Jump to content

Talk:Max Payne (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleMax Payne (film) was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 23, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
June 6, 2009Good article nomineeListed
June 23, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Noir Film???

[edit]

Shouldn't this movie be classified as a "noir film???"(LonerXL (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Plot

[edit]

I don't think the plot has been detailed as much as the article's plot summary says. The current text offers no source. Can anyone confirm? Cbebop007 (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mm did a special page exists for the max payne payne and redemtion controversy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.181.102.3 (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section needs to be rewritten, it looks like it was written by a fourth grader —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.54.8.46 (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Characters

[edit]

IMDB lists Nelly Furtado's character as Christa Balder, and since the actor playing Balder is Irish and the Furtado is far from it, I'm guessing they aren't siblings. Ergo, stop changing it to "Christina Balder - Alex Balder's sister" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.69.202.115 (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no citations offered for either the plot synopsis or the cast list which leads one to wonder if some of this is just wild speculation? IMDB verifies only a portion of the cast list on this page and I have to wonder where the rest of the information is coming from. At the moment this page is of really questionable reliability.

Maybe the cast list should be pruned until casting can be confirmed? I won't do it given the possibility that the info here COULD be legitimate but some sources would be fantastic. Casshernfan (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know plenty of the listed cast to be false. Kevin Corrigan, John Moore, Sam Lake, Yvonne McQueen, R. Lee Ermy do not have parts in the movie. I've tried to correct this before but its inevitably rolls back.

The plot, though not precise, is mostly correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by St apathy (talk • contribs) 16:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now it appears that Alan Dale is in the movie, hmmm. It would appear that the person to add this *unverified* information has had numerous vandalism warnings and yet when you removed the name it was, as you said, rolled back for no good reason. Maybe a lock should be requested until the entire cast becomes official because this page is running out of control.

Here is possible evidence that Alan Dale is not in this, as of April 2008, according to imdb, he has been in a west end production of Spamalot. Casshernfan (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. And can the cast list be trimmed beyond the IMDb list, I don't think all the actors have to be listed at this point. It should be limited to WAhlberg, Burton, O'Donnell, Kunis, Bridges, Ludacris, Logue and Nolasco. As those seem to be the principal actors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by St apathy (talk • contribs) 17:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Corigan and Sam Lake's credits have been removed from IMDb. Since all other sources refer to that page, i'm going to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by St apathy (talk • contribs) 15:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several recent unverified additions. If they cannot be cited they should be removed. Rumours or speculation is not good enough. Casshernfan (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few editions based upon the recrntly released trailer. Hope that's alright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by St apathy (talk • contribs) 16:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone keeps deleting the entry for Olga Kurylenko. Seriously, knock it off. She's seen very clearly in the trailer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by St apathy (talk • contribs) 18:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has also taken to alter the character descriptions to those of the game. It might be prudent to cut the descriptions altogeather. —Preceding unsigned comment added by St apathy (talk • contribs) 18:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who I thought was Peter Gerety turned out to be Beau Bridges, the angle fooled me. I'm omitting that credit, since there is no citation for it anyway.

Who I thought was Peter Gerety turned out to be Beau Bridges, the angle fooled me. I'm omitting that credit, since there is no citation for it anyway. St apathy (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was led to the following link which evidences Kurylenko's involvement, if you want to reinstate her name under Cast:

http://www.gamesradar.com/f/max-payne-the-first-great-videogame-movie/a-20080804113823281022/p-3 --Casshernfan (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will. St apathy (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Necessary Information?

