Talk:Soldier (1998 American film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comments

\I'm editinf the trivia section to cut multiple refs. PrometheusX303 23:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't thing the word medial is correct (medial=average) I have changed it to menial.

Fair use rationale for Image:Soldier (1998) poster.jpg

Image:Soldier (1998) 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 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) 09:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Todd's name

Does Sgt. Todd have a first name? If not, why not? Perhaps his surname comes from the German word "Tod", meaning death. Bobkeyes (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't both Todd and Caine be first names as well? Muad (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think about it, they were taken as babies and placed into this military unit. They dont have parents, and thusly no surname. 24.18.86.97 (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Reference to extra material shot for the trailer

The US DVD release of Soldier includes the theatrical trailer, which includes footage shot that was not put into the actual film itself (specifically dead soldiers and the space battle at Tannhauser Gate). Any chance that can be mentioned in the article? 195.224.155.226 (talk) 18:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of reference to the battle at Tannhauser gate by IP editor

I've reverted (twice now) removal of reference to the material reportedly dropped from the movie, by an IP editor from a range known to be commonly used by a blocked user, User:Fredrick day. I'm adding a source discussing this, but it's a wiki, so not generally considered reliable, so I've left in the citation-needed tag, because the source could be improved. However, we now have several sources or editors, apparently independent, confirming the accuracy of the text, and that is good enough to allow it to remain. Indeed, the comment on Talk, here, above, indicates the source (i.e., the DVD release), but I'd be more comfortable if a logged-in editor, who is therefore responsible for accuracy, would so place it, and the text can, at the same time, be tightened. It would no longer have to say, "reportedly." It would just state the fact, clearly. Even though this bit of text has been with the article for more than two years, the weasel word "reportedly" would attract the attention of a user like Fredrick day, who is a strict deletionist, following what are supposed to be guidelines, not rigid rules, in place of editorial consensus.--Abd (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the IP editor whom I mention above has made one other edit, and it was a good edit, which somewhat lowers the probability that this was Fredrick day, so, if I have above impugned an unblocked editor, my apologies.--Abd (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes you have - looking at your edit history, you have some sort of obbession with the guy - I have no idea what your problem is, I don't care what your problem is - but just accusing anyone who uses plusnet (which has five million fucking users!) of being this guy is beyond the pale - get a grip. --87.113.38.230 (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... sounding more like Fredrick. My alleged obsession with him is one of his themes. Plusnet, yes. the IP ranges Fd uses are 87.112-87.115. That is roughly 250,000 IPs. How many users? Not sure. How many users who edit Wikipedia? Many fewer. How many users who start edit warring if their edit is challenged? Very, very few. Fact is, when Fd uses one of these IPs, there are very few, if any, other edits. I've now done some extensive review of edits in that range, and my own conclusion is that most of them aren't Fredrick day, and Fd knows that, he knows that range block isn't going to work, too many innocent users. Probably. But many are. This particular edit stood out, however, because most IP editors wouldn't remove unsourced material like that, it's a particular obsession of Fd's, and most IP editors wouldn't know the Wikipedia technical term "weasel words." Far from conclusive, to be sure, but I did not raise the Fd spectre until the IP editor reverted my replacing of the material with a citation-needed tag. I had done what most collaborative editors would do, place a citation needed tag for something doubtful; i.e., assume good faith for other editors, and the IP editor, and which this IP editor most certainly is not doing at this point. There are alleged images of the Tannhauser Gate on Wikia, taken from outtakes, apparently. It is conceivable that the trailer doesn't contain the material, that this part was a mistake, or equally possible that the IP editor simply didn't recognize the images. I've been looking for the trailer itself, they are often available, but I haven't found it so far.--Abd (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Found it. Here is the trailer: [1].--Abd (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The trailer includes footage of battles. They aren't labelled. So how the IP editor knows that they aren't images of the Battle of Tannhauser Gate is now beyond me. The wiki article shows those images as "a possible glimpse of Tannhauser Gate from a deleted scene in Soldier." What I'm speculating now is that there is other source that states explicitly that the scenes were filmed and dropped, and possibly that they were used in the trailer. And given that the IP editor's edit is now impeached as based on what can be seen as defective analysis of his own eyewitness experience, I'm going to revert again, while the search for a source remains. At this point, the cn tag remains, with the Reportedly. Temporary. Long-time Wikipedia practice.--Abd (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Searching for references, I did find a post by a person who claimed to "know" about the Tannhauser Gate, and who did make a statement about the dropped footage. That's not usable as reliable source, for sure, but, given that what is in the article ("reportedly") is true and verifiable, there is little or no harm in the statement standing. The cn tag will be tagged with an expiration date, and if sufficient time passes and nobody has been able to find a reliable source, I assume it will be removed. By the way, the original reference to Tannhauser Gate is one of my favorite movie scenes of all time. Just a coincidence? All this has made me want to see Soldier. --Abd (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

