Talk:The Fifth Element/Archive 1

Archive 1

WikiQuote

Wikiquote moved to external links section, where it belongs.

Planet name

Does anyone know for sure whether the planet is called Phloston or Fhloston? --WhiteDragon 13:44, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• It's Fhloston.[1] click link (it's a copy of the script) and do a find for it. Martin TB 13:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do you think our current moon was also once an "ultimate evil" according to this movie? GWC Winter 34 2005 EDT 13.35

If so, then the moon is only 5,000 years old and we've only had this problem once before. So, unless the good aliens haul the garbage away, having left one behind to keep the electromagnetic field going that protects us from the sun, there is a serious plot problem of not enough moons hanging around...

I don't think the dark planet is as big as the moon but I guess it is possible that the moon represents an earlier close call, since I doubt it's always this close to world destruction. Ari 07:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uh...just out of curiosity, did The Fifth Element do good in the box office?- B-101 01:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we should get some more images for the plot section.- JustPhil 18:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Language

From the short quotations in the article it does not look like the divine language is based on Russian at all. Is there a source somewhere saying that it is so? If not, I would recommend deleting that claim from the article.

It looks more like Finnish than anything... sounds nothing like it though.

It sounds more like hawaiian.Ittan 02:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Zorg's Bomb

I believe that Zorg was blown up by the Mangalore bomb, not by his own. He disabled his at the last moment, and the Mangalores set off one that they brought on board.

Could someone verify this and possibly correct the article. - Daemon 00:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It does seem that it was a seperate bomb that went off in the end. Oh, and ****spoiler here**** am I the only one that finds it strange that Gary Oldman's character dies in the same way in Leon (being destroyed by a bomb he is made aware of only seconds before it is detonated)?

Yes Zork is killed by the Mengalore bomb. You see a Mengalore lying on his back with what looks like a Master Combination lock that he twists and says "For Honor" which is pretty funny when you consider the conversation Zork was having when the explosion at his factory took place.Cortney (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars References

I heard Zorg call one of the Mangalore's a 'jedi' during the scene when they meet to exchange the stones for the weapons. Daemon 01:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the SW references actually are references, but are coincidences or similarities at best. PrometheusX303 16:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I was in agreement with Prometheusx303 and edited the trivia and deleted the paragraph entirely. A couple could be pointed to as interesting similarities, the are unsubstantiated as fact and don't really amount to true trivia about The Fifth Element.[[User:Atomic Cow|

What about the hair style of the big soldier woman that General Munro wanted to go with Korben to the travel? The hairstyle is like Princess Leia's hair buns.Codeweaponx 07:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Fhloston

I created a new article about Fhloston Paradise and would appreciate it if some could visit it and maybe improve it, also add information? I am also trying to get an image into Wikipedia of the Fhloston Paradise Luxury Cruiser, any ideas? thanks alot... Gryffindor 10:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Explanation to the moon thing

Hey, White Dragon. You've got quite an interesting theory there, but I think it needs revision. First of all, I don't think they ever showed a full shot of the Earth, so maybe the actual Moon was at that time in the other side of the world. Another reason why the dark planet cannot be the Moon is that we already have a Moon and the whole movie happens somewhere in the future!

Yes, they showed a full shot of the earth. And they showed the moon when the Dark Planet was defeated. The Dark Planet looked like a craterless moon. 68.225.242.19 07:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I do think the Moon could be another defeated dark planet, though... if the story was real, that is. The Moon is obviously more than 5,000 old because the Earth is more than a million years old and scientist say the Moon is even older--so the Moon wasn't created last time that whole Fifth Element "happened". However, they never said in the movie that the dark planet heads for the Earth each time this apocalypse-like event occurs... maybe that's why Saturn has so many moons! After all, the Mondoshawan were aliens. I think that's all I have to say. Au revoir!--Plavalagunanbanshee 21:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

While I do think they're from Jupitor, it does seem likely that a lotta rocks out there (Pluto, for instance) could be older Dark Planets. ;D 68.225.242.19 07:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless the evidence that existed that stated that the moon is older than 5000 is a side effect of its unusual creation. Keep in mind you're dealing with a strange, powerful being of unknown prowess that seems to attempt to use Earth as a focal point for universal destruction every five thousand revolutions of the Earth. I'd wager the normal rules can be discarded in light of this. 68.225.242.19 07:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It's also possible that only one time did the previous dark planet manage to get that close. I mean for most of Earth's history the 5 elements were (presumably) close at hand and ready to go at a moment's notice. So perhaps one time WAAAY back they defeated a dark planet and it became the moon. Then every 5000 years afterwards they defeated the planet before it even got close to Earth, leaving it adrift in space somewhere. - Vulture12 March 21 2007

How Did They Get Leeloo

the hand they use to recreate her is clutching a handle, implying that it is an alien.yet she is the fifth element, which is a statue....this does not make since —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDude7776 (talk • contribs)

That "statue" was a sarcophagus that contained the Fifth Element, presumably in some sort of state of suspended animation, until she was needed again. I believe it is even referred to as a sarcophagus in the film. I lent my DVD to a friend, so I can't check it right now. The Mondochiwan took Leeloo in 1914 and told the priest that she would be returned "when evil returns." They were on their way back to return her when the Mangalores shot down the ship killing all of the occupants.

One thing I can't answer though is how Leeloo retained all of her thoughts and memories even though her brain was destroyed in the crash. Maybe it's somehow written into her 'perfect' genetic sequence.