[edit]

A quote from the first paragraph:

"in spite of the fact that both of the games in the series were rated Mature (suitable for ages 17 and up) by the ESRB"

Is this really necessary here? I'm reluctant to remove it because it does bear some importance, but it's sketchy, especially from the point of view that the classification system for games and movies differ. I leave it up to you, but personally I think that it's just a bit irrelevant here Casshernfan (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed it a bit, but if you really it is unnecesarry... —Preceding unsigned comment added by St apathy (talk • contribs) 16:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The trimmed iteration should be fine. Someone recently restored rumblings of the GamePro report and expanded upon the rating issue even further, feeling this impertinent I restored the paragraph to the more fluid and to-the-point one that had preceded it. Casshernfan (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion in article

[edit]

This was in the Article:

==unfairness==


20th Century Fox, the supposedly omnipotent evil megacorporation behind this film have proceeded to try and destroy a film entitled "Max Payne, Payne and Redemption" that was in the works for the past few years, this has been a terrible blow as many fans have been anticipating Payne and redemption long before Fox got their grubby hands on the franchise, they are threatening to sue Fergle Gibson, the man behind this non profit film made for the fans with a fantastic group of actors due to the fact that they think they will be threatened by the release of the free version, this is something many people are campaigning to prevent as Payne and Redemption already looks a lot better than any PG13 wannabe film that Fox have ever churned out in an attempt to make a quick dollar.

This is an opinion, not fact. So keep it out. If you want to put information in there regarding actual facts, go for it. AllTeam (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for use

[edit]

New Composers Announced

[edit]

According to a blog on their myspace profile [1] the seemingly little known group Metsuo will be preparing a number of original tracks for the movie. Perhaps someone can add this to Production as appropriate, I understand that there may be issues given the source. --Casshernfan (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This actually seems legitimate. The founder of the band, Stephen French, is an acquaintance of the director, John Moore, and has worked on other movies of his: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1152250/ 77.115.157.122 (talk) 10:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So now someone's added "4 tracks by Metsuo" to the article, and while the Metsuo link looks legit, I see no reference anywhere to 4 tracks. Also, another composer was added, Buck Saunders. I think I'll remove that one straight away, as a google search for "Max Payne" "Buck Saunders" only brings up this article! 77.114.116.120 (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a marginal possibility that members of the group (or clued in fans?) added some information, I noticed that someone registered with a group-member's name made edits to the Metsuo article. That's potentially where the "4" arose from. We will know more as more information regarding the music is released anyway. It is certainly reasonable to remove the Buck Saunders reference --Casshernfan (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dug around a bit more, Amazon lists the Poland Mirrors album, the interesting bit is that there are seemingly two slightly different versions:

1. http://www.amazon.com/Poland-Mirrors/dp/B001FEM4KY/ref=dm_ap_alb1 - has the album titled Poland Mirrors

2. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001FBF1RU/ref=dm_sp_alb - titled Poland Mirrors/Max Payne, has three of the tracks labelled with "Max Payne OST", track 3 is titled Meet Natasha (that's the name of Kurylenko's character) instead of Forgotten Toy (probably the same track though, note the identical runtime). This would match up with the claim from the Metsuo article. Not exactly the best source, so I think the citation request should stay. 77.114.179.203 (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I never thought of checking amazon, good job, and agreed on the citation request. Cheers. --Casshernfan (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon now has the score available for preordering: http://www.amazon.com/Max-Payne/dp/B001FWPY0I/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1222153900&sr=1-1 Looks like the enigmatic Buck Saunders was a typo for Buck Sanders. Googled a bit and found lots of other references. I'm adding him to the article, I'll get around to posting a reference tomorrow (too tired and sleepy now).77.112.44.159 (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Required

[edit]

I think that some careful editing may be required for this article in order to remove excess elements and improve accuracy etc. The Trailer section seems to me to be highly unnecessary and the R- rating section too seems both trivial and misleading--they could be at least integrated into Production. The article for The Fountain for example offers the perfect reference point to follow----Casshernfan (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rating - conflicting informations

[edit]

The article have conflictiong information about this film's rating. In section "production", there is this thing: "The film will be rated PG-13 in the United States..." while there is this thing in the section "rating" "Max Payne has an unofficial rating of R by the MPAA..." well, which one is actually true? --89.24.67.231 (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was shot as a PG-13 but has a possibly preliminary R-rating, I edited the page so that the issue is laid out more clearly.--Casshernfan (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

[edit]