that's the silliest thing I've ever heard - when has it been accepted to use words like "reportly" to get around sourcing requirements. Wikipedia policy is clear and explict on this - it's the duty of those who want something to remain to find sources not those removing it. I've removed it, so you need to find a source for it if you want to put it back in. As for your comments about this other editor - that's your problem and I'm just not interested in getting dragged into it. --87.114.28.10 (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What "policy?" Yes, any editor may remove unsourced material, but there is also a courtesy usually followed: if the material isn't harmful, and if it seems reasonably possible that reliable source may be found, then a citation-needed tag is placed. And then, after a lapse, if no source is found, any editor can take it out. In any case, WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy, and there is a difference. WP:WEASEL is likewise a guideline. The fact is that the text in the article, including "reportedly" can be verified, and there was a source to prove that. This IP user, so far, hasn't mentioned the source which he has repeatedly removed. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not a solo venture. My edit here is in favor of respecting the editor who put it in, enough to give him a chance to notice the tag and find a source. I've also put effort into finding a source, but the chances are good that someone familiar with the field could find more. I found enough to know that, indeed, the claim in the text is common. Someone associated with the production may well have written about it. That is what the cn tag could stimulate. Finding such a deletionist IP editor is unusual, which simply increases the suspicion already raised, as well as demonstrations of familiarity with more arcane aspects of Wikipedia. We'll see what the days to come bring. Notice that I have not challenged the other removal of text by this IP editor because, in fact, it had been tagged for months (at least he asserts that, I guess I should verify it.) But this claim about the footage of the Battle of Tannhauser Gate has been in the article for two years, without a tag. And the IP editor's claim that he saw the trailer and it wasn't there wasn't valid. There are images there which could be from the battle scenes allegedly filmed. Given that the raw fact alleged (yes, with a "weasel word") is verifiably true, I'm standing for leaving it in pending the substantial presence of a cn tag. That's what they are designed for. --Abd (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

can you keep to the point, your slurs and essay length answers are of no interest to most of us. --87.114.140.103 (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Most of us" is a single contentious user. Brief enough for you?--Abd (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

well the only thing of interest is the material was a) unsourced (and no a wiki isn't considered a source) and b) it was removed in line with policy - what more needs to said? It's policy, if you don't like that - change the policy don't whine about it. I've acted within policy, that's the start and the end of the conversation. I'm not interested in your whining, I'm interesting in you providing a reliable source for the information that you want to add - nothing else you have to say is of interest to me. --87.112.16.178 (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not rule-bound; the policy cited uses a weasel word: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." "Largely,". I wonder what that means? Decisions like this are made by editorial consensus, not by individual claims that this or that rule is binding, i.e.,wikilawyering. At this point, we have, on one side, an IP editor we may assume is a single person, and from behavior, possibly a certain blocked editor. On the other, we have the editor who put the text in, and myself. This is not consensus, yet. It may become so. I'm not willing to edit war, even with a probable sock, absent consensus or clear policy application. I'm not the Lone Ranger. What I'm standing for, here, is courtesy, and it is courteous to place a cn tag and provide time for a source to appear before removing material that is reasonable on the face. Given the nature of the text, it's highly likely that a source does exist, somewhere. It could easily be in something published but not web-available. So ... following guidelines about edit warring and editorial consensus, and standing for what I believe to be binding policy (specifically, assume good faith and consensus), I'm not consenting to the removal of the material as yet, without having provided time for a source to be provided. Don't like it, follow Dispute resolution. I don't waste time whining. --Abd (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Which bit of policy are you having problems with: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

Here's a quote used in the policy that might make it a bit simpler for you to understand:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. Jimbo Wales.

If you don't like the policy, you go change it - I'm adding within explicit policy, if you don't like that - get the consensus to change the policy, don't whine at people putting into practice. --87.112.16.178 (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

DVD clarification

Is there more than one version of the DVD available? My copy is double-sided with the wide-screen version on one side and the 4:3 version on the other, but there is no commentary track on either side. The DVD only has the scene and language selection screens. --TheHande (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Budget

The referenced IMDB page states that the budget was estimated. I find this estimate highly questionable. There's one A-list actor, one B-list, and then a bunch of stringers. Certainly the pay schedule wasn't a major budget item. The special effects are extremely cheap looking, and there sets are by no means high class. From start to finish it looks like a low-budget film. So $75 million? Color me skeptical. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. But David Webb Peoples sold "Soldier" in the late 1980s. It was stuck in development hell at the studio for about 10 years. Maybe those costs are factored in. The finished product does look cheap - but that's the kind of director P.W.S.Anderson is. I'm sure the money went somewhere - probably to one of the many producers... Lontano (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Are either one of you people aware that this movie was made back in 1998 and before Phatom Menace which showed a movie could be done with pretty much actors standing in front of a blue screen? This means most of the film's locations and sets existed physically and had to be created from scracth. That costs money. And yes, Russel did probably take a good chunk from the production schedule as his pay-check. The skepticism is unwarranted, look at any other big budget movie from this period, especially the sci-fi ones. And if you think this movie looks cheap it's just that your eyes aren't accustomed to seeing something that's actually there as opposed to something generated by a computer. But not to forget, yes, the CG was hardly cheap to pull off for this movie either. -TheHande (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

chatacter's age

If an infant in 1996 then in 2035 he is 39. So is the year 2045? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.78.232.46 (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1