Talk:The Rock (film)

message: Shouldn't the quotes section be deleted? There is a reference to this film's space in Wikiquotes at the bottom of the page.
I dont know why this article refers to VX as VX-2, I never saw it mentioned in the movie at all.
milton the best hahahaha Maybe the -2 indicated its a Binary chemical weapon, but this wouldn't be true either way since both times when a pearl is dropped the effects of the gas are present (this wouldn't happen in a binary system). I tend to doubt this though as the movie indicates the writers have knowdledge of binary weapons during the defusing scene in the gas chamber when Goodspeed mentions that the "poisons mixing", which is common in sarin gas.
On that note I am going to edit this page and remove the fictional part.
If you look in the first part of where they attack the weapons deopt, there's a large yellow 2 on one of the outside walls, so the VX-2 probably means that the room is the number 2 storage room for VX, or something similar.12.182.100.224 23:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: "Alcatraz closed on March 21, 1963. John F. Kennedy was killed on November 22, 1963. Therefore it is impossible that one of the secrets stolen by Connery was the identity of John F. Kennedy's assassin."
I don't think this piece of trivia makes any sense. It is clearly possible that in the story a document containing the plot to kill JFK was created before it actually happened. Therefore when Cage's character looks at the microfilm he could very well have found out who killed JFK. --Jayson Virissimo 19:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was a custom soundtrack made by Hans Zimmer, not a released song. Search the internet for "the rock soundtrack" 220.233.46.171 (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia mistake 

message: "Sean Connery's characters full name is John Patrick Mason. The name is an anagram of sorts. By taking the letter "O" from John and Mason you get OO then the name Patrick is 7 letters. The theory is that Mason is the original James Bond. This would explain Bond's change in apperance from Sean Connery to Roger Moore."
>When the movie first came out, there was some buzz that Connery's character was supposedly  the original James Bond.  Obviously, the movie itself could not use that character without permission.  But, if the movie is watched from the perspective that Mason is Bond, Connery's character definitely has the presence of "double-O seven."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.28.98 (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Word on the Trivia 

message: :Image:The Rock (movie).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 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 06:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:The Rock (movie).jpg

message: There was a movie made in the 60ies or 70 ies (judging by what I saw), where a US officer with three companions seizes an ICBM silo, threatening to launch the missiles and thus start world war three if his demands (compensation for the families of men dieing in secret operations) were not met. Given the similarities in plot, couldn't The Rock be considered a sort of remake or at the very least drawing inspirations from the older movie?
I am sorry, I do not remember the title oif said movie, nor did I recognize any of the actors, one of the conspirators was an overweight black man with a beard, the actor who played the president of the United States I remember as somewhat fat. thestor 18:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remake? 

message: Does anybody think that the synopsis might be just a little too long and detailed? They're supposed to give the general idea of the movie plot, not every little thing that happened. Soyseñorsnibbles 21:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'll put the appropriate template at the top. Lemme find it. Knippschild 21:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone removed the template on Oct 25, but I think the synopsis is still way too long. Perhaps we should put the template back on? -- CWesling (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur and put back up the template.  Seems too detailed for a general plot of the film.  Just for kicks, Microsoft Word counted 1,933 words in the Plot section alone.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Plot  Joedaddy09 (talk) 04:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synopsis 

message: Shouldn't one include the information that the effects of VX and mustard gas were merged (and the latter's blatantly exaggerated in the process) for dramatical purposes?
In actual fact, VX does not cause any horrific blistering of the skin.--Cancun771 (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't exactly IMDB. We focus on encyclopedic information, not trivia. While the fact is interesting, it would probably not be best suited for Wikipedia. Knippschild (talk) 06:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree. It is major misinformation in popular media. An encyclopedia is exactly the place to set such things straight. There is a huge difference between adding that bit of information and including a complete list of goofs, including any frames with a mic boom in the shot.--Cancun771 (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: At the same time - if we display one piece of trivia, it would be "unfair" (if you know what I mean) to not post others. This bit of information would probably be more appropriate if there were a section titled 'Criticisms' as seen by the majority of the media and society. But Criticism sections are not lists of individual issues, but rather a prose/paragraph style of writing. As such you'd need many other notable and generally-agreed criticisms to go with the article. On a side note, many people may agree that a large part of enjoying movies is the suspension of belief and allowing somethings to be dramatized. Just my two cents though. Knippschild (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: VX Goof

message: It honestly looks like a 12-year-old wrote it.  It was riddled with typos and grammatical errors.  Although I tried pruning some of them, it might need a rewrite.  For example, "stragerling", "exponsing", "mounth".  Really?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mreccentricity (talk • contribs) 18:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like some editing has been done but this section needs improvement. "Consulting" is not the same as "acting as consultant to"...  Like this: Now: "The team infiltrates Alcatraz, through the underground tunnels with Mason's guidance. They are ambushed by Hummel's marines in a shower room, killing all the SEALs and leaving only Mason and Goodspeed alive. "  Rewritten: "Mason and the Team enter Alcatraz through the underground tunnels, but Hummel's marines ambush and kill all the SEALs in a shower room, leaving only Mason and Goodspeed alive."  Or, leave it all out.  I'm not sure that this level of detail is needed anyway -- the entire plot of the film could be summarized in a couple of paragraphs, while mentioning that the shower room scene is one of the most memorable in modern cinema, despite the movie, as a whole, UTTERLY SUCKING.  24.27.31.170 (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horrible Writing Under "Plot" 

message: His filmography here doesn`t list. The same with IMDB.com and his official site. 
(Kokken Tor 00:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Robert Duvall really in it? 

message: Similar to the first Bad Boys film, this article did not mention Metacritic, which that may be necessary. Even though the current ratings on Rotten Tomatoes is a 67/100, the current ratings on Metacritic is actually mixed, only getting a 59/100 rating. CHAK 001 (talk) 10:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Rock" on Metacritic 

message: New wiki user here, was unsure if this should really be added or not.  Since it doesn't seem this page is likely to be checked, I went ahead and added the film page to the category: 
Category:Fictional Medal of Honor recipients.  There are pages in that category that are the pages of books or films already, so I'll follow that example.  The character Brig. General Frank X Hummel, played by Ed Harris, is a fictional Medal of Honor recipient, and in the opening credits leaves his Medal of Honor on the tombstone of his deceased wife before setting the main plot of the movie in motion.  If I recall correctly, in the past, the character was given it's own stub page of some kind, and was listed in this category.  --Padenton (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional Medal of Honor Recipients 

message: Hi. can we please changes all occurrences of the word "marines" in this entry to "rogue Marines?" the article is much clearer that way. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rogue marines