I don't understand how clutching a handle implies that the hand alien. I hold the handle on a shopping cart when I use it - does that make me extraterrestrial? o.0 — Indi ^{[ talk ]} 17:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

In 'ordinary' cloning there is no way your thoughts and memories can be coded into your DNA to be remembered by clones. However, this is an extremly popular misconception, most recently found in Aeon Flux. I think it is implied that the extra strands of DNA achieved the job. If it was possible to have 6 strands of DNA then there is no reason that you couldn't use the extra four strands as some kind of read/write mechanism. Of course that would require having a write mechanism. Note that it is absolutly impossible to have a six stranded DNA helix (maybe some other kind of molecule could do it, but not our DNA). In the film they show a double helix, i.e. two intertwined ribbons, with plenty of room for other ribbons. However, the ribbon is only the backbone and is only an outline of the shape of the backbone. In reality (in a space filling model) all the atoms pretty much fill up all the space inside the helix outlined by the ribbon model. But hey, that's why this is science fiction, not science documentary. Nobody watches this film for education. ChristineD 21:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Year 2257 or 2263

I notice two conflicting years. In some reviews they state 2257, yet close inspection of on-screen props (Korban's clock) it says 2263. Tertiary7 22:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The reviews are mistaken. The year this story takes place is 2263. Comme le Lapin 06:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep clear

"A brief scene in Korbens apartment makes reference to the religious cult Scientology founded by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard. As Korben sits on his bed in the morning, he views a message stenciled onto the wall that states, "KEEP CLEAR". Reading this message Korben responds, "I'm trying"."

I thought he was replying to the cigarette dispenser. I can't remember what it said, though. PrometheusX303 01:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I wish I had a screen cap scene. He was definitly talking to the stencil on the wall. "Keep Clear" :)

I always thought when he said "Im trying" he was referring to keeping a clear head. Perhaps he was an alcoholic after he left the military. He does seem, at least, to be a recovering alcoholic. 67.50.94.121 02:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Korban wakes up in the morning and that throbing mechanical music is playing. Korban sits up, and sits on the edge of the bed....rubbing his neck he looks at the sign on the wall (obviously there before the room was made for human habitation) that says "KEEP CLEAR" Looking at the stenciled words he says, "I'm trying" What is interesting is that Luc Besson is french. Scientology in France has been under fire since the early 1980's and investigated by France's Justice Ministry. The church of scientology has been accused by France of Fraud. I don't find it strange at all that the director being french would find this type of reference funny. Dionysious7

I think you are reading way too much into a couple lines. The "Keep clear" line sits inbetween two sets of yellow circles. The same circles the police request Corben and fake-corben to put their hands on and is most likely a police warning. Remember wikipedia is not for original research or hunches. -- Ari 16:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I always figured that Korben replied "I'm trying" in reference to his trying to keep clear of life's hurdles and problems....and how trouble and things going wrong always seem to find him. There was nothing in the film that had anything to do with scientology. 64.208.152.156 21:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

And nothing in this article needs to reflect that concept. Comme le Lapin 06:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree with 64.208.152.156, although to me, it sounds like he actually says "I try", not "I'm trying". It was my belief that he was referring to his apartment in general, and it's size and contents, a fact that is later mentioned by General Munro. He would say "I try." meaning, "Yes, this apartment is small, unappealing, and it's contents less than desirable, but I try to do my best." or something to that effect.

While I do not agree with the Scientology theory, he definitely says "I try" several seconds before the cigarette machine says "To quit is my goal" and several seconds after the machine says "Four a day". This lets us know that it was most likely not in reference to it. It's my opinion that he was thinking about life in general, as an above poster mentioned. Also, for the record, it was "I try" and not "Im trying". 70.190.243.171 01:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

New York Race Game

It's Says it was inspired by the film the fifth element so should this be added?

• There was another flying car game set in New (Neo) York very similar to this called Beambreakers. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Plot Summary too long

It appears to be in need of being summarized itself. Jon 15:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Comme le Lapin 21:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the plot summary to a length that's more appropriate to a synopsis. It was almost 1,250 words; I edited it down to 1024, and edited it again down to 994 words. As it's not a novelization, every detail of the story doesn't need to be described. It seems a synopsis of a film's story could be written in 500 words, or at the very least, not more than 1000. Comme le Lapin 18:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Great article but it needs a few more things

One thing that can be added to the article is what sort of Reception the film got on its release, was it liked or disliked by the Critics? (The Critics usually pan most Sci-Fi).

Is it generally considered a good movie by the Public and critics or is it just liked by Sci-Fi fans?

And secondly was the film commercially successful (i.e. did it make money or lose money, etc.)? I assume that was successful, but what was it's, what's the word?... "Box Office gross"?

--Hibernian 02:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

All these topics have been since been addressed. Comme le Lapin 06:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

In-joke

As a digital in-joke, the license plates on the flying cars say "New York, the fuck you state". Of course, the slogan is too small to be read on screen.