I'm removing section for now, the IGN reference doesn't really belong in it. Anticipation doesn't equal reception. Also, no link to the article was given. 77.115.17.230 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created a section, now that reviews are starting to flow. Bingggo (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any reason to delete the first review comments and replace them with one review comment - many film pages have multiple comments. I did contract the previous comments though Mlif Revol (talk) 11:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trailer section

[edit]

I think this needs some cleanup. There are multiple versions of the trailer, not just two. They also have semi-official markings - "Trailer C", "Trailer D", "Trailer E" et cetera - currently I'm not even sure which two versions this article talks about. Also, there's now a comic-book-styled preview called "The Beginning" (http://ve3d.ign.com/videos/36745/PC/Max-Payne), which imho really deserves mention. 77.115.17.230 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can this article be used more? It's already referenced, but it has more information in it: http://www.gamesradar.com/f/max-payne-the-first-great-videogame-movie/a-20080804113823281022

Especially this paragraph. This clears up a lot of what people have been arguing about:

"He’s hell bent and – judging by the twisted nightmare-visions of winged gargoyle beasties – possibly hell bound...

“The hallucinations are a side-effect of this drug that’s been leaked onto the streets,” says Wahlberg. “A lot of the conspiracy comes from that: Max finds out that it’s a drug tested by the military to create super-soldiers, but someone has flooded the streets with it. It makes crack look like chocolate. He has to take it to keep up with the fight. But yeah, there’s a definite theme of Max fighting the devils inside. There’s a lot of action in this movie, but there’s also plenty of emotion and psychology. It goes pretty deep.” " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbo king (talk • contribs) 01:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know what the songs are in the trailers, and shouldnt they be credited? (24.42.110.17 (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

As far as I am aware it's track 1 "If I Was Your Vampire" by Marilyn Manson, off the Eat Me. Drink Me album. Also used in the Body Of Lies trailer I think... Correct me, go ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thejux (talk • contribs) 02:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of Similarities to the Game

[edit]

Is it really appropriate to suggest that this movie is related to the game, when the only similarities are pretty much names? Further, can any sourced criticisms of this "Boll-ism" of the game? Whenever I see the trailer, or read about the plot, I think about how Harry Potter fans would feel if the next Harry Potter movie involved the young wizard and his prostitute lover Hermione hunting down the Mexican drug cartel that killed his wife, Ginny. 76.87.171.192 (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of similarities between the plot of the movie and the games. And even if it wasn't, the producers bought the rights to adapt the video game, so they could have made a completely unrelated plot and it would still be the Max Payne movie. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that we should change the article to hide that is an adaptation of the video game. --122.148.210.58 (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comments before replying. I never said we should just remove something I didn't like. If I felt that way, I would have edited it myself. Even if there were plenty of similarities between the movie and the games, numerous wikipedia pages on topics like this have sections on similarities/differences from the source. I was suggesting that based on that, and that it would be beneficial to the quality of the article, a section on how the movie is similar and different from the game should be created and expanded upon. I would contribute, but I didn't waste money to see this movie, and based on the reviews, I was wise to do so. I'll help with the video game portion, however. 76.87.171.192 (talk) 04:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews aren't anything. There are plenty of movies that got bad reviews and are considered great movies. Bottom line is; make up your own mind, don't let someone else make it up for you. --Shaoken (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was watching the movie the other day and I was wondering, does anyone know why the drug Valkyr was green in the video games but blue in the movie? It just seemed like an unnecessary change to me.66.41.44.102 (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming the Plot section

[edit]

