Talk:Equilibrium (film)

message: should that be taken out?Soyseñorsnibbles 02:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Synopsis

message: :Image:Vlcsnap-58274.png 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 23:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Vlcsnap-58274.png

message: :Image:EQ4-City.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:EQ4-City.JPG

message: This needs to be expanded. There are several references to Brave New world, 1984, and Fahrenheit 451 throughout this movie. If some are going to be listed, they all should be. Otherwise, just make a note that the film references these books without giving a list of specific individual examples. Whoa2000 (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In order for these references to be included, you should find a source that makes the connection between Equilibrium and 1984 or Farenheit 451. Using just those books themselves would render any literary analysis  original research. I agree that there are a lot of similarities going on, they just need to be sourced. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References to Other Literature section

message: I removed the bloopers section which was added by various anonymous IP addresses over the past week or so. Each item is original research. All of the items which had been added were judgment calls through inference or synthesis. If additional resources are provided which support these observations, feel free to add them back, but please make sure that the sources support the addition. Slavlin (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely support the removal. Just my two cents. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloopers 

message: I remember reading that Christian Bale set a record for most on screen kills (or something along those lines) with this film, I imagine it would have been here or on the IMDb, but I don't see it listed here.  If it's true, and sourced somewhere, I think that would be a good addition to the article.  --24.141.144.157 (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he came in second when the movie first came out (after Ogami Itto) but was since surpassed by Smith from Shoot 'Em Up. Preston is currently number three, accroding to Movie Body Counts. --Koveras ☭ 08:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Record Number of Kills? 

message: In June 2009, this article was tagged as a potential copy from the IMDB, given substantial similarity in the synopsis. Evidence suggests Wikipedia originated the text. This is what their synopsis looked like in October of 2007. This is what our article looked like. It's always good to check these situations, but it seems clear that they incorporated text from us rather than the other way around. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Time for a  template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copypaste

message: Removed the following from the Critical Reception section:
Despite this, Equilibrium has established its status as a cult movie and something of an underrated film. Regardless of the ludicrousness and "mish-mash" ideas of the film's vision of a futuristic oppressive society, many have over the years praised its originality, suspense, and twists in the story, not to mention its sophisticated yet modest approach towards action sequences. One user from the IMDB film website branded the film as an "unexpected pearl." The film received an IMDB user rating of 7.8 out of 10.  In keeping with policy, content that cannot be verified is to be removed, not given a Citation Needed tag.  The section could use some additional content of course, but it must be referenced an sources must be subject to an editorial process (i.e. an individual IMDb user's comment is not relevant and falls to close to original research).  If anyone wishes to revert this edit and subsequently include citations for this text, it would be welcome but please post here why you are doing it.70.127.69.16 (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical Reception Verifiability

message: I like to know in which year the story of Equilibrium takes place. For example the Blade Runner story is set to the year 2019, Surrogates to 2017, Demolition Man is in 2032, I Robot in 2035 and Total Recall is set to 2084. --Solphusion (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of Equilibrium ? 

message: The last line of the plot section states:
All of this means Jim Powney knows nothing
... who's Jim Powney? 81.227.251.80 (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who the hell is Jim Powney? 

message: I don't think this wording is exactly right:
"the film did not return well in terms of box office and was heavily overshadowed by The Matrix (a movie it was compared to directly)"
It makes it sound as if this film and The Matrix came out at the same time - but Equilibrium came out three years later. One might surmise that Equilibrium was heavily influenced by the Matrix in its style and presentation - hence the direct comparisons - but "heavily overshadowed by The Matrix" is surely a tag more appropriate to Proyas' 1998 "Dark City" than to this film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.203.208 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have a point.  I've removed it. Viriditas (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Matrix 

message: Someone has added a comment box saying that Gun Kata is irrelevant. When I was wiffling enthusiastically about the philosophical and dystopian implications of this film, several people said "oh you mean the one with the Gun Kata" so it is clearly an aspect of the film that many people remember (and I haven't seen anything similar in other films).
yewtree (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: . Yes, I agree that the comment box is out of line and should be removed. Clearly it is a relavant part of the movie that deserves inclusion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gun Kata section 