If this can't be seen, how is it verified? PrometheusX303 16:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It says that on IMDb.- JustPhil 21:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. It does say that. But since anybody can add trivia, are there any other sources? (Amazon.com, but the same deal) PrometheusX303 00:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Error in plot summary

It's really an error in the movie: they don't put the evil planet into orbit around the Earth. All they do is stop its forward velocity (I think at "52 miles 'till impact"). As it is well within the Earth's sphere of influence, it will immediately begin to accelerate due to gravity, and crash into the Earth a few minutes later. There's no "movie error" section, and I think that the IDEA is that it is in orbit, so I suppose I'll leave it in the summary.. 100DashSix 14:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

An error in the summary (not in the film) is the statement that Leeloo is "meant to meet the diva Plavalaguna, who is performing at a charity ball in a hotel on Fhloston" (loosely paraphrasing). She's actually performing at such a ball on the cruise ship in orbit around the planet, not in a hotel on the planet's surface. Or do I have that wrong after watching the film three times? Canonblack 06:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct. All action on Phloston takes place on the cruise ship. It was near the surface, but moved to orbit before the diva's performance. The ship was in orbit when it blew. PrometheusX303 12:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it an error? the cruise ship IS the hotel. Alson the evil planet stops at 63 miles above the surface, which makes sense considering Luc Besson is European (63 miles = 100 kilometers). TinyMark 19:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Question about the Death of the Assistant

A small reference to the original James Bond novel Casino Royale exists within Fifth Element, at the New York "Spaceport" when Zorg causes the phone booth to explode via remote control following his conversation with his assistant Right Arm.

Maybe I've been expossed to too much cyberpunk but I thought that the bomb that blew up was in the assistant not the phone. As far as it goes it would be much easier to put a bomb in the assistant than to put a bomb in every phone booth on the planet. I've not read the scrip so I could be wrong here.

Isn't the point that Zorg manufactures almost everything in this future?

I took that scene to mean that he can cause any device to blow up at his command.

- 194.203.201.92 13:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

IMO, he sent a detonation code through his phone to his assistant's phone. 64.208.152.156 21:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Fifth element(?)

Wouldn't the fifth element be called "Aether"?

Not according to the film's script, no. Comme le Lapin 21:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be metal. Judging by the sarcophagus being made of it. Armoredavian 08:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Not many people get that the fifth element is love. Cornelius the priest identifies Leeloo's tatoo as the symbol of the fifth element. He later identifies her as the (or a) supreme being; perfect. At the end Cornelius realizes and whispers "Tell her" from his spot by the water stone. She and the stones are in place, but it is only when Korben professes his love for her, and the audience is led to believe it's true love, is the fifth element in place and the weapon works. In order for love to exist, a "person" has to be there to feel it, and that is Leeloo's function as a part of the weapon.

And the summary is silly long. Towermac 02:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Please Remove Fact Tags

This article no longer contains unsourced statements, and should be removed from the categories "Articles with unsourced statements since February 2007" as well as "All articles with unsourced statements." Comme le Lapin 06:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

All of the pictures were removed here and apparently no one cared so I added them back in.--76.16.222.135 23:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The images are a much-needed improvement. Thanks. Comme le Lapin 06:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Fhloston

Please merge any relevant content from Fhloston per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fhloston. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 09:37Z

I can see that nothing has been added from the article here, so there can be no "merger" of articles to speak off. I am adding all the information into the main article, or a separate article should be restored, either way. Gryffindor 10:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The ZF1

There doesn't seem to be an article on the ZF1, when it's created, it should be linked here. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:Science_fiction_weapons Many of the functions of the ZF1 actually worked in some fashion. The net launcher fired a net, the rocket launcher was real too. I don't recall what else was real on it. (Obviously the 'instant replay' homing bullets and big red button that blew it up weren't real!)

Diva Performance Not Digitally Altered?

The article currently says, "in a documentary feature on the Special Edition DVD release, it is stated that Mula-Tchako's voice was not digitally altered", referring to the aria of the diva. That feature may well say so, but can anyone confirm this is actually true? For example, there is a passage where the timbre of the voice shifts along with the pitch, in a way characteristic of digital pitch shifting. The claim of the entire performance being sung as heard is not implausible, but it would be an improvement to state more precisely what exactly was and was not done in post-production, as technically every bit of the soundtrack was "digitally altered" in some ways, and the question is, to what extent is the commentary on the special edition DVD oversimplifying?

Changed "stated" to "claimed" in order to reflect this controversy. To a trained ear, these down-shifted notes (which, basically, wouldn't be necessary if the singer's chest voice is powerful enough) stand out clearly from the other notes. -- megA 09:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of the volcalised notes look different to the others in a spectrograph. 79.74.185.179 (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Metropolis homage

The influence section says that several scenes pay homage to "Metropolis," but says no more about which scenes or how. It needs examples or a citation

Some rework?

Since I'm watching the movie at present (third time it's been on ITV2 in a fortnight!) it occurred to me we could lose a lot of minor stuff. The plot summary is flagged as being too long in relation to the rest of the article; that means in a simplistic sense, making the article longer or the summary shorter. I've already taken the liberty of tabulating the minor characters/cameos (are they really cameos?) & moving what I can elsewhere, out if necessary. If readers want to know what Red Dwarf is, for example, they can follow the link without being told, although I guess if they're into 5th Element they would be likely to have heard of it. From the plot summary, detail like Korben's mother's phone calls could be lost without detriment. Also there is repetition of detail and wordage such as "give them anything in exchange for their efforts" (="pay them"?). I'll have a stab at it if nobody objects but I don't want to go wading in with both feet, and I'll leave a reasonable time for this to appear on watchlists. Meanwhile, "anyone else wanna negotiate?". --Rodhullandemu 22:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Stab at plot shortening

I've taken a stab at shortening the plot; pretty much this means shortening much of what happens in the second fourth of the movie (the Fhloston tickets, the stuff at the airport), but also just cutting down elsewhere. Some of these are really hard to write towards given the direction nature of Luc Besson, so hopefully it will cover those. --Masem 22:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, have managed to trim some more without, I hope, losing any meaning. Have also removed the "too long" tag. --Rodhullandemu 01:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"Although" in intro

