Talk:Demolition Man (film)

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

Plot[edit]

Remove the comma in the following sentence: "The city becomes a utopia run under the pseudo-pacifist guidance and control of the evangelistic Dr. Raymond Cocteau, where human behavior is tightly controlled." What follows the comma is an essential clause.

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit[edit]

Please update the article to note that the lawsuit was settled in 2019. Maybe also add the review of the film by Emannuel Levy from Variety magazine. -- 109.79.72.198 (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please update the section Accounting controversy with the reference https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/sylvester-stallone-de and the fact that the lawsuit was settled in 2019.
Although I'd much prefer if the article was unlocked or set to allowed flagged edits, it could do with a lot of work. -- 109.79.75.247 (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. creffett (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Almost any wording would do which is why I left it to the editors discretion, but since you insist on specific wording, then update the section Accounting controversy by adding exactly the following words:
The lawsuit was settled in 2019.<ref>https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/sylvester-stallone-de </ref>
It still doesn't make any sense that this article is locked. -- 109.78.215.21 (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: - that's a dead link and not archived at the Wayback Machine. Do you have a better reliable source?
 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. GoingBatty (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I must have accidentally cut the link short when I cut and pasted it or when I was adding the comment. Was able to find a working link on Variety.com easily enough: https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/sylvester-stallone-demolition-man-settlement-1203208843/ and this time I've formatted it using a citation template too.
The lawsuit was settled in 2019.<ref>https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/sylvester-stallone-de </ref><ref>{{cite web |date= 8 May 2019 |last= Maddaus |first= Gene |author-link= Gene Maddaus |title= Sylvester Stallone Settles ‘Demolition Man’ Profits Dispute |url= https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/sylvester-stallone-demolition-man-settlement-1203208843/ |website=Variety }}</ref>
Please add to article. -- 109.78.215.21 (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, with a tweaked version of the full reference. GoingBatty (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. -- 109.78.215.21 (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Dahmer[edit]

Should Anachronism#Future anachronism apply here? The writers didn't know Dahmer would be murdered so soon after 1993, let alone decades before 2032. Why they thought Dahmer would be transferred from Wisconsin to California, or why they thought a serial killer would be useful to the film's villain, however... PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@109.79.69.228:, your thoughts on this? PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not something I would try and include in the article, I don't think Dahmer is worth mentioning. -- 109.79.181.29 (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scott Mendelson did mention Dahmer (the anachronism) as an example of how the film has dated.[1] but as I said before it isn't something I'm looking for an excuse to add to the article. -- 109.79.162.227 (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly enough, Scott Peterson, the same name of the man who murdered his wife Laci and their unborn son in 2002, is also listed as one of the inmates in the cryo facility. I also mentioned in the talk page here many years ago the idea of the prophetic nature of the movie (something like 13 separate, accurate predictions made by the movie). While I was making it somewhat tongue-in-cheek, it apparently attracted the ire of a pair of malignant dark tetrad prats, one of them a Wikipedia editor at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.53.20.157 (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Demolition Man 2[edit]

Sequel in early development stage.[2] Stallone Instagram video[3] -- 109.78.202.37 (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but maybe not make second part --89.215.121.220 (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Friendly[edit]

He happened to be the name of the producer for the "Little House and the Prairie" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinmaharaj1 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see Ed Friendly was a producer on Prairie[4], but I can't find anything to show if it was anything more than coincidence. Do you have a source show it was an intentional reference? -- 109.76.134.237 (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganisation[edit]

