Talk:Ultraviolet (film)

message: There doesn't seem to be a page for the original comics that this was based on, and I can't find the release date of the comics anywhere. Does anyone know when the Japanese comics were first released? I need to know this for an ongoing debate over whether the rolling-super-soldier thing was stolen from Metroid. Thanks. Village Baka 03:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comic Release Date 

message: In the response section I changed "average" to "weighted average" with a link to the IMDb ratings explained page.  I wasn't logged in at the time, but they do not simply average, and I did not link to the weighted average page, because it's not a simple weighted average.  They simply do not post the methods they use, so I linked to their ratings explanation page. --Cbenard 00:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  weighted average 

message: * UltraViolet is the way the film does the title. 132.205.45.110 21:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake. It was my understanding that it was proposed that UltraViolet (the movie) become the main page for a search on "ultraviolet", effectivly pushing aside the type of light. I said no, simply because I didnt feel that the movie was more important than the 'ultraviolet' light article. captbananas 23:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Move 

message: As far as I see, this movie's new title is only there because of the way the movie poster shows the title.  Wikipedia doesn't do this per WP:MOS-TM; we don't pay special attentio to certain spellings, using the most common name.  IMDb spells it "Ultraviolet," as does RottenTomatoes, most everybody.  I therefore am proposing that this be moved back to Ultraviolet (film), as it should be. - Hbdragon88 07:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move back 

message: I have removed the following from the Trivia section, "Kurt Wimmer's films Ultraviolet and Equilibrium are a reference to the process of making ozone and breakdown of it."  There is no evidence to support this comment in either film or in anything that the director Kurt Wimmer has stated. (JenGe 16:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia Error 

message: the line "Screen Gems edited the film from its original length of 120 minutes to 88 minutes, against the wishes of director Kurt Wimmer. He was quite angry with this, and many fans agree that this decision lowered the quality of the film significantly."
should just be edited down to : "Screen Gems edited the film from its original length of 120 minutes to 88 minutes, against the wishes of director Kurt Wimmer. He was quite angry with this." since no fan has actually seen the full movie, how would anyone know if it truly is a better film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Wall (talk • contribs) 04:56, August 3, 2006
Novelization. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Edit 

message: I just finished watching the film and I don't believe it mentions anemia as a side effect of hemophagia.  I edited the explanation of the anemia from "blood platelets" to "blood cells".  While platelet disorders can lead to anemia, they do so by causing bleeding.  More likely would be a problem with red cell production, but without confirmation in film I didn't feel comfortable changing it to "red blood cells".  Jamescookmd 06:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blood platelets -> cells 

message: NOTE: This section was removed, but I reverted it.  If you remove it, a new one will surely pop up again (It has before).  This way, everyone can see why the article doesn't mention that the movie is (supposedly) bad (the response; "That would be POV...").  Also, most of the comments are about the criticism section in the article.  I've renamed this talk section from "Random Criticism" to "Criticism Section" to help keep it on track.  --Scarlet-=Spider-DavE=- 07:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be POV.  The fact that you did not like a film should not influence it's encyclopaedia entry.  Moreover, this page is not a forum for discussing the film. Geoff B 14:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with both of you.  And I would add 1) the criticisms section seems little different from an opinion-oriented review, at least to me, and 2) the section on fictional technologies is far more interesting than the film, and 3) I'm not sure if this film meets any standard of notability I could agree with, except for the fictional technologies described in the article.  In fact I'm not entirely sure what notability is supposed to mean in the Wiki-context.  Have the technologies described here been used in any other fictional works?  (I'm new around here so go easy if you think I'm all wet.)  Cryptonymius 07:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) Yeah, I feel the criticisms section still needs a lot of work (though it has improved).  The article can't note how awful the movie is; only how awful sources say it is.  Needs a little less "The movie is awful, here's why, and here's a source to prove it", and a little more "These sources say the move is awful".  Look at this one:  "One flaw that may have been responsible for Ultraviolet's poor reception by movie critics [6] is its thin plot."  There's a source in there, but it's wrapped in an opinion sandwich.  The article should be neutral towards the movie.  2) I'm not sure that's really a problem.  The technology is a big part of the film.  3) It doesn't take much for a film to be notable enough for Wikipedia.  Take a look at the proposed policy for film notability, and the Wikipedia guideline on notability.  --ScarletSpiderDave 11:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...actually I'm thinking that a twelve-year lifespan is something of a novelty within the small universe of vampire fiction, so the film could be seen as notable in the convential sense on that basis alone.  (Thanks for the notability links.)  Cryptonymius 20:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section 

message: Daxus was not the first person infected. I've seen this pop up a number of times in the article.  It is incorrect and not based on anything in the film or the novelization.  Yes, he was infected but by working in the lab.  Nowhere does the film/novelization support or state the notion that he was first.  This is an assumption that some people are making.
As to the reason to his life span the film makes it clear in several scenes that Daxus already had some type of cure. - (JenGe 19:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daxus 

message: Is the writing on the sword just random characters, or does it actually mean something? 172.195.242.182 00:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sword 

message: Does it say anywhere that the mug of coffee was self heating or is it just a guess? If it's a guess, then it should be removed Spyco 23:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional Technologies - Self Heating 

message: Should we put this as a cult film, because that is basically what it is. Small group of people like it a lot.--Mugatu3333 06:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cult Film 

message: Should the page be moved to UltraViolet? Or should the text be changed to Ultraviolet? 71.51.113.204 (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Can someone please point to some source stating that the gun play/martial arts shown in this movie are directly linked to the gun kata style in Equilibrium? It is specifically called that in the first movie, but if it is not specifically referenced as that, we should remove the claim that it is the same thing from the articles (and from Gun fu.) Slavlin (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gun Kata 