This line is really weird. It's not exactly unknown for British or French productions to be based in the US. And the "America English" bit is just weird; what's the alternative, telling Bruce Willis that he has to pronounce the U in "colour"? Planning on rewriting this. Chris Cunningham 18:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the "in the American English language" part that disturbs me. If it simply said "in American English" everyone would know what is meant. Also the link is completely wrong. It points to "English language" but should point to the "American English" article. TinyMark 19:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Evil Planet

How can a planet be evil? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.172.221 (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It was implied that it had some form of "intelligence" - ie. the way it reacted (shrinking and preparing itself) when the Federated Army cruisers attacked it. SMC (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The Matrix

When Leloo was kicking butt in the hotel during the diva performance, she does that little hand motion inviting the aliens to attack her that became so popular after The Matrix. Does anyone know if the Matrix creators used it in tribute to The Fifth Element, just stole the move, or just happened to use the exact same thing in their own movie? MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 13:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I seem to remember Bruce Lee using it when he invited opponents to attack.81.145.240.115 (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Its a kung fu thing. Its liek saying The Matrix copied a "kick" or a "jab" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.212.79 (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Kung-Fu.. Matrix... You guys are interpreting way to much into this. Its just a provocative action to taunt the other person in terms of "i don't fear you" or "you're no match for me" its been around since centurys and didnt start with bruce lee or anybody else in a movie... --95.88.227.44 (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Novelization

I added more details about the book by Terry Bisson (no relation to Luc) and provided another reference. Is it not notable enough?--Dudeman5685 (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually only noticed there was a Fifth Element novel after seeing it on an online auction site. Currently the line which mentions its' existence is enough, and yes, the novel is notable. As an aside - is the novelization any good? SMC (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't know. But novelizations usually explain allot about the plot that the move leaves unclear. Thats why I'm about to read the Raiders of the lost arch book; a couple of things in the movie need explaining to me. --Dudeman5685 (talk) 01:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a French translation. There's a bibliographic history here. I'll try answering any specific questions you have. Circeus (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a great book, but it follows the earlier scripts fairly closely. Ruby Rhod is Loc Rhod, and the Diva is implied to have a telepathic connection with Leeloo that goes deeper than the film's inference. There are scenes added that were not in the film, such as Leeloo and Korben together right before the Diva performance, as opposed to Leeloo's hiding in the hallway and Korben's hook-up with Ruby.LeeloosGotAGun (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Heavy Metal influence

Helo, i believe that the the animation Movie Heavy Metal influenced the character of Korben Dallas, if you compare Korben cab with the Heavy Metal cab and its interior you will see what i mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omarnirv (talk • contribs) 05:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If a reliable source, particularly Besson himself, has said this, it might be worth including. Otherwise, this would be impermissible original research. --Rodhullandemu 22:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this actually holds some weight. Korben Dallas is the name of the main character in the movie. Richard Corben is the writer that most of the Heavy Metal stories or imagery or themes comes from. This seems more than just shear coincidence. Though without confirmation from the director or the screenplay writer, it really can't be more than speculation, though there is evidence to support such a conclusion. Samyael (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Known Merchandise

I was wondering if if would be valid or if anyone would have any interest in a merchandise/items section on the page? I know not a lot of media pages include related items to a license but some 5th items are difficult to find. Maybe that would be better suited to an external webpage?LeeloosGotAGun (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

We've had this problem with Doctor Who-related merchandise. Policy on external links is not to link to commercial websites; however, if the merchandise has been mentioned in other sources, it could be covered. --Rodhullandemu 22:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Plavalaguna vs Plava Laguna

Shouldn't the alien diva name be Plava Laguna (two words)? In Serbian Plava Laguna meens Blue Lagoon and the diva was named by Mila Jovovich, partialy of Serbian descent... WOW (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No; all media, drawing references, and writings refer to the Diva's name as "Plavalaguna" as one word.LeeloosGotAGun (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hard matte

The article says that most of the effects were "hard mattes", without explaining what they are. Hard matte just links to "matte", which also makes no reference to the term "hard matte". This makes the article read like it's for insiders who know a lot about special effects techniques. Can somebody fix this? I could remove the sentence, but I'd rather somebody add (in this article or elsewhere) an explanation of what a hard matte is, and why it's interesting that they would be used. Mark Foskey (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

AFAICS it links to matte (filmmaking), which does define a "hard matte", in its second section. --Rodhullandemu 20:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Kassovitz

{{editsemiprotected}} |- | Mathieu Kassovitz || The man who attempts to rob Korben on his doorstep || a French film director (Babylon A.D., Gothika, Les rivières pourpres/The Crimson Rivers, La Haine/Hate), actor (Amélie, Asterix & Obelix: Mission Cleopatra, Amen., Munich), and friend of Besson. |- Jfredk (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

 Not done In this film, his role is minor (less than a minute, IIRC), and if anyone wants to know more about him, that's why he is Wikilinked. As regards this article, this detail is irrelevant. Unless consensus develops otherwise, I don't see a need to do this. --Rodhullandemu 02:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Financial theorem in Zorg's monologue?