The article currently contains a short section title "Accounting controversy" about Stallone suing over profit sharing. I was thinking that a different section heading might be better (see WP:CSECTION, for example "Lawsuit" would be simpler and more generic, although perhaps not as immediately informative), or that it should not be a separate section at all, WP:OVERSECTION. I was thinking that because it was about the profits it would be reasonable to include it at the end of the Box office section instead. I'm open to suggestions but if there are no objections or better suggestions I will probably move it into the Box office section. -- 109.78.201.10 (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merged into Box office section. -- 109.79.169.6 (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking maybe the references to Arnold Schwarzenegger might be a better a better fit for the Legacy section. -- 109.79.74.221 (talk) 08:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently includes Taco Bell in the Production/Post Production section, because of the Post production stage product replacement of Taco Bell with Pizza Hut for international markets. I'm happy enough with this for now, but depending on how the article develops and what other sources become available this information could potentially might be separated out or regrouped with the information about GM/Oldsmobile into a subsection dealing only with Product placement. -- 109.78.206.55 (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous editor Special:Contributions/89.215.121.220 made various unexplained changes to the article layout. The anonymous editor did not provide any edit summaries to explain those changes and didn't discuss or suggest any changes her on the talk page. I reverted most but not all of those changes. I did keep some of the extra subsections that editor added/restored (older versions of this article has those kinds of subsections), this might lead other editors to complain about WP:OVERSECTION, but at least for now I'm leaving it that way and maybe the small subsections can be expanded a bit so they aren't so small. -- 109.78.218.56 (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably some of the suggested changes might make sense but the anonymous editor has not yet made any attempt to explain those changes. The anonymous editor needs to at least follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and try to explain the changes with edit summaries, or WP:DISCUSS them here. Other changes such as putting "Legacy" as a subsection of "Other media" does not make much sense at all. -- 109.78.218.56 (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changing "Critical response" to "Critical reception", despite the fact that WP:MOSFILM recommends "Critical response" does not make any sense to me. -- 109.78.218.56 (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Production section still needs more work and I've been thinking about reorganizing it to put the Writing before the director and crew details. Chronologically the script came first, even if it was later rewritten many times. When I've written a little more about the original script instead of jumping in at Daniel Water rewrite hopefully this should make a lot more sense. -- 109.79.69.228 (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at WP:MOSFILM. I have deliberately tried to keep the section headings to generic one word titles ("Development"). I do not want to use subsection titles like "Development and Writing" [5] but I have been thinking about breaking "Writing" into a subsection of its own now that the section is a bit longer. -- 109.79.69.228 (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
my editing is correct--2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:131 (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why you think your edits are correct. For starters why do you think it is correct to change "Critical response" to "Critical reception", despite the fact that WP:MOSFILM recommends "Critical response"? Some older articles do use "Critical reception" but that doesn't make it correct. Some older articles, even high quality articles, do not always follow the WP:MOSFILM guidelines, and I understand why you might follow them as examples but that doesn't make them correct either. If you are going to go against what is recommended by the guidelines you will need to provide a better explanation. -- 109.79.69.228 (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ok for Critical response but how adaptations ? is more right other media--2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:D5B (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, please start your comments on a new line. If you add them on the same line as my comments it makes them more difficult to see, I almost didn't notice you had made a comment.
You need to justify your changes. You need to explain why your change is better. The WP:MOSFILM film project guidelines don't offer any specifics. If you can show examples of Featured Articles that use the headings you are suggesting that might be helpful.
Adaptations is what was added to the article before I even started editing it. Changing it from Adaptations to "Other media" is not any more clear or descriptive, I don't think the change is necessary or is of any real benefit to readers. It is not even that small change of that section heading that was the problem, it was the moving of unrelated sections underneath it for no apparent reason was that was the bigger problem.
The article is now locked, and only registered users can make changes. -- 109.79.65.37 (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

view other pages and you will see that my edits are not so wrong--2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:D5B (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_Target#Release here is Critical reception --2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:D5B (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hard_Target is a "Good Article" not the higher standard of "Feature article" and it was tagged as a "Good Article" way back in 2010[6]. Now I at least understand why you might think it is a good idea to use articles like that as examples but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not how the rules work. Even in the best articles you can find are mistakes or out of date practices. In the past articles used "Critical reception" as a section heading, but those are old articles, the film project guidelines changed and have recommended "Critical response" instead for a long while now. So it is okay for some older articles to still use "Critical reception" but it is not what is recommended and there is no good reason to change an article away from "Critical response" back to using the old style. -- 109.78.209.246 (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other media is use for here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Soldier_(1992_film)#Other_media--2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:D5B (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and legacy is here add https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaws:_The_Revenge#Legacy --2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:D5B (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know you're just telling me WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS right? You have shown me that some articles do it that way, you haven't shown that it is better. You certainly haven't shown any good reason to go against the WP:MOSFILM project film guidelines. I know it is confusing that so many articles fail to follow the guidelines but that is no reason to change even more articles so that they fail to follow the guidelines. That Universal Soldier article is not a good example, it is only rated Start class on the Wikipedia quality scale. Jaws The Revenge is another article that is at "Good Article" standard, but again like the Hard Target article you gave as an example it was judged as a Good article ten years ago.[7] (Also it includes recent changes that look a lot like they were made by you.) I thought maybe you might find examples of Featured Articles that were ignoring the guidelines but you haven't even done that.

