Talk:Logan's Run (film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Science Fiction Mid‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

Tinnell, Robert (2006). "Logan's Run to Relevance". In Hogan, David J (ed.). Science Fiction America: Essays on SF Cinema. McFarland. pp. 217–224. ISBN 0786421495.

Less duplication, more film-focused

Changes I just checked in to this article eliminated some of the overlap left over from the original spinoff of this article from Logan's Run the novel. The copy editing I did included making the plot summary stand alone from the book. This article is definitely the place for the summary of how the film differs from the book, but the various other adaptations that were described in both articles are now only in the one for the novel. 72.244.207.253 02:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Plot summary is missing some bits

Some mention of the scenes with the cathedral cubs, at the "new you" center (with Farrah Fawcett-Majors) and in the "love shop" are needed. 72.244.206.112 12:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also ignores the encounter with Box, although it is mentioned later in the comparison with the novel

213.120.222.100 (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The plot summary is bloated as is, and at this point needs fewer details, not more. See WP:FilmPlot. Doniago (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Race

What, nothing about here being hundereds of people in the movies, and not one of them black?

Thanks for the hint. I've seen the movie several times but have never realized, that all folks are caucasian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.112.11 (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None are Chinese either. Is this REALLY relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.182.113 (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just watched the film this evening, and there are several black people in it (although none are in prominent roles). The all-white cast rumour is a myth. 86.178.229.219 (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's an American film from the 70's. I'm pretty sure it would have been more unusual if it did have one or more black main characters. (Note: I'm not saying it's right that it didn't, just that it wasn't unusual for the time. If we went around noting every movie that doesn't have black actors in major roles we'd be here forever.) Danikat (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase, "racializing cyberphobic primers available to Generation X," is totally opaque. I assume it's a direct quote from the book it cites, but without context it's just too overloaded to understand. Is "racializing cyberphobic primers" a class of literature? Does it mean "science fiction movies from the 70's?" 68.134.190.20 (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, this phrase is opaque and the Kevorkian book is an obscure reference (a total of 7 reviews on Amazon since 2006). More importantly, having read excerpts of Kevorkian's book, I also would argue his premise (in this instance) is illogical. The actors who played Box and Darth Vader were not identifiable as African Americans. I was around when Star Wars came out and the vast majority of people were surprised to find out the voice of Darth Vader was African-American actor. So they cannot be examples of what Kevorkian deems the "racializing tendencies of cyberphobic culture". Both actors have deep commanding voices and have done lots of voice over work, none of it having to do with cybertech. 74.105.173.199 (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

The Urban Legend referred to is correct.

In the April 30, 1975 draft of the script Francis' death scene concludes with this line:

FRANCIS Logan! You renewed!

And he is dead. DIRECT CUT TO:

http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/logans_run.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.152.223.240 (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The question was whether Jordan said this on his actual deathbed in 1993. Mcflytrap 15:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to add it, but the scene were Francis fights Logan in the outside world was in the United States Senate chamber. Also two of the old pictures were Franklin Pierce and Abraham Lincoln. Can't find a source though. GoodDay 21:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DS Gun

While the workings of the movie/TV series DS Gun are not explained directly, it is clearly a beam weapon. The duration of the flame in the movie varies by as much as one second, which only a beam weapon would do. In the pilot of the TV series, Logan burns an opening to escape with the DS Gun, by holding the trigger and aiming the gun where the line was burned. 64.122.31.130 02:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. The flash/pop sound the gun makes shows it to be a projectile weapon. As for the TV series, that is a different matter -- the TV show established it as a beam weapon, so that they could use a stun setting. But no, the operational mechanics in the film clearly show it to be a projectile firing weapon. --Jason Palpatine 03:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I believe you are mistaken. The flames emitted from the front of the gun are aimed backward toward the shooter, and last for a lengthy period. The pop is clearly associated with the small explosion caused by the beam hitting its target. The prop is actually a very good stand-in for a fluorine-based excimer laser, which at the time were the primary research path for battlefield lasers. I thought this was one of the few accurate bits of kit in the film, but what would I know, having used high-power lasers and all... Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The gun itself was propane lighter. In the movie, it fires projectiles which are named, sort of like the Judge Dredd Lawgiver. Watch the beginning again with the Runner, Francis calls which bullet he wants to use- the homer. The flash/pop is just the propane cartridge being punctured & the propane lit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.49.126 (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The DS gun in the film and TV series was powered by acetylene, generated by mixing calcium carbide and water in the chamber at the back of the gun. The gas flowed into the front chamber, where it was ignited by a glow plug from a model airplane engine. In the film guns, there is a small toggle switch ahead of the trigger to light the glow plug, while in the TV series guns, there was a small momentary switch in the back of the pistol which automatically lit the plug when the gun was held by the actor. Power was supplied by a Gates lead-acid battery in the grip. The "pop" sound was made when the valve opened to let the gas flow. In the book, the gun fired projectiles from an "Ammopac." In the film and TV series the guns were an energy beam weapon, which would fire as long as the trigger was held down. In the film, Logan was unable to hurt Box with the DS gun because the beam reflected off Box' mirrored surface. (Francis is shouting "Runner!", not "homer"). 75.210.2.48 (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're all misguided about the gun's noise. Whatever sound the prop really made, what you hear in the finished film is a sound effect mixed and edited-in during Post Production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Box logan.jpg

Image:Box logan.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:JennyAgutterLogansRun.jpg

Image:JennyAgutterLogansRun.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Holdnew2.jpg

Image:Holdnew2.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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Logans run movie poster.jpg

Image:Logans run movie poster.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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When the lifeclock blinks -- source?

