Talk:Cube Zero

message: I would only merge parts, afterall the three movies are only loosely connected (cast is totally different each time, as is the philosophy behind it) (clem 20:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote most of the Cube Zero article, and I don't have a problem with this. 205.188.117.14 14:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than moving the overall summary into the article about the first movie, I've created a new Cube series article that describes all three movies and how they relate. -- Bovineone 07:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: If "the first two movies take place entirely within the maze" then would someone mind either explaining the end of Cube 2 or removing this ridiculous sentence? --Charax 22:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge summary of other movies 

message: just wondering. Maybe Sasha didn't put the data what was taken. Besides, they have to explain how the cube evolved from an escape room to a hypercube or if it still even has an escape room. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.94.57.226 (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any news of another sequel? 

message: There were some errors and assumptions made in the traps section. They have been corrected. The comment about the clean sweep not explaining how clothing was removed was inaccurate. The movie clearly shows that a clean sweep incinerates people and clothing, see the 1 hour 20 minute mark when Haskell falls victim to the clean sweep. The scene clearly shows both he and his clothing are incinerated leaving nothing left in the room. Leavemade 02:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traps/Clean Sweep 

message: There needs to be some more "out of universe" information added, like critical reception, filming locations, green lighting progress and such. JayKeaton (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical reception 

message: "Reel Film gave the film three out of 4 stars."  I gave it, and the entire franchise a zero. Jason Palpatine (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stars 

message: I've watched this film several times, and actually just finished watching it a few minutes ago, and some of these statements don't seem correct:
1.  "This movie explains the origins of the Cube and the people who control it."
:Where are the origins of the cube explained?  There are some vague allusions to its purpose, but nothing much about any origin.  Also, as the sentence is worded, it makes it sound like "the movie explains the people who control it."  First of all, that just don't sound good.  Secondly, it shows some people who operate some of it, but it's very clear that they have limited knowledge of the big picture, and even perhaps those above Dodd and Winn have a limited understanding as well.  And do these people really control the cube, or merely operate it?
2.  "he was sprayed with a very strong base."
:Correct me if I'm wrong, but where is it confirmed that he was sprayed with a base?
3.  "A man named Eric watching this in an observation room with his co-worker named Dodd, reveals that it is only a recording. "
:I understand what this sentence is trying to say, but it needs to be re-written.  It's nonsensical as is.
4. "Afterwards, Eric is shown to be sketching a portrait of Dodd (in the form of a superhero called Chessman), whilst playing chess with Dodd, who has a chess board in front of him, which Eric is not looking at, as he is on the other table, just drawing and naming his moves. "
:Long, rambling, poor sentence.
I'm actually going to stop pointing out all the mediocre writing.  The information seems fine for the most part, but it needs to be reworded.  I'll actually take a stab at cleaning some of this up if no one else wants the job.
5.  "His behavior is identical to Kazan, an autistic man from the first movie, suggesting that Kazan may actually be an employee of IZON"
:No confirmation that Kazan is autistic in the first film.  "Mentally challenged" or "mentally handicapped" is about the best we can do.  Also, I think it might be a stretch to say that this scene suggests Kazan was an employee of IZON.  Too much speculation.  Obviously we're supposed to infer that Kazan possibly underwent a similar procedure to that of Winn, but how or why that came about (such as being an IZON employee) is totally unknown.  Patrick of J (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points.  Also, is it confirmed that this is actually a prequel?  It kind of seems like some people merely speculated that this is a prequel.  68.147.192.41 (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Izon" is a name used only in the second film, which also established the existence of "alternate dimensions" containing duplicates of some people.  Since the film's poster (used in this article) does NOT depict the doors as having a stylized capital I (which would be appropriate if the filmmakers wanted to imply Izon was involved), there's really no reason to assume any of these films have a firm connection with one another chronologically...or even take place in the same fictional universe.  The writers have made no particular effort to build a continuity of details, but rather of themes.  Asat (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect / Mis-stated Information? 

message: I don't think the liquid sprayed onto Ryjkin is meant to represent a strong base. Chemical burns from bases quickly start to cause pain (if not as quickly as acid burns). The liquid would feel soapy to the touch and taste funny. Ryjkin thinks it's water for quite some time, licking it off his skin. My theory is the liquid is meant to contain a digestive enzyme of some sort.--Cancun771 (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a base 

message: 1. There are only two buttons in the elevator: UP and DOWN.  2. Dodd does not in any way suggest the Jax eviscerate him; Jax quickly comes up with the solution on his own.  It might also be worth noting that the forehead tattoos on the soldier in Rains' dream and on Haskell (as well as the orientation of the doors on vertical walls in the film) feature a stylized capital "I", 90 degrees different from the image in the poster used for this article.  Asat (talk) 09:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor plot corrections 

message: "This article's plot summary may be too long or excessively detailed." I think this can be removed CRAuser (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag review 

message: Diego Klattenhoff as Quigley is listed in the Cast section, but his character is not mentioned at all in the Plot section.124.37.83.250 (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listed cast member missing from Plot section