I can see some logic in including "Legacy" as a subsection of "Reception", but I don't see any logic or need to include Legacy as a subsection of "Release". If you keep trying to force these kinds of changes to the section headings when the article is unlocked, it is very likely that the article will be locked again, and you might also be blocked from editing for a time. -- 109.78.209.246 (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to accept your changes, you've done nothing except show me you are following the example of old and out of date articles. If you still want to pursue this you could ask for a WP:3RD opinion, and request a neutral editor to take a look. -- 109.78.209.246 (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you will make this legacy in reception ? --2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:25 (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i am with this must have other media and legacy in reception --89.253.139.3 (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

have very people how is right with me ! my edits were returned by a regular user which has no badges and merits to wikiepdia I don't have to read rules I make the rules and they are not wrong also i'm a fan of Stallone I want all its pages in the film to be made in the same way --2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:25 (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

every Stallone main film is with other media not adaptations just here is adaptations very stupid --2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:25 (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You see Marvel Cinematic Universe film list work the same way i want this for too Stallone films same style for all films --2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:25 (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

can i do such a section ? Release Home media --2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:25 (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have caused so much disruption. You didn't follow the simple rules. You ignored the guidelines. You got the article locked. Only then did you finally even try to discuss or explain your changes. You are messing about with section heading in unnecessary ways and are not adding anything substantial, any actual content to the article.
I'll say it again, Go ask for a third WP:3RD opinion if you want to make changes to the section headings. (The third opinion might also tell you they are unnecessary.) We'd both be better off if you could find reliable sources and add some content to an article instead. -- 109.78.211.24 (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

there is no need for a third opinion nobody likes my the edits and they are not wrong I refuse to edit this article--2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:35B (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

many pages practice my style so in some pages you can in others you can't this style so this not make sence for me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_in_Black_(1997_film)#Release --2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:35B (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

my third opinion is wikipedia pages with my style https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_Salvation#Release --2A00:4802:2800:0:0:0:0:35B (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


my friend is right must have other media here--89.253.139.3 (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:3RD opinion process I recommended is to get the involvement of a neutral third party. I do not believe the anonymous ip editor 89.253.* and the anonyous ipv6 editor are two different people, but even if they are just friends I have already asked you to get a neutral third party, and stop your unnecessary edits. -- 109.78.206.55 (talk) 20:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almost exactly the same unnecessary rearranging the article again.[8] Still more than a few dubious and illogical choices. Still largely unnecessary. -- 109.78.202.253 (talk) 05:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of getting a 3RD as advised the editor from above came back and made the same edits again.
Attention should be paid to WP:MOSFILM and WP:OVERSECTION.[9] -- 109.78.196.192 (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The same disruptive editor sneaked the change in yet again[10] without any explanation. A sequel is just a Sequel, it was never "Other media" and it will never make sense to put it there. WP:OVERSECTION still applies. -- 109.79.72.156 (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still at it.(diff) Still making the same sloppy edit and illogically forcing "Sequel" under "Other media" for no apparent reason and without any explanation. -- 109.255.172.169 (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Effects[edit]

Found a good source about the frozen body sculptures created by ADI for the film and 80 more for Planet Hollywood.[11] (Picture of frozen Stallone model via Consequenceofsound.com Entertainment Weekly also wrote briefly about how the live scene was shot before the Stallone is frozen.[12]

The article needs to include details about all the different types of effects, I'm trying to dig up more sources and gather them here before I try to add to the article. Also while I was searching I found a random pic of Jackie Chan visiting Stallone on set.[13] -- 109.79.74.221 (talk) 10:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found Colossal Pictures was one of the companies that worked on the film before they went out of business.[14] and apparently they were responsible for the virtual reality sex scene (a montage of flashing colors and faces, which incidentally was described as about "as erotic and confusing as screaming capuchin monkeys trapped in a rave."[15]). I tried hunting through the Web Archive copy of Collosal.com in case there was any mention of Demolition Man on their website, but didn't find anything. BFI credits Collosal for Additional VFX.[16] -- 109.79.69.228 (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Found some information about a company called VIFX/ Video Image[17] they did the video heads for the video conferencing with Cocteau at least (and it would seem like they did the other video and display screen type effects). VIFX was bought out by Rhythm and Hues Studios in 1999. (Nothing on their old website VIFX.com either. -- 109.78.218.207 (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Leary[edit]