As it stands there is too much information in the plot summary. Also, as I was going over it I found quite a bit of it was wrong. I took the liberity of shortning it to get rid of everything that wasn't needed as well as removing the comparison with the Video Game, since it was poorly written and lacked sources. Now before we go on an edit war I suggest we talk about what needs to be done right here on the article. --Shaoken (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually believed what you just typed, you would have started a discussion about the plot. Instead, you made your own edits without consulting the other editors, and attempt to label anyone who does the same as starting an edit war. I'm reverting your changes back by the same boldness you have shown, so a discussion can be made on the page as it is. I agree with you on the plot section, but for the video game references, the video game is a suitable source. Remember, on wikipedia, it is always better to improve a section than to delete it.BigScaryGary (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the plot needs to be corrected but do we need to keep deleting it? Something is better than nothing. The one that is there is mostly correct, just needs to be tightened up. Peppage (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The plot may be a bit convoluted, but the idea is that the plot summary should be long enough that the reader doesn't have to go out and pay money to find out what happens. I'm glad so many editors are working hard to keep this page encyclopedic, and feel that these sections are beneficial BigScaryGary (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, my internet keeps bugging out on me so this is try numero tres to give you guys my thoughts. Anyway, the problem with the article as it stands now is that it neglects to mention a lot of important facts (like B.B. being Aesir head of security and Max's father's old partner, the opening sequence, the fact that the article doesn't mention what happened to Lupino, how the article implies Lupino was the only test subject, ommits Niccole Horne completely, omits Mona's part in the final battle, etc. etc.). The video game bit could use some rewording so it reads better as well. I'm partial to my version of the plot summary since it covers all the bases and doesn't neglect to mention important plot points, but of course I'll leave the actual decision making up to you guys. --Shaoken (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I wrote the new plot but it was just suppose to be a more well written starting point. I hope everyone can add all the little details because I know I don't remember everything.Peppage (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Video game references

[edit]

Don't undo my edit with out reasons, like was done on the section "Video Game References" (which shouldn't be capitalised per WP:MOS (capitalization) anyway). Apparently some users are not familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines or the guides on film articles. It was unreferenced and probably original research. A section that draws a comparison between the film and video game is not appropriate for Wikipedia altogether. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 12:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm maybe you should check the list of movies adapted from games on this site- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_video_games half of the movies I checked have a section on references to the original game and some do not. I saw one that had no sources but instead of edited out it was just tagged with a warning that it may need sources or what not and directed people to discuss it in discussion. I do not think it is appropriate for you to just remove the section altogether without a discussion on its relevance. If you feel strongly about your stance then contact an administrator and see what they think after going through the website I provided and checking the number of sites where the sections are currently present. I am going to undo your edit but erase all the text since it has no sources. Editing helps to better wiki but instead of just editing away to your own content, maybe you should find the some sources yourself or allow others to do so. Will rename to Max Payne references and you should refrain from needlessly editing and allow people to contribute as the movie was directly adapted from the game, and should have the references there for people to find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.71.252.77 (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Section removed; articles do not include empty sections. As for the templated sections, unsourced material can and should be removed. --Ckatzchatspy 17:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thans, Ckatz. Anyone who wants to find the sources can redo the section, and that's it. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 18:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. Soet, you can't just vaguely claim something is OR and delete it because you don't like it. In wikipedia, when one work is based on another, the base work alone is a sufficient source. If a work is based on a book, the book is a sufficient source for a comparison. If a work is based on a video game, the video game is a sufficient source for any comparison. If the video game which this movie is based on doesn't qualify, then what do you require? Screen shots of the game? Court depositions where the developers swear on their mothers' graves that something in the movie ties to something in the game? People who played this game and saw this piece of crap movie are working to show others how the two tie together. If you want to show that part of the section is verifiably false, then you would be right to delete it. If that leaves the section empty, then you would be right to delete that. But if you're going to just say that something is original research without explaining why, that doesn't allow other editors to contribute to the page. I'm reverting your changes until so you can have another change to work with the other editors. BigScaryGary (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I have this solved for now. I've added in a section that lists the differences between the game and the movie. This is implicitly sourced from both works, and does not constitute Original Research. Admittedly, this could obviously use some polishing, so I would appreciate any beneficial contributions other editors can offer. This section adds to the encyclopedic value of the article and should be refined rather than removed. BigScaryGary (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, BGS, I don't vaguely claim it is original research: it isn't sourced and that is all there is to it.
It is still original research, since it was you (or another Wikipedian for that matter) that made the section and drew the comparisons between two. We Wikipedians can't write such sections or make such claims, unless a valid source has written something about it. Please take a look at the corresponding policy. Also, Wikipedia is not the source for itself, so even if you think it isn't original research because you checked Wikipedia, you're wrong.
Find a reliable source, then it can be reinserted. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 09:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like 72.71.252.77 wrote, I am mistaken that isn't suitable for Wikipedia, but I am definitely not that it should be sourced. Check out Resident Evil (film)#Relationship to the games to see what a good referenced section should look like. For now, I'll add the {{original research}} template to the section. If not sourced soon, it still should be deleted. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 09:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing the article could be very difficult to do, however, since one must actually play the game and the only source of that may come from the game itself. It's not original research if the source material is the game, but how does one cite the source material itself? I suppose it'd be like citing a book. Either way, you should be patient with the article, and not treat it with a wrecking ball because you percieve Wikipedia's Guidelines differently from others. Payneos (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've sourced the article per your example and removed the OR tag, and to avoid confusion, I'm going to talk about each point for this section. Rather than place overall tags or arbitrarily delete things, let's discuss it piece by piece to determine where we differ.

