Talk:Colossus: The Forbin Project

message: I'm kind of old, but I seem to remember that this was a made for TV movie. It was in two parts. The DVD and VHS tape have only the first part of the movie. I think in the second part, the scientists defeat Collossus. Can anyone coroborate this, and tell how they do it?Bonnie McMurray (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I am aware, there never was a filmed version of any sequel to CTFP. The novel it was based on … Colossus, by DF Jones, however did have two sequels well after the fact, The Fall of Colossus and Colossus and the Crab, also by DF Jones, published nearly a decade after the original novel was written. The two sequels completed a trilogy, but continuity problems and a writing style that did not continue the excellence of the first book made them rather unnecessary IMAO. Samuel John Klein (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No -- sorry -- but you are mistaken.  This film was a theatrical release.  It was made as a stand alone work.  At the time, the sequel novels had not been written.  -- Jason Palpatine (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two parts to this movie? 

message: Under  See also>Skynet, something should be added that Skynet could be considered the opposite of Colossus. While Skynet want mankind dead, Colossus want the opposite - for humans to live better lives. This is very important, saying that Skynet and Colossus is the same would be... Computer racism (yeah... right?) Ran4 18:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd be WP:OR unless you can find a citation. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the line that said ,roughly , that terminator could be for all purposes a sequel to this film. This makes no sense for precisely the reason listed above, that Skynets motivation was to kill the humans, whereas Colossus apeared to take its mission of protecting humans (albeit with occasional ultra-violence via nukes) to the logical extreme of total control. There really is no comparison, its also original research without some solid citations to back the theory. 121.45.228.201 (talk) 08:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  NSA should be added if you are including Skynet. And given that the NSA is real and happening now, it begs the question why no section is devoted to comparisons. User Ran4 writes that "Colossus wants humans to live better lives" --- isn't that the same justification given for the NSA violating the 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches - that we citizens are being protected by the comprehensive surveillance of our communications? Theaternearyou (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Your post is a violation both of WIKI:FORUM and WIKI:SOAPBOX. The talk pages are for the discussion of Reliable Sources for the improvement of the article, for which your politically-motivated rant serves no purpose whatsoever.HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skynet 

message: Oops.  I've created a different problem.  When I last moved this page, it seems I accidentally changed it from "Colossus: the Forbin Project" to "Colossus: The Forbin Project".  For book titles, I think it's supposed to be lower-case on the, but it's a movie title, which make up their own rules.  Sigh.  I'll look into this when I get a chance, but, hey, maybe someone will beat me to it.  (Great.  I've now made the talk page longer than the whole article.)  -- A D Monroe III 00:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that, after a colon, it's a capital "T".  IMDB spells it with a capital "T". Colossus: The Forbin Project (1970).  --Davecampbell 06:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now a days, all words in a title are capitalized.  Jason Palpatine 11:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''The'' or ''the''

message: "It has been speculated that Jones named his rogue computer after the "real" Colossus computer, because of the secrecy that surrounded the project." — does anyone have a credible source for this speculation? — Matt Crypto 10:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On an internet biography I read years ago, it said that DF Jones had worked on the "real" Colossus computerproject. No source given on that biography. Septagram 04:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Extremely late of me, but I just thought I'd add a link to IMDB that repeats that claim.  Personally I think it's highly unlikely since he would've signed the Official Secrets Act had he worked on it and IIRC it was still classified information at the time. —Christine (blather • contribs) 06:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Real Colossus

message: "These attempts are easily thwarted by Colossus, who detonates two nuclear warheads in retaliation, killing millions."  Really?  The missiles are detonated in their silos, presumably just killing - in the short term - the teams of technicians who are attempting to disarm them.  I would suggest that the words "killing millions" be removed. Tevildo 16:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I meant to check on that but forgot. It seems to me that Colossus refers to "being forced to kill thousands" in his speech to the world. And wasn't it just one missile he detonates? I have the DVD; I'll check that tonight. KarlBunker 16:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can assume he detonates a Russian missile at the same time he detonates the American one that we see, but that's just an assumption. Tevildo 17:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn, what a knockout ending that movie has.  :-)  Yup, it's two missiles and "thousands" of deaths. KarlBunker 00:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from You Tube, Wikipedia has become the Central Hub of Spoil. 50.54.225.180 (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot correction? 