When Zorg goes on his monologue explaining to the priest that both of them are actually agents of the same cause, he goes into this monologue about how when he's creating chaos, he creates jobs and opportunity and finance for other people. He's actually paraphrasing some other financial thing from someone famous in the past but I just forget who. Incidentally, as it turns out, it's logically false and is manipulative to let the listener think he's right. um. anyone remember what it is? Squiggle (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

financial theorum reference

I think what he's recounting is Bastiat's "parable of the broken window" (ref wikipedia article of same/similar name) which states (as you mention) a logical fallacy of : 'a broken window creates jobs for other people', but ignores the fact that the businessman whose window was broken could have spread the money around to more people than just the glazier who replaced the window. Or logic to that effect.(this is a very simplified explanation of Bastiat's point) Twodogs99 (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Mr Shadow sequel

I'm surprised there's no info about the information included on the double disc DVD about a sequel here. --Refuteku (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed line about film being a 'cult classic'

Given this movie's box office success, legions of fans, Academy Award nominations, and the fact that the cited article was an outdated blog with zero credibility, I've removed the line claiming that this movie is 'often cited' as a cult classic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.88.8 (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

article error

Just to put in light that the link nicole Merry as V.I.P. Stewardess link to the article of Pro footbal player Thierry Henry. They must be a mistake here...please help... merci —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.215.236 (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Soundtrack

Since I own The Fifth Element: The Complete Score, and also have Eric Serra as a friend on my MySpace friendslist, I've shot him a note with questions about the authenticity and origins of the 2-disc set. I'm not crossing my fingers on an immediate answer (or perhaps not even an answer at all!), but if I do get one eventually, at least there will be more information out there on it. If anyone else owns it or knows the history of the set please feel free to respond! I hate not knowing the set's past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeloosGotAGun (talk • contribs) 07:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I also have the two disc set, and noticed some apparent contradictions on the page. For instance, the actual title on the box and discs is The Fifth Element: The Complete Original Motion Picture Soundtrack, nowhere does it actually use the term "score" on the packaging (though disc 1 is the film's score). Also, the page lists the track counts as 46 tracks on disc 1 and 31 tracks on the second, while the real counts are 41 on disc 1 and 26 on disc 2; I think there might be a little "telephone game" going on there. Tracks 5 through 26 are not exactly the same as those on the commercial release either, the order is different (some actually have different titles) and they have all been remixed or edited to some degree (as clearly indicated by the track listing on the back). As for the authenticity, it does have a copyright of 2000 for the specific packaging and compilation by Columbia Pictures, so it seems legit. All in all, it seems the whole mention of the two disc set is inaccurate, assuming the set is legit and doesn't vary. It would be nice to hear from some others, but that seems a bit unlikely considering... MS3FGX (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. Nice to know someone else who owns this! I've been trying to figure out the origin of my set for a long time. The rumor is that the set that I own (with differing titles from yours, and tracks) is that it is the copy that was given to the publishing company to whittle down on what would be included in the commercial 1-disc set (i.e. it's likely a copy of a master set?). My set is of undeterminate origin and is not copyrighted nor printed with commercial images. Cold it be a copy of the commercial 2-disc set? It's possible, but the CDs are printed with titles and it's been years since I bought it. I wouldn't be able to find out who sold it to me if my life depended on it. Disc one runs with 46 tracks at 72:17 mintes, and disc 2 is 29 tracks with a time of 65:38. In any case, I have no clue and have not been able to determine anything about the set whatsoever. All the links I've hit have listed the first disc at 46 tracks and the second at 25. My set has trailer music mixed in on the second disc. So, someone did some hard work compiling it, wherever it came from. I'd love to hear about your set if you have any more info. I did see a picture of the commercially released set online, which helps.LeeloosGotAGun (talk) 05:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

  In the Soundtrack section it says, "The music used for the taxicab chase scene, titled "Alech Taadi" by Algerian performer Khaled, is excluded from the film soundtrack, but it is available on Khaled's album N'ssi N'ssi." I have seen The Fifth Element from several different sources and I have never seen a version where Khaled's song is not used. I love that song and have the album so I have paid attention to this scene. It should be more specific if it means the CD alone or the DVD. James May James E May (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that section is pretty specific concerning the fact that we're talking scores on album releases, considering the topic under the heading and subsequent paragraphs. This section does not deal with whether the song is or isn't edited out of the film itself (it isn't, as you have pointed out). I have three different versions of the score now. Two include "Alech Taadi", but the commercial release does not.LeeloosGotAGun (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit I made toward the film reception section.

I modified the reception section for the 5th element. I thought it would be more accurate to say that film recieved mostly average review scores since that's what a films reception is about. Originally it said the film was well recieved only because it judged the film on the amount of positive reviews it recieved on Rotten Tomatoes instead of the review scores. It also included the score it got on Meta Critic.

You removed the Rotten Tomatoes review and replaced it with Metacritic. That had the effect of imposing a non-neutral assessment of the film into the article. Ideally, "Reception" sections should include assessments by such notable critics as Leslie Halliwell and Roger Ebert. Aggregation sites such as Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are of somewhat lesser value, simply because they are just that- aggregators. To be fair to the film, and our readers, we should present reviews by notable commentators, and allow our readers to make up their own minds. We should not make that decision for them. Rodhullandemu 02:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Opening the fifth element

The article says, "Realizing that love is worth saving, Leeloo finds the inspiration to release the weapon". I think this misses the significant point that she had to be opened to be activated as the fifth element. The fifth element is the human element, the spirit, or heart (even in Captain Planet). I dont think it is the case that she was planning on letting everyone die and was finally "inspired" to spare the earth. The stones came closed, and they imply Leeloos heart also came closed (throwing in lines about her not knowing love, and being a protector not a lover). In teaching her to love, Dallas opened her heart and "activated" her - just as the stones were opened/activated through the introduction of their corresponding elements. She didn't necessarily even understand 'how' to release the weapon or do it by an act of will, it was just involuntary that when love was introduced to her she would do what her element does, which is to physically incarnate the power of the other 4 elements.

