Talk:XXX: State of the Union

message: The plot section of this article is so horribly written that it'd be funny if it wasn't so sad. I'd do the rewriting myself, but I'm no good at writing movie/story synopses. Spartan198 (talk) 06:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: @Spartan198 154.80.30.100 (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Section Badly Written 

message: its a good movie actually(for action-fanatics like my self) the only problem a had with this movie was its moral at the end of plot i am asking my self those criminals saving the country and the presidents life from a potentialy iron rule, i cheered for the general "alleged bad guy" the general just wanted to make U.S little bit machoer for the sake of the greater good the president was too pacifist (funny-idiot) a politic to to scare those criminals (wich are the heroes yeah right! "alleged heroes") just as the main character qoutes "The Fate of the free world in the hand of a bunch of hustlers and thieves" those so-called heroes gonna return to making our life a living HELL, and all this suffer now so just we can enjoy our full-time freedom and life later with ABSURDLY focused on style,trend,fashion and what would the critics say about the new thing, SCREW THIS queerish-democracy i know i'm not perfect, so anyone who encounters this is welcome to counteract my views
Wikipedia isn't a forum, so henceforth Wikipedia isn't about your views. Spartan198 (talk) 06:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bold 103.159.75.157 (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie opinion 

message: No...Just no...It's a terrible movie, that's terribly written.  If anything, the poorly done plot synopsis is better than the actual movie.  Having Xzibit turn this article into a rap video would make for a better movie.  If you consider yourself an action flick buff, go watch Die Hard (again, if you really are an action buff) and then try and argue this is a good example of the action movie genre.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.106.30 (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "its a good movie actually" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on XXX: State of the Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081211134008/http://www.rottentomatoes.com:80/m/xxx2_state_of_the_union/articles/1384898/just_what_we_need_a_chubby_surly_incomprehensible_action_hero to http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/xxx2_state_of_the_union/articles/1384898/just_what_we_need_a_chubby_surly_incomprehensible_action_hero
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on XXX: State of the Union. 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  tag to http://ae.philly.com/entertainment/ui/philly/movie.html?id=301309&reviewId=17886
*Added  tag to http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=322097
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on XXX: State of the Union. 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/20061020030847/http://www.filmjerk.com/reviews/article.php?id_rev=566 to http://www.filmjerk.com/reviews/article.php?id_rev=566
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 27.97.76.175 (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Abote2 (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2018 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:XXX (film series) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 20:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: There are multiple conflicting sources for the budget. The-numbers.com says $60 million, (Box Office Mojo fails to list a figure), theWrap.com says it was reported at the time as $87 million, but documents from Revolution Studios put the cost at $113.1 million. The low number sounds like the estimated cost before filming, the slightly higher cost sounds like what it actually cost to film it, and the highest total cost sounds like the production budget plus the marketing budget (see P&A) and other costs. We cannot be sure without more detailed sources, and I tried to search for them, looking at Variety.com, Latimes.com, and Deadline.com. The guidelines for Infobox film say not to cherry pick figures so I've included the first two numbers in the Infobox. In the article itself in the Box office section I have explained a bit more, cautiously wording it because it is difficult to be sure about production budget and total spend or final cost, but someone else might want to rephrase it, especially if further sources can be found. -- 109.79.69.205 (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: User:AndreiDubr deleted the budget range, replacing it with just the highest figure reported by the Wrap  $113.1 million . No edit summary was given to explain this change. Template:Infobox film specifically warns against cherry picking figures, I think it is important that a range of figures be included when there is any doubt. As I said above the extra total spending could easily be accounted for by additional marketing costs, and it is best to list the official figures in the Infobox, even if they are disputed, so long as we also have the more detailed explanation in the article body. (Although it might be a fair interpretation of the available sources to put $60-$113 million in the Infobox I don't think that is the best way to go, based on the limited information we have available.) -- 109.79.65.28 (talk) 05:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budget