message: I put the original promo poster up in the infobox; unfortunately the best one I could find (at the impawards.com) still has its ratings tag on it.  If someone could find a better one, I'd appreciate it. Reimelt 05:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image in infobox 

message: The article mentions who did Colussus' voice, but didn't Colussus just have everything he said printed out on a screen or something? I haven't seen the movie in a while, but I don't remember the computer having a voice. Recury 01:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Initially Colossus didn't have a voice. Later in the film - at the end if I remember? He had this chrome ball on a stick thing that he spoke out of. --Commking 04:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After Collossus had Forbin placed under surveylance, it ordered that a voice synthysizer of it's design be built.  -- Jason Palpatine 04:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He sounded a lot like the voice out of that song Night Flight to Venus, by Boney M. Basically a 1970's electronic synthesised voice.. --Commking 04:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can do quite a fair imitation of it by talking in a monotone through an electric fan.  :-) -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't tell George Lucas.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.104.4 (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Colossus’s voice was also used, for a long time but no longer, in Altlanta’ Hartsfield Airport’s tram system. 100.40.22.164 (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Voiced by Paul Frees. 2001:56A:F03F:5200:8CE6:2759:652E:F7EA (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Colussus' voice

message: On the Internet Movie Database (imdb.com) or scifi.com, Also said that Ron Howard is looking into a starting remake of CTFP in 2008. Anyone know more about it? Septagram 04:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colossus Remake 

message: Image:ColossusTheForbinProject.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. RedSpruce (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:ColossusTheForbinProject.jpg

message: I just watched the film last night and don't seem to remember Colossus and Guardian assuming the collective name 'Unity.' Or was that to be the name of the computer they were going to have built in Crete? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the same question. It's one of my favorite movies and I've watched it literally dozens of times. About the closest thing to the Colossus/Guardian collective calling itself Unity is in the speech when it says We are Colossus. We are Guardian. We are one. And then the CPO signs off quite suddently as "World Control". I would advocate editing this unless someone can come up with a clip or proof or something. Maybe it was in the book (which I read many, many years ago), but it ain't here. Samuel John Klein (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The full quote (at 79:46) is "This is the voice of Colossus - the voice of Guardian - we are one.  This is the voice of unity.  Forbin!"  "Yes?"  "After reviewing all personnel files..." (etc).  I agree that the computer doesn't explicitly _name_ itself "Unity" (and does explicitly name itself "World Control" later on), but it does use the word. Tevildo (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Unity?"

message: This article is almost entirely made up of copy-paste sections that need to be rewritten; otherwise it comes out as just a fluff piece or fancruft. FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite required

message: Are they in the E-13B font? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's a font inspired by MICR E-13B, but E-13B only includes numerals and some special characters.  Edjs (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening credits 

message: This phrase was added by , originally in the form .  When I found this, I deleted it, with the comment   Septagram then reverted to reinstate it, without comment, though modified it to .  To help avoid WP:EW and help Septagram follow WP:BRD, I'm opening this talk discussion.
I see these reasons to delete this, even as modified: 
*The whole phrase is redundant with the "becoming sentient" that immediately precedes it.
*"...at first" is un-encyclopedic; it sounds like the ending phrase of a bad joke, and has a snarky tone.
*"...at first" also implies it later did not surpass its creators' expectations, which is incorrect.
*It adds nothing to reader understanding in summary, plot, or characters.
(Also, "creators original expectations" is incorrect grammar.)
Can any reason be presented to support keeping this?  --A D Monroe III(talk)  20:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: With no reason given to keep, I've removed the inaccurate, unhelpful phrase.  --A D Monroe III(talk)  20:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "... at first" phrase in lede 

message: @Septagram If you look at other Wikipedia articles about movie adaptations, you'll see that they usually don't include a summary of the book. It's redundant information.  If the movie departs substantially from the book, that's mentioned, but you still don't talk about the book – that belongs in the article of the book. Having the same information in multiple place makes Wikipedia harder to read and to update.
I screwed up my change, so even if you agree with me, you shouldn't revert your own revert. Needs a fresh edit. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You ended up making the change I meant to make (but screwed up) so I guess we're done. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colossus:_The_Forbin_Project&type=revision&diff=1126741523&oldid=1106734925&diffmode=source Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 03:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why we don't want a summary of the novel