Talk:Red (2010 film)

Original Comic Book Series

Hi guys. Changed description from "based on" to "loosely inspired by" the original comic book series and anyone who has read the original series will agree. The only thing in common is that the protagonist is a bald retired assassin who goes after the people who put the kill order on him. That's about it. None of the other characters exist aside from Mary-Louise Parker's call center character with whom his interaction is only slightly similar during the beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.55.250.110 (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Reception

• How can the movie have received "universally positive reviews" if it hasn't even been released yet? 24.209.120.222 (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, also we should stay away from such definitive blanket statements. Sites like Rotten Tomatoes are a aggregate of selected critics and does not express the opinion of every film critic.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. What I mean is, how can it have accurate reviews at all if it isn't released yet? I'm going to delete that section. 24.209.120.222 (talk) 07:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not uncommon for a film to have a press screening or be screened at a film festival before its general public release. For example, Red was screened on September 29, 2010 at Fantastic Fest. - Kollision (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 24.209.120.222 about the issue with the section. We should not include Rotten Tomatoes this early because with only 6 reviews, the 86% gives a false impression. We see this incompleteness especially with the lack of a "critics' consensus" for a film that has garnered more reviews. Looking at the page, the only "top critics" are Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. Let's include these and only have Rotten Tomatoes as an external link for now. (See WP:RTMC for an explanation of the limitations.) Erik (talk | contribs) 15:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Metacritic says "Mixed or average reviews" so that is a fair baseline any reasonable editor should not disagree with. If someone wants to argue it got better or worse than that they will very much need to try hard to prove otherwise. -- Horkana (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Budget

The "budget" is listed as about $60 million after tax credits. Unusually Box Office Mojo does not lazily round the figures to $60 million as it often does, but instead says the budget is $58 million but still fails to even mention anything about tax credits, and unfortunately they take this final actual cost is labelled as "Production budget".

Variety is again terribly vague and says the film "cost near $58 million" and goes on to say "with Summit accountable for less than $20 million after subsidies and foreign licensing fees". Summit is the US distributor, so the actual production budget (money spent) by the Studio is difficult to know. It's all very unclear.

It is important that when writing the "Box Office" section that editors take care to explain as much of this confusion as possible. A dry "list of facts" that only stated the cost to the distributor of "about $60 million" and compared it to the box office gross would be misleading (it very often is done this way but that doesn't make it correct). So I urge caution and I'll try to take a shot at including more of this information as prose in the article. -- Horkana (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I added the LA Times for this and made it clear it was after tax credits in the infobox. Though when an editor adds a Box Office section, that "after tax credits" could be removed from the infobox and added in the prose. Mike Allen 23:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Product placement

The film features product placement for a Polish vodka that Bruce Willis is involved with. (Found while looking for budget details.) -- Horkana (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

it's likely worth mentioning that alot of the movie includes reused music, such as the escaping from cia headquarters scene. this is from the rundown staring the rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.238.3.50 (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sniper who shot Joe

I had assumed that it was Victoria (Mirren) shot Joe and that Joe had expected this, knowing that it was the only way to cause enought confusion for the others to escape. Especially since Joe had really bad cancer.

Does anyone agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.176.233 (talk) 07:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

At the end of the day, the only thing confirmed is it is not known who shot Joe. It's an annoying, dangling string, but that's how it is. Best to leave it the way it is rather than speculate with original research. Hazardous Matt (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not think at all that Victoria shot Joe and never got that impression. As former spies they fully expected to be betrayed despite assurances otherwise. It doesn't matter who fired the shot so much as the fact that William Cooper (Urban) was being undermined. -- Horkana (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

At roughly 1:13:50 Victoria says ~~ come out I've got you covered ~~ while she has her sights set on Matheson. She even looks slightly surprised when Joe is shot. It's definitely not her. -- Horkana (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Do not change without discussion.
You can see for yourself by watching the film. Editor "Hazardous Matt" and "Horkana" (me) are in agreement that it was not Victoria. -- Horkana (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Frank Moses in Cleveland

Frank Moses was living in Cleveland when the film starts. His garbage can says "Cleveland, Ohio" on the side (visible on the close-up), and his pension check is addressed to "Parma Heights", a suburb of Cleveland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.238.126 (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ashton Kutcher

