against putting up a Critical Reaction or just a generic Reaction section as long as its not used as an excuse to rant about the movie. I'm living proof that some people liked the film, but I'm just not notable enough for Wikipedia. -TheHande 07:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree too. Sure, it's formulaic and heavily indebted to Charlie's Angels and Mortal Combat (the first film), but so what? The action is only average (good at parts). It is silly, but not incoherent. However, best part of the movie for me was its pace. DOA keeps going forward. That is something where many low-budget action movies fail. I don't see why this movie should have a bad rep. ... As to critical reception section; yeah, there should be one Flambergius 15:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Errors section?

[edit]

I think an errors section is a bit much. This is a highly fictional pulpish movie based on a video game.

To wit: the Land Before Time article doesn't have an "errors" section, detailing how in fact dinosaurs cannot talk, or form strong-cross species emotional attachments, or save the entire dinosaur village from destruction in just under two hours. Detruncate 11:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sections: Game differences and references, Trivia and Errors were split into their separate sections to make the info therein more accessible. I can see why you might want it removed, in fact, it only has only one entry and it's a rather non-notable piece of trivia that it might be better at home at IMDb, hmm... okay, I'll remove it. -TheHande 06:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

[edit]

Woohaa! At one point the plot section was too small and now, apparently, it's too big. I may rewrite it if I have the time. -TheHande 06:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game references and differences

[edit]

Could this section please be remade in the style of Resident Evil (film) and Resident Evil: Apocalypse so it doesn't get marked again as Trivia. -TheHande 15:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally I think this is a good section to have because people are alway curious how the film differs from its source-material. The Godfather has a similar section though it is written in the form of paragraphs rather than bullet-points or boxes, the idea is the same. -TheHande 06:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Differences from game section was removed, but it could always be added back if done properly. -- 109.76.191.101 (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plot... again.

[edit]

I tried to abbreviate and devide the plot section so it would seem a little more clear. I'm not sure if it's still a bit long, but I tried my best. Anyone who can do better is welcome to try. -TheHande 15:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay? It still says there's too much info in the plot section (!?!). Well I cut it down to what I think was the most essential parts of the plot. At this point we'd have to start cutting out entire sections on supporting characters and stuff to make it any shorter. Could someone specify what's wrong with it? -TheHande 06:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:DOA ayane kasumi.JPG

[edit]

Image:DOA ayane kasumi.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 05:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another image of Kasumi File:Kasumi Devon Aoki.jpg is used elsewhere in Wikipedia but unfortunately you would need to decipher the byzantine fair use rules before you could find an excuse to reuse the same image in this article. -- 109.78.207.200 (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:DOA donovan christie helena tina.JPG

[edit]

Image:DOA donovan christie helena tina.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 05:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another image of Helena File:Sarah Carter as Helena Douglas in DOA - Dead or Alive poster.jpg is used elsewhere in Wikipedia but unfortunately you would need to decipher the byzantine fair use rules before you could find an excuse to reuse the same image in this article. -- 109.78.207.200 (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:DOA kasumi tina christie.JPG

[edit]

Image:DOA kasumi tina christie.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 05:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another image of Christie File:Christie_DOA.png is used elsewhere in Wikipedia but unfortunately you would need to decipher the byzantine fair use rules before you could find an excuse to reuse the same image in this article.
This image might just be the best potential case for reuse in this article. It shows the original video game character side-by-side with Holly Valance in character playing volleyball, and it might be justifiable to use it in the Production section to illustrate the adaptation process, but you still need to decipher the necessary incantations required by WP:NFCC. -- 109.78.207.200 (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Release?

[edit]

This movie dodged the theatres in my country and I had to wait for the DVD before I got to see it. Is there a particular reason why it seemed to only get theatrical release in English-speaking countries? And if there is could someone put it on the article because this just right out puzzles me. -TheHande (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DOA: Dead or Alive. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Production

[edit]

Found a Wizard magazine interview with the main cast at San Diego Comic-Con. The same information was published the magazine Wizard #179, (July 28) pages 56 & 57. The print edition repeated the same three interviews but also included much the same questions and answers from Devon Aoki and Natassia Malthe. I've added some of the details to the Production section. -- 109.78.199.78 (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Budget

[edit]

For a long time the production budget was listed as $21 million. IMDB seems to have been the source of the $21 million budget (but IMDB previously also listed the budget as $30 million. (Box Office Mojo does not list a budget figure.)