To make a short story long, the article does not convey that since she was part of the "kit" to this whole evil-banishing magic ritual which this is all about, she had to be activated by the introduction of her element, in the exact same way the stones did. --173.57.9.181 (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Dates indicated in plot

I've rewatched the film and see no indication of the years mentioned in the posted plot. Where are these dates taken from? --RedKnight (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

When Korben wakes in the film (his first scenes), the readout on his clock gives the date. It's that little green/yellow neon piece of plastic sticking out of the wall when he sits up.LeeloosGotAGun (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Seriously?

This is not an action film, its tongue in cheek throughout, its essentially a comedy. I mean seriously, those funny looking aliens who look like the Judoon from Doctor Who? The blue opera singer who's lovely aria turns into a poppy Bond-theme music esque electro track. I mean, this film is not to be taken seriously! lol, its a comedy/action not a sci-fi/action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.232.127 (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's meant to be a little bit of everything. There are clearly action sequences and major sci-fi elements in the film (I mean everywhere, because it is sci-fi whether you think so or not). Whether or not you take it seriously does not classify it as one specific genre. But to each his own.LeeloosGotAGun (talk) 05:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If we want to get pedantic about it (I'm not personally in favor of this) we could require sourcing for the genres the movie's being assigned to. I doubt any reliable source called this film a comedy. Doniago (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Labeling as "French" film

I just rejected a pending-change edit, erroneously flagged as Minor, that inserted "french" (sic) into the first sentence of the lede (to describe the film as "a french film"). I really didn't know it was but I checked and, sure enough, it is; I was wrong.

I was thinking of restoring the edit but looked at a couple of other film articles. It doesn't seem to be a universal convention to say "a 1992 American film", "a 2006 British film", "a 2003 French film", etc, but it's done on about a third of the films I looked at. This distinction is adequately made in the infobox but I didn't want to shortchange the editor, nor the film, nor break convention.

I'm sitting on the fence about it. Any opinions?

Thanks! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 22:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the lead section paragraph in the Film MoS, it states that the nationality should be ideally placed in the opening sentence. If nationality is ambiguous, we should clarify the circumstances at a later point in the first paragraph per that guideline. The film was produced in France (technically a French film), but filmed at England's Pinewood Studios. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Evil Voice

Who "played" the evil voice on the phone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.115.18 (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Gemini Croquette

Who was cast for the role Gemini Croquette, the lady who advertised the contest? serioushat 01:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

IMDb has no listing. Given they wouldn't be a principal in any case and consequently wouldn't merit listing in the article, I'm not sure how it's particularly relevant? Doniago (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Leeloo's name

Is it necessary to place Leeloo's entire name in the cast listing? I think it bogs the listing down, but I changed it to the official printed spelling of her name (though Besson runs the different words together differently in his book, but same spelling). I posted the version that was printed on the French Metro poster used to advertise the movie. I know the script and some online media spell it with "Lekarariba", but it's pronounced with a hard "T" sound in the film as well.LeeloosGotAGun (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

External Links

It is important to check the external links and make sure they are working and are not advertised as an official source or guide related to the movie or anything related therein.

I will change the external link, "The Divine Language" to "Divinian" as I have gone to test the link and found it is related to the actual language spoken about in the movie but enthusiast created it as another version.Leeloominai (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Future Year

User:SamEtches has been changing the year in which the bulk of the film is set from 2214. In the prologue the aliens specifically state that Evil will return in 300 years, and the prologue is set in 1914. Unless there is any substantive argument against the bulk of the film being set in 2214, I will consider any further changes to be vandalism. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm as I just checked, it says it takes place in 1914 and then the future scene says "300 years later" so yeah, any further changes from 2214 will be undone. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

SO I don't have to write this when Sam inevitably changes it back, the synopsis linked to on IMDb has an option to edit it, it is user written and completely, utterly, 100% not to be used as a source. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The movie DOES SAY 2263! When Korben wakes up in his first scene in his apartment, his alarm clock says it is 2263! See for yourself here! 2263 Alarm Clock — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamEtches (talk • contribs) 21:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And the aliens say 300, the on screen text says 300, the priest says 300. Noone says 349 or even 350 which is what 2263 is minus 1 year. So that's 3 to one. For all we know calendar's were destroyed and they had to restart them after a few years of people not being able to track the passage of time. What I do know is that is 3 saying 300 to 1 saying 2263. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Secondary sources are mixed on the date between 2214 and 2263 (from Google news). I'm trying to find the primary source (The screenplay or any promotional materials) to confirm, because we shouldn't be arguing on the inconsistency between 1 line of possibly vague dialog ("300 years") and the date stamped on one prop.

The alternate choice is to leave it as "mid-23rd century" since both dates could apply, and gives enough of what future timescale this is. --MASEM (t) 21:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC

It's unlikely that the "Great Evil" would give specific dates that it would return. So I assume when it says "300 years later", it's just rounding up the numbers, same as when the priest says it. Again, as others have said, Korben's clock specifically says 2263, so there's simply no debate on the matter. ~

Interpretation of Ending

I'm curious as to the source of the particular interpretation of the ending currently contained in the article. As written, it makes it sound like Leeloo was the fifth element and that she controlled the release of the Divine Light. It has always been my understanding that the fifth element was love, which when brought together with the other four automatically released the Light; and Leeloo, while occasionally referred to as the fifth element, was in fact just an influential part of the process. Siggimoo (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It's usually up to individual interpretation, but to be honest, for me, Leeloo IS the Fifth Element who embodies the Divine Light and ejects it upon need when the four elemental stones link to her. She is supposed to signify life and love as she is innocent, but through the film she begins to lose her faith in humanity to do good. Needing her faith back and never knowing love except for that which she has for humanity, she can't "work" unless her faith is restored. Therefore, for me, Korben's love restores her and motivates her to save humanity again. LeeloosGotAGun (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Sci-Fi police helmet oddity