Did Ashton Kutcher do a cameo as the hotel employee who got tossed into dumpster or was it just a look-a-like? If so, it so should be added to cast information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Synopsis error

The original synopsis stated Dunning kills Stanton but, as can clearly be seen, VP Stanton is alive and moving at the end of the scene. Detail changed accordingly.Stonehound (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)86.164.45.185 (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. We have consensus that the proposed titles better accord with the manual of style. Cúchullain ^t/c 20:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

---

• RED (film) → Red (2010 film)
• RED 2 (film) → Red 2 (film)

– While "RED" is an in-universe initialism, MOS:TM applies, reinforced by the fact that most reliable sources don't refer to these films in all caps. Note also that the comic series that the films are adapted from doesn't use all caps. --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 03:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC) BDD (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support newspaper usage In ictu oculi (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I have no opinion on the proper outcome here, but I would like to point out that titles of works are not trademarks, and that MOS:TM therefore should not apply to them. Indeed, it is precisely because they are not trademarks that we have so many ambiguous titles of books, films, songs, and albums. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The usage is permitted per WP:ACRONYMTITLE and is the usage in the on-screen titles and in marketing materials.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Places like IMDb write it as "Red" and "Red 2" because of the requirement that film titles in their database have at least one lowercase letter. I don't quite understand it myself, but I don't think that means anything when it comes to how to officially write a film's title. LazyBastardGuy 05:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
• Question Is the title supposed to be said as "Red" as a word, or as R, E, D, as in three separate letters being said separately?--JOJ ^Hutton 18:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

"Red." See the trailers: (1:46 mark) and (0:56 and 2:04). The title isn't spoken in the trailer for the sequel. --BDD (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Then it "Red", per MOS:TM.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

In the films themselves, they expand the acronym several times. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support: I believe MOS:TM applies here in spirit, regardless of whether a film title is legally considered a trademark or not, and I don't think the capitalization is an appropriate disambiguator. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

As explained above, titles aren't trademarks. I believe the work should be named however it was named in the first place, except of course for times when characters should be substituted or removed due to technical restrictions in the MediaWiki software. In other words, keep the title as close as you can to the formatting of the original. So I'm opposing this; I don't believe that just because journalists are too lazy to capitalize all the letters that this should be considered official. Journalists just seek to get the point across, and you know what they're referring to. LazyBastardGuy 01:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Not sure of what the spirit the of MOS:TM says here, but I think MOS:CT applies, which says that we use sentence case for titles. While MOT:CT has a problem with prepositions, there is no disagreement that we do not follow sources use of and allcaps style. Not sure what TriiipleThreat is talking about with respect to acronyms, is RED an in-universe acronym? The title should be consistent with its inspiration, what is Red (WildStorm comics). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is an acronym (Retired Extremely Dangerous), unlike the source material. Also as I said before it is how the title appears in marketing materials and in the on-screen credits.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If only the trailer had said "R-E-D" instead of "Red", I could agree with you. I can't agree that "Red" is used as an acronym and is not a named coined from a acronym of a description. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

R.E.D.

The usage, topic and meaning of "R.E.D." is under discussion, see Talk:R.E.D. (Ne-Yo album) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Red (2010 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100226210830/http://www.heatvisionblog.com:80/2009/11/julian-mcmahon-joins-bruce-willis-in-red-.html to http://www.heatvisionblog.com/2009/11/julian-mcmahon-joins-bruce-willis-in-red-.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Red (2010 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090901220219/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/film/news/e3ide843f7bf07c511f74fa417b2745e22d to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3ide843f7bf07c511f74fa417b2745e22d
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091108121834/http://www.heatvisionblog.com:80/2009/11/john-c-reilly-marylouise-parker-film-red-bruce-willis-morgan-freeman-helen-mirren.html to http://www.heatvisionblog.com/2009/11/john-c-reilly-marylouise-parker-film-red-bruce-willis-morgan-freeman-helen-mirren.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100114214319/http://www.heatvisionblog.com:80/2010/01/john-malkovich-signs-on-for-red.html to http://www.heatvisionblog.com/2010/01/john-malkovich-signs-on-for-red.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100823022705/http://heatvision.hollywoodreporter.com:80/2010/08/bruce-willis-john-malkovich-red-shoot.html to http://heatvision.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/08/bruce-willis-john-malkovich-red-shoot.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Should China be a "Country of Origin"?

IMDb shows it as such but I know why.