I was unable to find any other source of budget figures so I've changed the article to use $30 million as listed at The-Numbers.com. (Seems plausible, the Resident Evil (film) (2002) had a budget of $33 million.) Unless someone digs into the tax records of Constantin I don't think we're likely to get any better budget information. -- 109.78.199.78 (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-)Sequel

[edit]

Many film makers often talk about their desire to make more films if it is a success. This film was not a financial success. As such talk about sequels and spin-offs from before the film was even released are inconsequential and simply not notable.[1] Strange to be adding information about a non-event 15 years later, and although I appreciate the good faith effort to improve the article, a sequel did not happen and there's no point creating a section for a non-notable non-event, so I removed it. -- 109.79.162.227 (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It may still be possible to make use of the comments from producer Jeremy Bolt in some other way,[2] perhaps in the Production section. -- 109.79.162.227 (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poster change

[edit]

The poster was changed without any explanation from what I believed was the original Theatrical release poster (featuring the 3 female leads) to a different poster I had not seen before (featuring 5 characters). Please restore the original Theatrical release poster like the film guidelines say the article should be using. -- 109.76.209.249 (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The poster featuring the 3 leads[3] was changed to a different poster showing 5 characters[4] for no apparent reason. -- 109.76.209.249 (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I feared might happen an aggressive bot blindly assumes the most recent upload it the most valid one and is threatening to delete the older version.[5] The new image should be properly explained or the previous image restored. -- 109.78.207.200 (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No explanation was given for the change. As I said on the image page[6] there is nothing to suggest that that US Poster for the belated US release of this film is in any way "more relevant" (see Template:Infobox film) than the previous poster. If anything the US poster is less relevant because it highlights two minor characters rather than the female leads. -- 109.79.161.174 (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone eventually restored the poster back to the version with three main female fighters. -- 109.78.199.36 (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Decodingw has changed the poster unilaterally and without any discussion whatsover. This image should not have been changed at all. -- 109.79.167.143 (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully the original image has been restored. -- 109.79.167.143 (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR: Please note the Infobox film documentation recommends the original theatrical release poster. In the case of this film the American release came long after the original theatrical release and used a different poster. The the original theatrical release poster features Holly Valance. -- 109.79.175.194 (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian?

[edit]

This film is a German co-production with the UK and USA, according to various reliable sources such as BFI and AFI.[7] The sources do not appear to support any claims that this film is somehow Canadian. Please do not change the country without discussion or without reliable sources. -- 109.77.197.43 (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I have included those sources in the infobox since it seems to be contentious. I also did some clean up, the budget was not listed on The Numbers, removed WP:OR, etc. Thanks, Mike Allen 00:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The editor made the same edit again but did not explain properly. The WP:BURDEN is on that anonymous editor to explain clearly and provide reliable sources. The facts are not contentious, but it can be difficult to understand how the country of a film is decided, based on the financing and not other factors (not the studio, distributor, director, star, location, etc) and to avoid confusion and to try to be accurate and consistent this encyclopedia must depend on what the reliable sources say.
The Numbers did and still does list the budget as $30 million dollars. (See #Budget) If there is still a problem please tag it as {{Failed verification}} rather than removing it entirely. -- 109.77.192.221 (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see it does list it now, it's been added back. The other reverts about the countries is backed up with reliable sources. Mike Allen 15:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The budget figure has been listed at The-Numbers.com the whole time. (Even on the mobile version of the Numbers.com it is clearly listed, I don't know how it could possibly have been missing, or how deleting seemed like a better idea than looking for an archive URL.[8]) MikeAllen deleted a lot more than he restored, including removing the reference I added to address his citation needed request for the first release, a week earlier in Australia (APAC) than the UK. So I restored more text because it was supported by the sources all along.
I have tried to keep the lead section concise, (mostly restoring it as it was before because) the purpose of the lead section is to summarize the article body, listing the production companies in the lead seems unnecessary when the Production section does not even go into that much detail about how this is a multi-national co-production. The countries of record are an incidental financial issue, the usual spreading of risk and presale of distribution rights that happens in modern film making, it does not seem to be a significant part of the actual production of the film.
It seems important to include the first and earliest release date, which as Australia. It also seems important to include the much later US release date. I'm not so sure there is any real need to include the UK or German release dates, I kept them only because the were there before. -- 109.78.196.114 (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not speaking with jumping IPs. You can do whatever you want to this page. Mike Allen 02:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't delete sources. Please try tagging as {{failed verification}} or checking for archive copies before making substantial deletes to stable articles. If you want to make deletes then explain more clearly. If you don't want to make further changes then there's no need to explain. -- 109.78.196.114 (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DOA:_Dead_or_Alive&oldid=1206992057"