This is the THIRD time now ive seen headgear like this, the first time was the officers from Judge Dredd, and again on s-CRY-ed anime worn by the H.O.L.D. members. Anybody have an origin for this helmet design? Murakumo-Elite (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Patrice Garcia, 1992, "The Story of The Fifth Element", Luc Besson, 1997. LeeloosGotAGun (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox poster

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus has been determined that the international poster should be used for the article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

---

All right. There's been a dispute in changing the original release poster back to the international release poster for the infobox. أنا أحبك (talk · contribs), a relative newcomer to the project, has stated that the international release poster should be kept, as this is the English Wikipedia. The original French poster, which was added in by Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs), was added due to the fact that the film was released in France. Since the film was released in a foreign country (in this case, France), the original poster from that country should be kept in the infobox. As such, I think we need to come up with a consensus to include which version of the poster is to be used in the infobox. Thoughts or objections? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The sole purpose of the infobox image—the one that the FUR for using copyrighted material hinges on—is that the poster in the infobox visually identifies the film to the reader. On that basis, the logical choice is to use the poster version with the title that matches up to the name of the article. If we use the foreign title as per WP:COMMONNAME we should use the poster with the foreign title; if we use the English title for our article we should use the poster with the English title. In this particular instance we should use the poster with the English title since the name of the article is The Fifth Element, not Le Cinquième Élément. Betty Logan (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The poster title should match the article title. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree: English-language Wikipedia, English-language article title, English-language film, English-language poster. It makes no difference that it came out in France first, it's an international film aimed at an English-speaking audience and thus should use the international, English-language poster. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. To show the content in a more historically appropriate way, it should be related to how it was shown in it's original country where it won awards and where it's production was based. The film visually identifies various facts to the user, one being that it was french production (which is not confusing to the user, the title is clearly shown in french and english in the intro lead to the article) and how the film was promoted in it's original country. It's not a foreign title if this is how the product is originally known as. I seriously doubt any confusion will be brought to anyone having this poster. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

template:infobox film also states that "an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded and added to the infobox to serve as an identifying image for the article.". The original release was in France, not the United States. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The guideline is ok for most cases, but if the title on the poster doesn't visually match up to the title of the article then it is arguably not compliant with its FUR. Betty Logan (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I know it doesn't match up, but so what? Is that really going to confuse people? If they read the article's first four words, they figure out how the title matches. It's a french film, it has a french title and and english title, here's the original poster. I don't think anyone is frustrated or confused by this, not to mention all of the other foriegn film articles use the poster for their country of original production. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of having the film poster in the infobox is not to show readers what the original poster looked like, but to identify the subject matter of the article to readers. Obviously it serves that function better if the titles match up. Betty Logan (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd disagree that it identifies it better. With the original poster, it identifies it's background country. Again, I think if we are squibbling over just a couple things like posters, I think it'll be just as identifiable as it says both the French and English titles in the lead. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

English language Wikipedia. The poster you're trying to introduce has no historical value in the UK, the US, Australia or New Zealand, nor does it reflect the actual film title in the English-speaking world. The current poster has served the project just fine for almost seven years. أنا أحبك (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It does have historical value in France, it identifies the country of origin. And it does reflect the actual film title as that the title of the film on it's original release. Just because the other poster there was longer, doesn't hold any weight in the argument. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the poster is to help identify the work and as this is the English wikipedia, the French poster is not appropriate. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Moving back the conversation a bit, it does identify it. It show's it's french title. it shows the main actor, and it would not confuse anyone. As i've stated above, "template:infobox film also states that "an image of the film's original theatrical release poster should be uploaded and added to the infobox to serve as an identifying image for the article.". This French film was released in france first. It's all quite clear. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

France is not part of the English-speaking world. This is the English Wikipedia and we have here the International release poster. By the way, the length of time the international poster has been in the infobox does carry weight, because it's been long-established as acceptable within the article and places the onus on you to gain consensus for the introduction of the French poster. I don't see that yet, in fact, you're the only person thus far who thinks the French poster should be used. أنا أحبك (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you show me the rule that says "it's been there a long time, so we should keep it"? I'm not familiar with this wikipedia rule. Once you find it, i'll be comfortable with leaving it there. Otherwise, we should listen to something that is stated in the infobox rules. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I've gone through Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images and I can't find anything pertaining to how long an image has been on wikipedia in order to have it stay up. So if there are no other arguments... Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Andzejbanas, what is the rush? Betty, myself and (i in no way can type that name) are against its inclusion and we've given reasoning why. The infobox does not say the poster of its home country, its says the original release poster and that is not the original English release poster of the English language film that was only produced/directed by a French lot. That poster has been there a long time and it will not kill you or anyone else to wait while you make a proper argument for including a french poster in the English wikipedia which does not serve to identify the film at all. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