The article currently claims that, in the movie, ones lifeclock starts blinking 10 days before Lastday. I found no mention of this in either the film or the shooting script, and it's inconsistent with the first Runner that Logan & Francis hunted down while Carousel was going on (whose lifeclock was shown blinking). Where does this information come from? -- Rogermw (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

Carousel is spelled incorrectly throughout this article andI can find no evidence to suggest is was spelled wrongly in the film. 81.159.220.177 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the film, this will provide all of the evidence you need. Blackskyshining (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Location of dome city

Is there much of anything published about where the dome city was intended to be? Based on the 1-2 days walk from Washington DC and the ocean location, I would wager this fictional city would be on Cheasapeake Bay, probably near Annapolis, but I guess it's equally plausible that no particular location was intended. -Rolypolyman (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the novel, the City is Los Angeles. In the film, the City's location is not defined. 75.210.2.48 (talk) 05:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its location in the movie is definitely constrained. It's adjacent to a body of water so large that it extends from sandy beaches to the horizon, and it suffers tides (Logan mentions tides by name). It's also within walking distance of Washington D.C. by three greenhorns who never before had to hike through overgrown wilderness. The City is located near to or on the Atlantic shoreline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UNCREDITD CAST

There is a lot of uncredited cast, for example who is friend computer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.182.113 (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Box

Was Box's purpose ever fleshed out, all I could get from the film was that he froze food but they never hinted at why. was he programed to store it for when humans could live out side the dome? was is being shipped to an automatic precessing center to be prepared for consumption. for all intensive purposes he is just standing there uselessly freezing people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.42.197 (talk) 05:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My impression was that he was from an era before food was synthesized, so he was continuing to produce seafood for a market that had long moved on, and over the years his behavioral circuits were failing and he was becoming unpredictable and dangerous. -Rolypolyman (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cats

Old man seems to love Old_Possum's_Book_of_Practical_Cats should it be mentioned in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilya-42 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Embelishments

I think this article is prone to embelishment. Here are a few that I noticed:

I know it's tempting to assume, but it I never notice the movie making it clear that carrousel was about population control. After all, a better way of controlling population is birth control, which has already been implemented. I think it's more likely that the goal is to keep the population young and productive, rather than demanding and parasitical. But that would be speculation as well.
What do we know about the Runners' skepticism? I think the only thing we can know is that they are reluctant to be blown up like they each swallowed an M-80
Was Logan instructed to destroy Sanctuary or just report back?

AngusCA (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The basic premise of the story was that the set lifespan (21 years in the novel) was due to a "critical mass" population. The population is not productive, their needs are taken care of by the City computer, which is why everything comes unglued when Logan wrecks the machine.
We know that the Sanctuary movement has been active for many years, and many Runners followed the path -- only to be killed by Box.
Logan was to destroy Sanctuary. 75.210.2.48 (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that entirely from the novel? In general, I don't think that material from the original story necessarily applies to an adaptation.
Yes, but why? Clearly they don't have faith in the system but the article talks like they've blown the lid off the conspiracy.
Clearly you didn't wait for the movie. Could you be confusing material in the book to what's in the movie? I guess next time I'm laid up I'll watch the DVD AngusCA (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of how the life clock works needed.

From the article on the book: "In the world of 2116, a person's maximum age is strictly legislated: twenty one years, to the day. When people reach this Lastday they report to a Sleepshop in which they are willingly executed via a pleasure-inducing toxic gas. A person's age is revealed by their palm flower crystal embedded in the palm of their right hand that changes color every seven years, yellow (age 0-6), then blue (age 7-13), then red (age 14-20), then blinks red and black on Lastday, and finally turns black at 21.". Doesn't explain this in the article. 86.139.41.73 (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that isn't relevant to the film's plot. DonIago (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Logan's Run (film). 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 06:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Remake" not supported by the rest of the article.

Hello there.

As per WP:LEAD: "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight."

The point is that there is a claim in the lede of this article that is not supported by the body of this article. The lede is supposed to summarise the contents of the article itself, and the only mention of any kind of remake is in the Legacy section whcih states "In 2000, ideas for a film remake centred on a more faithful adaptation of the novel, restoring Crazy Horse Mountain and the sky gypsies." - this does not match the claim made in the lede by any stretch.

Either the sentence should be removed, or the remake section should be relocated into this article itself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Logan's Run in Dallas.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]