message: Shouldn't we just delete this section? It seems to be too long and useless. I mean, come on, a fictional disease. I wish I was infected with this thing. Ha.-- Vintei  Talk  18:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hemoglophagia 

message: "UltraViolet takes place in the year 2076" where did this happen? There was no such indication in the film.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.174.66 (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I hope you all know what I am talking about. For anyone who've seen Escape from LA that scene where Violet's hologram was being shot by hundreds of man must seem like a blatant copy or reference to the scene toward the end of Escape from LA. Just think there should be a trivia section that mentions it.
Passerby 10:50, 19 March 2008 (EST)
:Only if there is a source that says the 2 are related. An observation that 2 things look similar is not verifiable. Also, it is general practice to add the new comments to the bottom of the talk page, so I went ahead and moved it down for you. Slavlin (talk) 02:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it is a really bad movie. It is too confusing and too focused on expensive/extreme computer-effects than a good manusscript. And the heroine is, as usual, a sexy mass-murderess who shows her belly and wiggles her hips when she walks (compare her to Jessica Biel as Abigail Whistler in "Blade 3" and to Jennifer Garner as Elektra Natchios in "Daredevil" and "Elektra").  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.53.38.91 (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scene reminiscent of Escape from LA 

message: I recall reading that this film was cut extensively by the studio, which lead to the badly garbled theatrical release cut. I think I remember hearing that some thing like 40 or 70 minutes was cut, but this isn't mentioned in the article. The DVD exteneded edition is only a few minutes longer than the theatrical release. Could someone find information about the film's original length and how much was trimmed for the theatrical release by the studio? Some guy (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original cut 

message: This film includes a remarkable transition in which Violet seems to transition almost instantly from "killer" to "mother" with no dialog and no change in clothing, purely by acting.  (as she walks away after ditching the kid at the mall)  I think the way that she darts her eyes back and forth has much to do with it, but there must be more of a trick to it.  I don't know this literature, but is there a reliable source that might discuss how such techniques are used here?  It would be interesting toward understanding biological mechanisms of maternal instinct. Wnt (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maternal acting techniques? 

message: What language is Kar using in the scene with the Blood Chinois? Parts of the language in the dialogue sound almost recognizably like English.
129.89.251.69 (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kar's Language 

message: These can be filed under continuity errors. When the countdown on the delivery package is started up in one of the early scenes in the blue delivery room, it starts out as 9:00:00 and counts down as 8:59:59, etc. with the last two numbers going in a blur. That, of course, is the problem: the minutes are ticking off as 59,58,57,56,55,54,58,... and are doing so as fast as seconds. The 53 was made a 58.
In the scene with the disposable phone, Violet is using the phone upside down, if you look closely.
129.89.32.95 (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancies with the Fonts 

message: Somehow the film looks as if being a splendid computer animation. How and why was this done?80.141.183.76 (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looks like a computer animation 

message: The description “Gravity levelers are devices about the size of combination locks” makes no sense, as combination locks come in all shapes and sizes, for example from tiny ones on brief-cases to huge ones on bank vault doors. Is there a better comparator? Jock123 (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What size is a combination lock? 

message: --Nyssa1974 (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thaihindi Images 

message: The theme comparisions and technology sections are not original research. The sections are listing what was seen in the film. Numerous other pages, such the Death Star page, list fictional technology.
174.22.9.35 (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theme comparisions, technology 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ultraviolet (film). 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 https://web.archive.org/20080404214352/http://www.animekon.com:80/news-472-Ultraviolet-Anime-Announced.html to http://www.animekon.com/news-472-Ultraviolet-Anime-Announced.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have commented out the entire fictional technologies section. It strays too far off topic, and wikipedia already has a large collection of articles concerning fictional technologies which aren't specific to any particular work of fiction; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictional_technology for examples.
The info either needs to be condensed and merged into the plot section or deleted permanently. Since I only commented out the section, the text is all still present in the source, so that someone can use it as a reference if they decide to condense and merge that info into the plot section or into another more appropriate article.
B1naryatr0phy (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted. None of that extended personal essay was sourced. Ditto the 'spiritual successor' claims. To be blunt, we are not a fan site, we do not indulge people's personal obsessions over the content of any given work of fiction.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

text: Removed this text as it basically doesn't say anything not covered by the DVD section (which is way too long but whatever):Comparisons between a rough cut version from the spring of 2005 and the theatrical cut proved there were missing scenes. The original edit was more focused on Violet's desire for a family and suggested that she was swept up in the resistance rather than the cold operative she appears as in the theatrical release, which focused on her imminent death.  The unrated DVD restored approximately 6 minutes worth of footage from Wimmer's cut, clocking in at 94 minutes, versus the theatrical release's 88 minutes. This business of "proved there were missing scenes is very fannish. For one thing, there are always deleted scenes from every film. Every film maker produces more footage than can possibly be fit into a theatrical feature, so the whole approach here is wrong-headed.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of Fictional Technologies section under dispute 

message: The technology, blood disease, and gun kata sections should be restored. Other media, such as Star Wars and Star Trek, have technology sections. It is not original research as the film explains the backstory of the disease and shows the technology.
75.142.144.88 (talk) 05:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technology 

message: I'm concerned about the Extended Version. The section has no cited sources and claims she had only 36 hours to live which I doubt is true. I think a source needs to be cited for the Extended Version.--Nosecone33 (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended Cut