Talk:The Chronicles of Riddick

Use of 'Marshal'

Surely the usage of 'Marshal' in the text is incorrect? My understanding is that 'Lord Marshal' is a title, not a reference to someone called Marshal who is a Lord. Hence sentences such as 'Suspicious of his abilites, Marshal has Riddick taken into his fortress ...' should be worded as 'Suspicious of his abilites, the Marshal has Riddick taken into his fortress ...' In fact, I think that '... the Lord Marshal ...' should probably be used as etiquette probably dictates that a full title be used. There are numerous instances of this. Kmwmtd (talk) 11:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Fix it if you want. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 02:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Bounty

It's been awhile since I've seen this movie. In the plot description it says there's a "1.5 million bounty" placed on Riddick's head. 1.5 million what? Dollars? Some other form of future currency? Someone please clarify this. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

They are Universal Credits or UC's, that the bounty, this is explained in the DVD, with the extra material of the film.--201.247.28.25 (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's UD, as in Universal Denominations. Outlined in TCoR: Escape from Butcher Bay and the DVD if I recall right. And I hope this was asked from inclusion in the article. Which it probably doesn't need to be anyway. 144.96.26.32 (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The plot-section of an article only describes what´s actually in the film. As no one in the film mention any currency, it would be wrong to come up with a currency in the plot. But as "Universal Denominations" is mentioned in the extras of the DVD, it would be ok to mention it as some sort of trivia or background-information in other parts of the article. --93.135.62.224 (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Dollars, Dinar, Rubels, doesn't matter. They could have said a 100,000 bounty then as we watch them quibble over 75K or 85K we would realize in context Riddick is a valuable prize.Attman68 (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC) Attman68

Science fiction?

There's no science in this; this is fantasy, in space. I suggest the genre be reconsidered. 110.184.186.68 (talk) 07:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no science in Star Wars either, but it's still sci-fi. Anyway, it's sci-fi/fantasy, because this movie was actually based heavily on Vin Diesel's D&D campaign setting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:C203:40B0:91F1:785:B77:5934 (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

It deals with space travel, futuristic technology, alien lifeforms and the paranormal. It's the epitome of science fiction. The fact that most of the subject matter is not scientifically sound is irrelevant, that's not what science fiction means. There is room for some suspension of disbelief. --92.238.158.191 (talk) 08:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This movie isn't out to cure cancer, it's designed to provide you a great ride. Don't worry about the sunrise on Crematoria, the time-impact of so much lightspeed travel or why no one seems to poop. Suspend disbelief just enough to enjoy the story. --Attman68

Best moments

The best play belongs to Linus William Roache, that moment when he saves protagonist's life, leave the shelter and burns. The Roache play is realy vivid and realistic, sometimes we can think that he don't play, he live with this role, for example when he talks to Vaako about his doubts.

"I would have gone another way." "True of us all." ---- Attman68

"You keep what you kill" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect You keep what you kill. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 5#You keep what you kill until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:20, 5 November 2021 (UTC)