Talk:Short Circuit (1986 film)

message: Shouldn't this be about an electrical Short Circuit, rather then an obscure movie?
:That article is at Short circuit. Note that only the first letter of article titles are capitalized unless it's a proper noun, as in the case of this film. Sarge Baldy 14:49, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
It's hardly an 'obscure' film.  In any case, there is already an article about an electrical short circuit.  There is no need to rewrite this article to copy the other article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.135.104 (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electrical Short Circuit 

message: This article incorrectly refers to Nova Laboratories in "Oregon".  In fact, during the opening credits, there is a clear shot of one of the nameplates being attached to a robot.  It reads:
 S-A-I-N-T PROTOTYPE NUMBER 5Nova Laboratories Inc.ROBOTICS DIVISIONDAMON, WASHINGTON 98615
In the movie, Number 5 goes missing and is pushed along a bridge by Nova's armored car until he is catapulted over the railing. This happens on southbound U.S. Highway 101, on the Astoria-Megler Bridge, i.e., traveling across the Columbia River from Washington into Oregon.  Number 5 deploys its parachute and lands on top of Stephanie's catering truck, which is eastbound on Marine Dr., U.S. 30, in Astoria, Oregon.
Stephanie's home was set at a private house on Hume St. in Astoria, Oregon.
A chase scene on a steep, hilly street was filmed in Astoria. --QuicksilverT @ 06:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie Locations 

message: Can we get a sourced photo of Number 5?  Dionyseus 02:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done and done. --Rachel Cakes 11:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Rachel:)  Dionyseus 13:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problemo. :) --Rachel Cakes 07:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: photo

message: I don't think the Goonies house is the same as Stephanie's house, as it says in the article.  Can anyone confirm this?
65.104.141.122 18:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goonies house the same as Stephanie's house? 

message: There should be some mention of the criticism the film received for Fisher Stevens portrayal of an East Indian person.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wideeyedraven (talk • contribs) 21:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: As awesome as I think it would be, I can't help but wonder whether the remake rumour is at all accurate. The only piece of evidence is a page at IMDB that has no backing information. In fact, upon closer inspection, the IMDB page was added anonymously. Since we haven't seen so much as a "Coming Soon" website or a teaser trailer, it seems to me that this is likely just a hoax. Just to clarify, if this is a real movie, I'd be happy to be wrong. Master Deusoma (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remake? 

message: A couple of months ago the plot summary was expanded to a ridiculous length, doubling the size of the article. I've trimmed it back.  --Tony Sidaway 22:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot summary

message: Anyone reason why Johnny 5 redirects here?  IIRC, the robot doesn't call himself Johnny until the sequel.  It may be a reference to the first movie but the name doesn't stick until the second. --125.29.243.30 (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirect? 

message: I think it would be good to change the name of the article : 
from "Short Circuit" to "Short Circuit (film)" because it's much more easy to find it in Wikipedia like that ! 
Thanks for taking account of my remark.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.120.190.38 (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The article should be titled Short Circuit (1986 film), since there's an article for Short Circuit (1943 film) too. (See the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) guideline for more.) --Piet Delport (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could we change the title of the article ? (mention "'(film)" behind "Short Circuit") 

message: I edited the production section.  The sentence did read "...on the premise that none would initially believe its sentience."  I changed it to "...on the premise that no one would initially believe its sentience."  While they both are correct, I thought that none read a bit "odd"
98.158.113.184 (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  none 

message: Hi,
no the robot is not referred to as sexman 69 within the movie and it it is arguably not about the exploration of it's sexuality. Please have a good look at the edits...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.23.145 (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive trolling, please do help 

message: How do we know that Jack Angel, Cam Clarke, and Don Messick were the voices of the three reprogrammed robots? ChipmunkRaccoon (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Voices for Numbers 1, 2, and 3

message: What I remember as the key sentence from this movie (but don't find in this article) is the sentence "Number five is alive." Bob.v.R (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now put back this contribution on the talkpage and I ask other users to refrain from deleting this comment. The comment does not contain any vandalism, and my comment is clearly referring to the actual article. Deleting my comment is in my opinion inappropriate and in fact higly impolite. Bob.v.R (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Nikkimaria, please explain your recent removal of my addition, which was accompanied by 2 references. Your motivation 'trim' does not reflect on the fact that this is a key sentence, mentioned on the movie poster, and nevertheless was not yet mentioned in the article. Bob.v.R (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources provided for that addition were not reliable and did not demonstrate that the addition was significant enough to warrant its own section. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your reply. Bob.v.R (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

text: I have added the remark as a sentence in the plot, this takes away both objections that were mentioned by Nikkimaria. The source, the release poster, is highly reliable and the remark is now not placed in a separate section. Bob.v.R (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not allowed at all (not even necessary, considering the plot mentions Number 5 being sentient.). And you should never use the term "In the words of the movie release poster", or the like, in any way, shape, or form here, least of all in the plot section. Nikkimaria's point remains. DawgDeputy (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: DawgDeputy makes this point without any reference to guidelines, whereas some weeks ago this user was deleting a valid comment on this Talkpage (in the current section), which surely isn't allowed at all. User DawgDeputy could admit that this was a mistake and present arguments for his current remarks, but in that case please refer to valid sources underlying these arguments. For the moment, I would like to know Nikkimaria's view on the current issue. Bob.v.R (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I am less strongly opposed to the more recent installation of this detail than to the previous, but I wonder whether there are any sources that provide analysis or discussion of the significance of it? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the contribution. The significance of this sentence is in my opinion already clear from the pure fact that in Germany and in Sweden this sentence is even used as the title of the movie. But from your question I see that you would prefer seeing an article where the significance is further discussed or established. Bob.v.R (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

text: As I noted, two of the sources provided are not reliable and the third doesn't fully support the claim being made. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The key sentence