This movie was based on the video game of the same name. I don't know if anyone is requiring sources regarding that, and frankly, other than the link to the wiki page for the game that includes information about the movie. Other than that, I don't really know how we will go about citing that statement. There's a joke about wikipedia that you could say "There are five fingers on the human hand." and someone would remove it for being OR if not cited. If the sources need to be clarified, then we should work on that. However, I don't feel it's appropriate to jump to OR claims if the connection between the movie and game are less than obvious.

The video game Max Payne is a valid source. Per wiki rules, it qualifies as a primary source, which means that in the context of a fictional work (as are the game and film), it is sufficient to for any factual statements, so long as analysis or interpretation does not take place. This section consists of The movie has fact X, while the game has fact Y and this combined presents fact Z. As no analysis takes place, the video game being the source is sufficient. Further, the video game is a verifiable source. Anyone can play it to verify for themselves if something in this section is false. As this section now has an explicit link to a verifiable source, it now meets the basic wikipedia criteria for being included. If someone wants to counter with additional criteria, I argue that the policy to ignore all rules is enough to warrant this section's inclusion.

Based on the above, I argue that the debate about Original Research no longer applies. Any future issues are related to either proper sourcing, or facts being verified to be false. Any additional tags about this are inappropriate, and any questions should relate to the parts of the section, not the section as a whole.

There are numerous editors here who seem to care about this page, all of varying levels of experience. This is desired. It's easy to delete something or place a tag, but this doesn't foster constructive editing. Granted, not everybody should be required to add content, but if those users would explain how to fix the problem, it not only works to improve the page, but also improves other editors' opinions of you. Saying "Here's how this can be approved," or "Doing this will remove any question of original research" is far better than "I've deleted this section. The end" or "I'm placing a tag - if you don't fix the problem, it will be deleted".

I admit this page is far from complete, so please feel free to improve or discuss improvements to anything on the page. However, let's get rid of any talk on hastily removing things that have the potential to improve the page, okay? BigScaryGary (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, BSG, working on a solution is better than arguing.
Haha, the be bold argument always wins! But the problem still is that a user can't verify the material. In that case, pictures (i.e. Max doesn't have his psychotic grin in the movie or doesn't wield his signature two handguns) or parts of the script (see Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty#References for appropriate uses) can be added. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 10:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I can understand where you're coming from. In my opinion, I think your criteria would be beneficial, but I think it is excessive criteria for inclusion. That is, if I were to say that in the video game, Max doesn't meet Mona until after he kills Jack Lupino, a screenshot showing this would certainly be beneficial, but the lack thereof should not constitute removal of the statement. That claim may be difficult to verify to someone who doesn't have access to the game, but the fact that the game is available and anyone who can play it can easily verify the above claim, should be enough for the statement to be included. Plus, the nature of the source does make it difficult to easily verify for those who don't own it. Therefore, I submit that the video game be considered a primary source, that any claims made based on it be considered valid (so long as they are verifiable to those who can play the game). I also submit that any claims backed up with a secondary source, such as a screenshot or interview that can easily be verified, take precedence. Soet, I'm glad to see that you have chosen not to replace the OR tag, and I thank you for it. BigScaryGary (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, Mr. Gary. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 19:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norse Mythology