I found a trivia item saying Dennis Leary referred to this film as "a giant piece of shit". I found the source of this statement, and it was in the context of him promoting his 2008 book, and reviewing his filmography for Funny or Die. He calls his filmography in general "some shitty films I did" and in that context calls Demolition Man "a giant piece of shit". He doesn't elaborate further in which ways he thought it was shitty. He mentions that Snipes insisted on doing his own stunts, and that Stallone had a driving range set up and his own golf pro on set. (Tangent: Bullock also mentioned Stallone and Golf in some of her interviews.[18][19])

So while I was able to WP:VERIFY that he did in fact say it, and without context it is amusing and critical self assessment, but in context I don't think it is WP:NOTABLE, or that it should be included in the article. -- 109.79.187.52 (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If any external source considers important to mention it, it can be included. It wouldn't be the first time that we cite a director/producer/writer etc. that criticizes their own work. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 17:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, nice to know someone has read this. Other sources did mention it,[20] but I don't think it is a good idea to include it in this article.
I'm not against including negative responses and when I first read him calling the film "a giant piece of shit" it seemed like it might be something worth including. But in the context of calling his own filmography "some shitty films I did" he's clearly being hyperbolic, and he doesn't give specific details explaining his complaint. It isn't entirely clear if he thinks the film itself is bad (a) or if it was more that it was a bad working experience (b) or both. If we want to discuss all the different ways in which the film was bad (a) we can quote film critics, and if we insight on how it was to work on the film (b) Nigel Hawthorne was more specifically critical about working with Stallone and delays in filming (see sources already in the article).
But hey, if someone really feels it would be an improvement to include Leary's comments in the article, I'd only be weakly opposed to it. -- 109.78.218.56 (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His monologue at 1:25ish is reminiscent of his comedy routines from about that time, and shares some lines with his "Asshole" song. Drsruli (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, and it seems as if the part was tailored to fit him. I would've loved to include something about it in the Casting section but unfortunately I couldn't dig up any suitable sources to confirm what we can both so clearly see already.
Finally found a source "Not only did I get paid a lot of money" ... where Leary says he wrote his own monologue and then it had to go through a long approval process.[21] Guess maybe I could add that under Development/Writing. -- 109.79.181.29 (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article was in the form of 20 questions, questions 17 and 18 refer to demolition man. According to Leary he was hired specifically for his comedy rants so (for that reason and because it felt like it would be in the wrong order chronologically if I included it under Development/Writing) I went and included it under Casting section.[22] -- 109.78.205.154 (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Snipes[edit]

Not sure how best to include this in the article but making note of it here for future use.

Wesley Snipes was asked if he thought his character was just another example of the black actor being typecast as the villain. He laughs, rejects the idea, he doesn't think audiences will even consider it: 

"Man! There's no way the brothers are even going to see me as black. Just look at the character I play — he has blonde hair and two different colored eyes. I'm not a brother in this film. I'm just some mutant."[23]

Maybe I could squeeze it into the Casting section but it seems like too much of a stretch at this point. -- 109.78.218.56 (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In issue 197 Starlog they had an expanded feature with Snipes, and the title of it was "Some kind of mutant".[24] -- 109.78.218.56 (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potential improvements[edit]

So the article has been locked again preventing me from working on it further until I don't know when. I've done most of what I set out to do but there is still more that could potentially be done.

