# Talk:Death Race 2

I am pretty sure this movie is just an excuse to reuse the Death Race sets from 2 years prior.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.51.98 (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC) 
... and the cars. Drsruli (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The deletion tag was added and said that the page was about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content. This is nonsense, the article is about a film. The article also contains many reliable references, and there are many more references available on the internet if people wish to expand the page furhter. The film has also finished filming and is in post production, meaning that it fits Wikipedia's critera that for a film article to be created it must at least have begun filming. Therefore the film deserves its own article. I see no reason why it should not be deleted. The Editor 155 (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of deletion, there used to be a section that contained what cars were used and what modifications and weapons they had and who drove them.
What happened to that? NeoRewerts (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

When was the movie actually released? --Boycool (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a direct to DVD movie, it's release date is the day the movie goes on sale. Uksam88 (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
...Which, according to this article, is in three weeks. --Boycool (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Does the plot really end with him checking up on Katrina? Is there really no Death Race in Death Race 2? --Boycool (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Markus Kane nammed after the recurring Marcus Kane character from Twisted Metal?

1. Filmed entirely on location in South Africa. 
2. Production companies from the US, South Africa and Romania. 
3. WTF is with Australia? This is not Mad Max.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Death Race 2. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100506132528/http://www.collider.com:80/2010/03/01/sean-bean-joins-luke-goss-in-death-race-2-frankenstein-lives-filming-began-today to http://www.collider.com/2010/03/01/sean-bean-joins-luke-goss-in-death-race-2-frankenstein-lives-filming-began-today/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101129023150/http://www.mattsmoviereviews.net:80/trailers-death-race-2.html to http://www.mattsmoviereviews.net/trailers-death-race-2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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) 08:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@AdamDeanHall: Please do not include the working title in the lead in parentheticals. A vast majority of reliable sources don't actually consider this to be an official alternate title, not even the studio, therefore it should not be accorded due weight. Titles, official or otherwise, should comply with WP:WEIGHT and reflect what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, do you mind giving your thoughts on Death Race 2#Reception on this article's talk for a moment? I'm nominating the article for GA, and it appears you feel strongly about this particular section being well written, in accordance with the essay on the matter. So, I thought I'd ask you whether the prose needed some work to meet criteria 1a and 3a. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure, here are some notes:

Great that there is a singular source (Moviehole) offering summative thoughts of the Reception to cite but is Moviehole.net reliable? I would think not, since it describes itself as "a film blog created for film fans by film fans ... We do not receive financial remuneration for our work here, we write purely for fun and the joy of informing others". Best off striking it.
Right, but for what it's worth, it has been used by relatively high-quality sources as a secondary source before, rumor or otherwise; for example:
Total Film (now hosted by GamesRadar+): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]
IGN: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]
Film Threat: [11], [12]
/Film: [13]
I was able to find the moviehole source through Total Film: https://www.gamesradar.com/death-race-3-is-gearing-up/
Being used by other sources is a start but it doesn't confer reliability. It's still an amateur film blog without editorial standing. If a reliable source made those Moviehole conclusions in their own voice or with attribution, that would be those sources staking their own editorial credibility. Several of those Moviehole mentions are about rumors, which we would stay far away from in any publication. czar 23:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
@Czar: And the fact the article's author is Alicia Malone? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
What about it? She's written on film but I don't think this is a case of an expert self-published source, as she's choosing to write in a film blog rather than a reputable source. And their bar for posting is low. czar 16:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I can't find the thread holding together the first paragraph. Is it about overall takeaways? If it was about overall highlights, it could cover (1) highlights—what was the best about it? what were its best moments? (2) comparison to earlier and later works
Half of the reviews therein is admittedly a takeaway; the Winniped Free Press and Arrow in the Head source, for instance
Overall, there's way too much quoting to follow what's happening. It'd be so much easier to just say that XYZ reviewers praised its action scenes for A, B, C qualities. I'm not sure what to take away from the action scenes being "solid" or that the movie "is no Death Race". Think about what a general reader would need to take away from this section.
I think the second paragraph is closer—I can edit it after a few clarifications:
Screen Daily and IGN complimented the casting what about?
Well, Screen Daily says the movie is "well cast" and IGN called the cast "pretty terrific".
note that Jason Statham is referenced earlier in the article without introduction to readers—anything the reader needs as Background should be presented within the same article
Total Film conceded  not sure this verb fits; MOS:SAID
Total Film conceded that he exuded "a skin-crawling, Walken-esque screen presence" while carrying the film "through its more face-palm moments and its videogame cut-scene narrative" what is a reader meant to do with this? alt: Goss's unsettling performance, wrote Reviewer, carried the film through its campy/droll/cring-inducing/awkwardly comedic moments. i.e., give the reader something that helps them understand the POV rather than pulling the box quotes
I think that's a good place to start. There's a lot of good stuff here but I think it can be organized better for the reader. czar 18:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Czar: I really appreciate your input. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the lead and the reception section are accurately representing things when they say this movie got "generally positive" reviews and give an overall positive picture of its reception. There is a source saying so, but there were some concerns brought up about this source during GA review that IMO were valid and weren't really addressed. Furthermore, all other evidence seems to indicate otherwise. Admittedly a small sample size, but 5/6 Rotten Tomatoes reviews are negative. And even just looking at the reviews we use in this article, I would categorize them as:
Positive:

Salon.com
Heavy (website)
Screen Daily
Den of Geek
Joblo
Cinematical
Horror News
Negative:

Total Film
DVD Verdict
AV Club
Exclaim!
ComingSoon.net
Winnipeg Free Press
The Record (North Jersey)
Mixed At Best:

IGN ("There's not a whole lot to love about Death Race 2, but it's not an awful  movie, either")
Dread Central ("It’s not perfect, but maybe … just maybe … it can act as a good precursor  to the Death Race film we all  really want to see")
DVD Talk ("How did Frankenstein come to be? Who really cares, but at  least "Death Race 2" provides a few clenched-fist jolts before  reaching its meaningless conclusion.")
Fearnet ("It's disposable, forgettable, and silly -- but Death  Race 2 is also quite a bit better than what  normally passes for a "DTV sequel."")
Daily Mirror ("Death Race 2 sure isn't likely to be mistaken for classic action fare,  but delivers enough fun for undemanding blokes returning from the pub,  preferably in a state of advanced inebriation")
I don't see how this adds up to "generally positive." Note also that two of the positive reviews come from redlinked outlets, one of which had its article PRODed. I think "mixed" or even "mixed to negative" is more appropriate for the lead. And some rebalancing of the Reception section to reflect that. Pinging User:Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (main contributor / GA nominator), User:Czar (who brought up this issue during GA review), and User:Gatoclass and User:Black Kite (who were involved in a related discussion in DYK/ERRORS. -Elmer Clark (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@Elmer Clark: You guys do whatever the hell you want with the article. It's been exactly a year since the first nomination was rejected and quite frankly I'm tired and burnt out of this process and Wikipedia as a whole. Ciao. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that response, I didn't mean to be discouraging. I wasn't involved in any of the previous DYK or GA discussions and have no insight into those beyond what I've just read on this talk page, so apologies if I've inadvertantly struck a nerve. As the most-invested person in this article, I'd imagine you want to see it accurately reflect a major factor like this (how the movie was received), and you're also probably the best-positioned person to judge whether I'm reading the review situation correctly. You're more than welcome to disagree, and if I'm rehashing something that's already been explicitly discussed elsewhere, please point me there. I'd urge you to reconsider! -Elmer Clark (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
I'd also add that an explicit goal of getting your article featured on the main page is to get more eyes on it to identify potential issues and improve them. So even if I'm right, this isn't you doing anything wrong, it's just the process working like it's supposed to and leading to a better article in the end. -Elmer Clark (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)