message: It is really, really bothersome to have to give proof that the sky is blue. Sometimes, it would help before reverting to look at the edit and follow the wikilinks.
The flag of the tetragrammaton uses a cross potent. This is, at least in middle europe, an obvious dead give-away to fascism - furthermore, the colours are black, white and red, the second imperial colours that incidentally were also used by the so-called "Third Empire"'s swastika flag.
As the swastika would have been too controversial and could have led to banning of the movie (please, do your homework and check yourself under swastika and symbols of Nationalsozialismus), Wimmer used a lesser-known but still obvious fascist symbol, i.e. the Kruckenkreuz of Austria's Vaterlandsfront. It was declared "equal to the state flag" during Austrofascism in 1935-1938.
And: the use of fascist architecture in Berlin is quite sublime. At least in Europe, the Kruckenkreuz flag (it is more an amalgram of Vaterlandsfront and Nationalsozialismus flags) is really the elephant - "if you should still have doubts about the connection between the tetragrammaton and fascism, here is a big neon-coloured last hint. If you still don't get it, you alas are merkbefreit and we could not help you."
So please just do your homework. There will also be no citation that the sky is blue; and references in a wiki can also take the form of wikilinks. Read those Articles about the Vaterlandsfront flag and Austrofaschismus, compare the flags, and if you want, also add a wikilink to the Nationalsozialismus' Hakenkreuz flag (I found THAT ONE too obvious to mention, but if it helps you...). --Hornsignal (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, reverting your edit wasn't a challenge to whether or not the information was correct. It was purely based on the lack of a citation. Wikilinks are not acceptable substitutions for inline citations. Each article must be able to stand on its own set of references and not rely on a wikilink to another article's reference. Refer to WP:CITE for more information. Secondly, comparing the flags and drawing a conclusion – no matter how reasonable and obvious it might be – can be considered a form of original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Citing a reliable source that supports the analogy alleviates the concern. It also helps us establish the significance of the information as it relates to the topic. Without that verification, it may be a trivial observation that doesn't necessarily belong in this article (see WP:DUE). As for your "sky is blue" analogy, it's an apples-to-oranges comparison. Take for example the statement that "the Eiffel Tower is in Paris". This is widely accepted fact that doesn't require research, and therefore doesn't require a citation. However, the statement that "Gustave Eiffel designed the Eiffel Tower" would need a citation, although it is easily verifiable. It may be hard to see the difference, but the rule of thumb is when you think it may be challenged, it's best to err on the side of caution and include a citation. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tetragrammaton flag 

message: The AV Club reviewed the commentary of this film, which might be helfpul to anyone who wants to improve the production information and comments from the director without having to directly go through the commentary to get all the exact times needed for references. -- 109.76.197.189 (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commentary 

message: When watching this film, we are introduced to the Tetragrammaton clerics and the first thing on our minds is, OK, so four letters. Are these the Hebrew letters? There's no reason they should be, since it's a Greek word, but clearly at some point during this film, four letters are going to come forward as being particularly significant and important to such an extent that almost the entire known world reshapes itself around these four letters. Maybe it's really clever and it's using the primacy effect to bias our expectations like Twelve Monkeys does! Except by the end of the story, I had no closure. Clearly there are aspects of the film that prominently feature four, such as the flag. The film had established expectations that four letters would be significant but by the end of the film viewers are all wondering, OK but first of all which four letters and second of all, why / so what? It'd be like The Umbrella Academy never making any reference to umbrellas (iconographic, functional, metaphorical or otherwise) or The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen being a hodgepodge of arbitrary protagonists none of whom are particularly extraordinary, gentlemanly, or in league with each other. If the clerics are the epitome and embodiment of four letters and somewhere (Director's Cut? Exclusive interview? Stolen diary?) it is recorded which four letters and why, I would dearly love that to be added to the article. It's an unsolved mystery. I bet there's a Deleted Scenes excerpt which explains it but which never made the final cut leaving viewers puzzling over the significance. Enquiring minds want to know.49.195.193.210 (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which four letters