[edit]

As I see it the people that write Max Payne are really into Norse mythology. I just took out all the wiki-links to the Norse pages because they are only semi relevant. While some of the information is from Norse mythology the people's wiki-linked last names and incorrect spellings don't match up to the pages they were linked to. Such as the spelling of Ranga Rock, it is spelled like this in the movie on purpose. Also Woden's name has nothing to do with woden and the drug Valkry has nothing to do with valkyrie so no need to link them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peppage (talk • contribs) 05:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Game comparison photos

[edit]

Should behind the scenes photos or comparison photos to the game be added. There is a good one of Wahlberg and Max standing next to each other showing the similarities. http://www.gossipsauce.com/files/gs_max_payne_081017_m.jpg and http://hardlabs.net/uploads/posts/2008-03/1205783780_mark_wahlberg_max_payne-130308.jpg - Peppageblather 02:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No point, the movie wasn't well received amongst fans, not even in general, i doubt many would be interested. Besides, comparison photos would make sense only if they represented notable differences between different entries in the series, or between notably different versions of a same entry. Dloffakcs Noino (talk) 10:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMS B-class assessment

[edit]

Per a request at WP:FILMS assessment department, I have looked over the article to determine if it meets the B-class criteria. The article is close but needs a few things fixed:

  1. Images File:Maxpaynescreen1.png, File:Maxpaynescreen2.png, File:Maxpaynescreen3.png, File:Maxpaynescreen4.png all probably do not need to be included in the article. Looking at WP:FILMS guidelines for non-free images, the screenshots can only be used if they are used "for critical commentary and discussion". For example, the first image likely needs to be removed as it is mainly decorative and doesn't have critical commentary talking about the image. Of the four images, the second image could possibly be used if the production section touched more on the bullet time and the caption detailed the filming process further. If you'd like examples on images that meet the criteria, take a look at some of our current A-class/FAs.
  2. "In pre-production it took eight weeks to build the set for the Aesier Headquarters and after that it took another week for the special effects team to install the squibs." Single sentences shouldn't stand alone as it breaks up the flow of the article. Either incorporate it into another paragraph or expand on the information present. Fix the other occurrences within the article.
  3. "Shooting the film in 35mm 3-perf[10],..." Inline citations go directly after the punctuation (",[10]" or ".[10]"), make sure to fix any other occurrences within the article.
  4. Add a source for the last statement in the production section.
  5. I'd recommend moving the cast section after the plot section and before the production section.
  6. Section titles should have the second word lower-cased, so change "Home Media" to "Home media".
  7. The article needs some further information. Consider covering the differences between the video game and the film, any awards it may have received, soundtrack/score, etc.
  8. There are two citations that either should use a citation template or include all details of the author, title, access date, etc. just like the other citations.
  9. For further instructions, take a look at instructions for Start to B-class.

Here's a few more articles that can be used:

If you have any questions or need further clarification on anythign let me know on my talk page. Once the above issues have been addressed, re-nominate it for assessment and another look will see if it's ready for B-class. Good work so far, the article is close to B. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"game's opening scenes"?

[edit]

"game's opening scenes being instead placed in the middle of the film" - what scene does this refer to? Шизомби (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The scene where Max is walking through his house reliving him coming home to see his wife being murdered. In the game you sorta play through it like a dream but in the movie it's when BB is explaining what happened to Jim Bravura. Peppageblather 13:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"elements of supernatural"?

[edit]

I'm confused that this page says the film includes supernatural elements. Well, it doesn't. I thought it was very, very obvious that the demons were supposed to be part of the hallucinations. In fact, there isn't a single suggestion otherwise, in the whole film. I don't think that's really a relevant point to make. In fact, I think the whole paragraph under "Differences between film and game", beginning with "many people were confused by..." should be removed. It doesn't say at any point in the film that the demons are supposed to be Valkyries, or anything other than drug-induced hallucinations. From what I can tell, there isn't a single element of the supernatural in the whole film. 86.163.4.105 (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Max Payne (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) 05:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Max_Payne_(film)&oldid=1208882841"