  • Production section would be more complete if it included information about Effects, but finding more sources of good enough quality is also an issue (see above)
  • Production section would benefit from more details about Filming, Stunts, and set/production design, costumes, but again the hard part is finding more sources
  • I'd like to add something about Nigel Hawthorne to the Casting subsection (according to his biography, he only took this role to raise his profile in Hollywood and help him get the part in The Madness of King George [25]) [P.S. Possibly a good enough source[26] but the book would be best.]

and probably many more improvements I haven't even thought of yet. -- 13:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

August 12. I think it was protected due to the multiple IPs edit-warring. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 13:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn't see at first that the lock icon included an expiry date. That's not too long but I expect it might need to be locked again after that.
An anon IP has been persistently changing the section headings in some strange ways but refuses to discuss, see above Reorganization. -- 109.79.65.37 (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Found an article from Variety magazine, where the reporter observed filming of Demolition Man at Wilshire Courtyard which mentions it was an easy assignment because it is (was?) also the headquarters of Variety magazine.[27] The reference from Film Oblivion includes a representative photograph of the location.[28] -- 109.78.209.246 (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I looked for a copy of the Production Notes for this film, but wasn't able to find a copy, but it is clear from various ebay auctions that the publicity materials and press kit did include Production notes (it would be very unusual if a film didn't issue Production notes). -- 109.78.218.207 (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of the other improvements I'd like to make is to include several location images, if suitable images can be found in Wikimedia Commons. There are definitely some images of locations used, but the trick would be to find a good enough picture taken from a suitable point of view so that it resembles what was seen in the film. -- 109.79.89.7 (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, you can request non-free images that fulfill the non-free criteria, as long as they are used for critical commentary. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 17:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, I wouldn't have even have thought to request an image. I found the non-free image policy excessively complicated and have avoided it entirely ever since, I just make the best of whatever freely licensed images are available. Wikipedia needs more words anyway.
I don't think there are any non-free images from the film I would feel strongly about including, except maybe the three seashells, since I think it is perhaps the thing from the film that really stuck in peoples heads. Syfy article[29] includes a screen capture of the three seashells.[30] I'd completely forgotten they do show the three seashells in the film, it is from when John Spartan returns to his apartment, just before he starts knitting, IIRC. -- 109.79.89.7 (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked more for some location images.[31][32]
For Lenina Huxley's apartment building Sunrise Court, aka the Pacific Design Center I've found what I hope is a suitable image from Wikimedia Commons [33] (alternatively [34]) and I think the viewpoint is recognizable enough. (Youtube clips from the film for comparison https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaaE4bCf1UU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhPn1FstfQI&feature=youtu.be&t=75 scene "The first thing I wanted to do was knit" ... Betsy Ross etc.)
For the CocteauEvil Mr Rogers Center, aka Los Angeles Convention Center these images might work [35][36] (for comparison this article has a screencap: [37] this image specifically [38])
The cryo-prison or Metro Detention Center is another possibility but there seem to be only 2 images of it available in commons[39] and I'm still hoping to find better. The 2nd Street Tunnel which was used during the car chase might also be worth considering.[40]
I'm not going to include anything just yet until I find a couple more images I'm happy with. Flickr might provide some good CC licensed images yet. I'd like to include the location images as a horizontal image strip of maybe four images (I can't recall which article I saw that did it that way but it looked good). It might seem unnecessary to mention all this on the talk page but I welcome feedback (even if that means people saying the images aren't good enough and shouldn't be included) and it's good to keep notes if I get hit by a bus (or give up editing Wikipedia again) there might be enough information here for someone else to continue and improve the article instead. -- 109.77.205.42 (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I allowed the idea to ruminate, and eventually added some images. I added the image of the Pacific Design Center a while back, and although the image is not as crisp and sharp and nicely lit as some of the other potential images, the angle of the shot matched the film better than most images. I have also added an image of the Metropolitan Detention Center, which is where the cryo prison was set (there were a few establishing shots and also driving into the parking entrance). Again the image is not ideal but I think it improves the article. I'm still considering adding an image of the Cocteau Center, aka Los Angeles Convention Center, but I'll probably leave it at two locations images because if the article was to include three or more location images I think it should probably use the {{Multiple image}} template, or some other more advanced layout to keep them nicely organised. -- 109.79.81.227 (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Things that might be useful later...

  • Cinefantastique magazine Dec 1993 Demolition Man cover
    • Stallone Demolition Man Filming Sylvester Stallone in futuristic science fiction action, behind-the-scenes. by Sheli Teitelbaum pages 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 27-30
    • The Spec Script Peter Lenkov's script sale-turned-Hollywood horror story. by Sheldon Teitlebaum page 18, page 60
    • Stallone & Snipes The action stars on their science fiction roles. by Steve Biodrowski, page 23, 24, 25 and page 60
    • Cars of the Future At GM, the future is now, but it's sold by Mattel. by Sheldon Teitlebaum page 26, 27, and page 60
    • Sci-Fi Costume Design Bob Ringwood's anthem was "Death to Spandex!" by Sheldon Teitlebaum page 31, and page 60
  • Premiere. [American Ed.] 1993-04: Vol 6 Issue 8 California Sweet page 30. Article about the spec script and the many exec producers
    • Premiere. [American Ed.] 1993-07: Vol 6 Issue 11 Letters includes minor corrections to previous story
  • Radio Times guide to science fiction. London: BBC Worldwide. 2001. pp. 95, 96. ISBN 9780563534600. This comes pretty close to being Sylvester Stallone's best ever picture; A pretension free, futuristic thriller in which he wisely keeps his tongue stuck firmly in his cheek.
  • Starlog Magazine 196 Stallone on cover and interview within pages 27-30 (see also Starlog 195 which has already been used as a reference)

Bits and pieces I hope to use to improve the article, eventually. Other interested editors are of course always welcome to go ahead improve the article sooner. -- 109.76.140.42 (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The spec script saga (detailed at great length by Premiere magazine, and a bit more succinctly by Cinefantastique) explains how the film ended up with all its executive producers (including actor Craig Sheffer which I had wondered about). There are a lot of ins and outs, but the short version is that various people claimed they had rights or an interest in the spec script and it got to the point where multiple lawyers were involved. (Carolco almost bought the script before things got complicated.) Then Warner Bros paid to make it all go away so they could get on with trying to actually get a film made, and various people also ended up getting exec producer credits as a result. That's before the film got rewritten several more times. It is interesting to see the twist and turns of development and yet another example of how very difficult it can be to get anything done. I do think it is worth mentioning briefly but I don't want to put too much emphasis on it as the Production/Development section is already quite long, and even reading it all and writing this attempt at a summary took quite a while. So I'm going to think it over some more and maybe improve other things in the article (e.g. Costumes by Bob Ringwood) before eventually coming back around to it. There's still lots more that can be done to potentially improve this article. Even if you don't plan on editing and improving the article, if you like this film I think you will find the above links worth reading. -- 109.78.199.44 (talk) 04:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC) [P.S. Minor edits, but if I don't sign here the bot might try to sign the post for me and mess with the list above.] -- 109.76.129.3 (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image caption.[edit]

When I added pictures of Stallone and Snipes to the article I did not include a caption because I couldn't think of an insightful or useful caption, and thought no caption would be better than a generic caption. (I did make sure their names were included in the image alt description for accessibility.) I wanted the images of the two leading actors to be in the cast section, and I didn't want to include an unrelated caption.

Without any edit summary to explain the change, an anonymous editor added a very generic caption, listing names and claiming they were praised for their performances. No sources were included to support this claim (although Rotten Tomatoes does broadly support this vague claim I don't think it was something any of the critics were emphasizing.) I think no caption is still better than an utterly generic uninformative caption, perhaps we can come up with a better caption? - 109.79.172.238 (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ethusiastic about a generic redundant caption but if we need to point out the obvious then maybe something like "Stallone plays John Spartan (aka The Demolition Man) and Snipes plays Simon Phoenix" would suffice. That way if someone knows absolutely nothing else about this film they will at least they'd know the title is a nickname for his character and not the villain.
Comments please. -- 109.79.172.238 (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brave New World References[edit]

At 50:40, Phoenix actually says "Such a Brave New World." Drsruli (talk) 09:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are a lot more references too, Demolition Man Makes Recycling an Art The New York Times :
"Lenina Huxley is as literary as this movie gets. Her family name, of course, comes from Aldous Huxley, author of "Brave New World," in which the character Lenina Crowne travels to the Savage Reservation in New Mexico to see samples of primitive humans on display. To the Lenina of "Demolition Man," the unfrozen cop and villain seem primitive"
I was briefly concerned that mentioning Aldus Huxley immediately in the intro of the article might be undue emphasis but the main characters are even called John and Lenina, and references to Brave New World are clearly a recurring theme. -- 109.79.181.29 (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky Demolition[edit]

The article previously included the following claim "The film featured the actual demolition of one of the buildings of the no longer operative Belknap Hardware and Manufacturing Company in Louisville, Kentucky."{{Citation needed|date=August 2020}}"

The article also mentions the demolition of the LA Department of Water and Power building, but I would be very surprised if only one building was demolished during the production of this film. I had no reason to believe the information about the Kentucky demolition was false, but I definitely wanted a reference to properly verify it and more specific. I figured that someone with a copy of the production notes or some other source should be able to verify this but it has since been removed. The article for Belknap Hardware and Manufacturing Company mentions that images of the demolition were used to promote Demolition Man, but it also was not sourced. (The end credits only mention a few locations in the "Special Thanks" section but no mention of Kentucky.) IMDB is not a reliable enough source but it did list Kentucky as one of the locations.[41] Found other mentions of it[42] and I would hope that the Kentucky Film Office would be a reliable enough source.[43] Maybe it can be added back.

I also read suggestions about a some kind of a competition winner getting to visit to see the demolition, something to do with a local radio station IIRC, so maybe someone with access to local news archives for a Kentucky based newspaper might be able to find a contemporary source. That could have been the demolition in LA though. -- 109.76.135.9 (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The implosion of the Belknap building was used as a promotional opportunity for MTV and this film. WHAS11 news looked back (in 2021) on the event https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpEVPWehoHk and so did WLKY News Louisville https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbKMayQWlZk
It appears that Belknap implosion was purely a promotional even and not used in the film, I will have to update the Production section and start a Marketing section or something. -- 109.79.73.26 (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism accusation[edit]

An editor removed some of the text about the Plagiarism accusation and tagged it as {{Better source needed}}. I have concerns about this edit.[44]

If the source is not reliable enough it should be removed. If we are to keep this information, we should try to represent what the source says as clearly as we can. (I think I made some changes for clarity and to deal with the odd translation issues and I think the person making the accusations just sounded a bit hyperbolic to begin with but if I recall correctly I largely preserved what had been added to the article many years before me.) The edit summary dismissed the site as "a blog", but if it was a WP:BLOGSOURCE that would be reason enough to remove it entirely, but when I looked into this issue myself before, it seemed that Origo.hu was a fairly reputable Hungarian media website, and it is certainly cannot be called a blog. I do not think the better source tag is appropriate, again the source seems like a reliable Hungarian media group, and it is an interview with the author making the accusation, so I is I don't think any better source is likely to exist.

I think there still might an argument that this whole thing is WP:UNDUE and that an encyclopedia should not give any attention to a mere accusation, but I did not and would not remove it from the article unless there was consensus to remove it first.

Either we need to bring this back much closer to what it was before or we throw it out entirely. -- 109.76.196.74 (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire: I would appreciate if you could discuss this and maybe we could seek other WP:3RD opinions on it too. -- 109.76.196.74 (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For comparison Home Alone is another film that has been accused of plagiarism. -- 109.76.196.74 (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing this, I do not think this warrants its own section heading, judging from the lack of detailed information about this accusation. It's a detail that's too unrelated to other details about the film, though, so not sure where else it could belong. Maybe as a sentence in parentheses somewhere in the "Development" subsection? I'm somewhat fine with not mentioning it all too. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding your opinion, I was almost going to ping you. Believe me I've given this too much thought, and ultimately, I largely left it alone. The subsection didn't seem too short before, and the source seemed reputable albeit regional. As it was something that chronologically happened long after the film was released, I didn't want to move it up into the Reception section.
Looking at it again a brief mention in the Production section might work but what is really needed to properly detail all the development problems this film experienced may be a substantial rewrite or expansion. If you look above on this talk page the ownership disputes related to this film were something of a saga, in particular there was very long article from Premiere magazine article and a much shorter Starlog magazine article that called it a Hollywood horror story. (That is also why this film ended up with weird list of exec producers including actor Craig Sheffer.) The much later accusation by István Nemere is in my opinion but an afterthought or a footnote to that already convoluted mess. -- 109.76.196.74 (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello 109. The Home Alone example has a reference to a New York Times article covering the accusation, which is a solid source. In this case, the reference is to Origo (website) whose reputation does not appear to be "fairly reputable" based on the article, and is regardless certainly shakier than the NYT. Further it is to a section of their website with "blog" in the URL. More generally, it's an interview. Interviews are acceptable to source opinions but are much shakier for facts. In other words, I wouldn't complain about using the interview in an article on Istvan Nemere, but for this article, it's a tougher sell, other than the bare fact that Nemere *thinks* plagiarism might have happened. I cut the section down because Nemere's claims simply can't be taken at face value, that some Committee said there was "a 75% match to the book" (whatever that means). It doesn't mean anything without it coming from an actual third party source. As you brought up, the whole thing seems like an UNDUE highlighting of one person's whining. The truth is that there is nothing new under the sun and similar sci-fi plots happen all the time without there being any intentional plagiarism, so while the plots are certainly similar, that doesn't mean much. The reason I tagged it as "better source needed" is because it's possible that this controversy might be relevant after all, but only if something other than an interview covered it. I genuinely don't know if such coverage exists, but figured having a short sentence verifying Nemere's claims would be acceptable while waiting for such coverage to come forth. If no such coverage exists, I'd be happy with killing the section entirely. SnowFire (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a little unfair, there are few publications as reliable as NYT (and even they make mistakes, they're just better about owning up to them if it happens and taking editorial responsibility). I included the Home Alone comparison more as a general point that this sort of thing can be included as a small subsections in a film article. That section I pointed to uses some unusual local sources, if it was also mention in the New York Times in another references I didn't see that. Anyway, when I first looked at the website I was concerned that it was a blog, but Origo (website) seemed like a reasonable regional media site (an early 2000's website equivalent of a local newspaper, or metro newspaper) with a good reputation at the time the article was published that later went downhill. But if editors really believe an interview with an author isn't a good enough source to represent that author's opinion, then I would say we should remove it entirely, but I thought it was fairly clear it was all one man's opinion.
      If you read the original article and remember machine translation has probably stripped all nuance, I hope it will become clearer that he went to what seems to have been some kind of local legal or copyright oversight body in Hungary and their judgment was that the works were highly similar. He simply did not have the resources to pursue the case any further.
      I am trying to take the comments from the author in good faith and at face value, maybe I shouldn't. It would be great if we could get a Hungarian person to comment and provide perspective on this before we take the bigger step of removing it if necessary. -- 109.76.196.74 (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought it over and ruminated on it some more. Question: Remove the whole subsection as WP:UNDUE. Yes or No? -- 109.76.196.74 (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. The way it currently reads, I think it would fit best at the end of "Critical response", without a heading. If it's expanded with a consensus source, maybe move it under its own heading under "Production". Just know that Nemere's article links to it. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not critical response and absolutely does not belong in that section ever. It could possibly maybe be integrated into the Production section, but that is a stretch as it came long after the film was released but that probably remains as a less worse option. At this point I'm waiting for enough justification to delete it (although it will probably come back to bite me in the future when I really want to argue to keep something). -- 109.78.206.232 (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, articles can be flexible, Roger Ebert and the loan-out company lawsuit are mentioned under "Box office". Nemere is not a film critic, but he's giving his response. But I trust your judgement, I'm a fan of your exopedian tendencies. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I try to keep things consistent, I don't always succeed. What seems like good structure one day might seem like unnecessary complications the next. FWIW that was an awkward decision too, and I cannot remember exactly but I probably moved the loan out company lawsuit to that section because I didn't think there was enough for a separate "Lawsuit" section. As it was about finances and sharing the profits that seemed like a not terrible place to put it but I'm open to suggestions. I'm probably overthinking it. There's so much more that could be done improve this article (see links above, "Things that might be useful later...") but I'm not much motivated to do any of that either and I've in-real-life things I should be doing.
If there isn't consensus to delete the section entirely then I will probably need to take another shot at rewriting it. -- 109.78.206.232 (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I pulled the trigger and removed the "Plagiarism" section.[45] The section was slashed[46], better sources are not likely to exist (than an interview with author István Nemere accusing the filmmakers of plagiarism), so I have removed the whole section as WP:UNDUE. If editors are interested, there is a still whole other saga about the rights and ownership of the Demolition man script that is reliably sourced and could be used to substantially expand the Production/Development section. -- 109.77.200.34 (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Demolition_Man_(film)&oldid=1217243279"