No real rush, but I just am interested in why certain rules are being implemented (which I can't find listed anywhere!). I'm more learning towards that having a french poster helps the user understand how the film was promoted in it's home country (note that only Bruce Willis is noted, opposed to anyone else) and that it's not an American production. Having a poster in French helps illustrate this. It's not just because Besson directed it, but it's a French film and to me, it's like using a Chinese poster to represent a French film. Doesn't make enough sense! I'm in no way against using the title of the article to state the film's English title, as that's what people will be searching, but if the infobox title says the English title and the caption under the poster illustrates that it's a french poster, it should be fine. And as I've stated, the rule so far is to have the poster of the original premiere which is French. I just think people are missing out on rules and other information. And yes it doesn't kill me, but I'd hope someone hear would at least take my arguements (which I think are valid) into consideration. :)Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a case of ignoring the guideline, I think you are misinterpretating the MOS (or perhaps interpreting an ambiguously worded MOS too literally). The poster isn't there to identify the country of production, or help explain its marketing strategy, its inclusion in the article is to purely serve as visual identification of the topic of the article. The reason the guideline suggests the original release poster is because the poster art is usually the most widely recognised visual association with the film. Just as we select the title that the film is known under in the English language (whether that is the original title or a translation), logic dictates that we should select the visual art that the film was most widely marketed under to English language viewers. Betty Logan (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that because the poster has served the project for so long, you should gain consensus before making the change and not smash the new poster into the infobox like you have been doing. EDIT: Andrzejbanas and Sjones23, besides driving the new poster issue, both appear to have edited Princess Mononoke, an article whose talk page Sjones23 has been heavily involved with. Both have edited Home Alone and Super Mario Bros. articles, and both seem to have a penchant for anime and horror films. Slightly concerning... أنا أحبك (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I use only one account. I am a major contributor in editing anime and film articles here and have been editing Wikipedia for nearly 7 years now. As discussed above, we are trying to gain some form of consensus here, but I believe that a more broad consensus is needed for this matter. As such, I am going to open up an request for comment about whether we should use the original French poster or the international release poster. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Only one account here too with occasional "oops, i'm not logged in" editing. You can run checks if you aren't sure, but I don't have time to pretend I'm other people. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Is the original French theatrical release poster relevant?

With regard to Template:Infobox_film#Image, should the original French theatrical release poster be included in The Fifth Element's infobox? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose First, in the above discussion, the idea referred to is implied consensus. The fact that the English language poster remained in the article for so long, without being contested, does imply a silent consensus; meaning: it was not something any editor looked at and felt was incorrect, until now. Second, with that said, it is my opinion that the English language (or "International") poster should be used for the article. The reason I hold this opinion is twofold: 1. This is an English language encyclopedia, so we should use the poster with the English language title on it. 2. The film is not merely a French film; it is an English language, French film. Reason 1 is not enough on its own, in my opinion; taken with reason 2, however, I believe it is the correct choice. Also potentially applicable is WP:COMMONNAME; in English language sources (and English language communities), the film is more commonly known by its English language title. On a tangential note, I think this RFC could set a precedent for other foreign, English language films. It just makes more sense, to me, to use the English language poster on films that are presented in the English language.  Chickenmonkey  09:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Again, the international poster has served the article for almost seven years, with none of the millions of visitors taking issue. All of a sudden, two editors, Andrzejbanas and Sjones23, come along to drive this issue, both of whom have very similar editing interests (as noted in discussion above). Besides that concerning detail, this is the English Wikiepdia not French, and the film is in fact an English-language film made in France. Also, the French poster carries a different name and therefore does not represent the article, which is the purpose of infobox posters. EDIT: I see Sjones23 smashed the French poster back in today, then thought better of it. I feel that this reflects the desperation that could possibly lead a user to bringing in a sock to strengthen his position. After all, those are the only two users thus far pushing for the use of the French poster... أنا أحبك (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Please do not insult or make assumptions about me or Andrzejbanas, and I have clearly explained that I use one account and I never use sockpuppets. At the same time, we want to show some respect towards fellow editors and the reasons for doing so in their edits and always maintain good faith. However, we do not want to edit war over the poster (which is forbidden and can lead to a block). Today, as discussion was still ongoing, I had to self revert until we can get consensus regarding which poster to use. Even if the international poster has served the article for seven years, consensus can change. Also, as this is the English Wikipedia, and I logically think that the poster in the infobox visually identifies the film to the reader. I was concerned over which poster to use (the French poster or the International release poster) and as such, I had to take this discussion to the talk page to gain a consensus among the other users. So far, Darkwarriorblake, Betty Logan and IllaZilla, as well as Fortdj33 have argued against the inclusion of the French poster, but I felt that the RFC should work best for this matter so we can get a consensus on which poster we should use for this article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm just concerned, that's all. Two users arriving at the same time to push the same angle, both of whom have similar editing interests. I know you understand. أنا أحبك (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

If you are in any way concerned, you can run a check on it. In all honesty, I edited a category on Princess Mononoke after I saw the other use post about on the film talk page. I think that's really my only recent edit to that article in a while. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Agree: As the infobox states "image of the film's original theatrical release poster", which is the French poster as the film is a French production. This is how the film was originally presented, and the best historical image to represent a film. It showcases French-language text and show cased how the French production was marketed to it's audience in France. In France, the film was particularly successful financially and won awards in it's country. Many films from Europe are in the English-language, but this is just to attract a global market. No visiting the article will think they are on the wrong page as the infobox's title clearly displays "The Fifth Element" in the infobox title, and the caption under the poster clearly displays that it's the Original French production poster. If anyone bother's to read the first line in the article that states both the English title and the French title that it will not confuse anyone, but if anything showcase that it is indeed a French film. I'm completely comfortable with the title of the article to be it's English title, but to ignore the production country to show a poster advertising for the film in a foreign country, does not make sense. To me, you might as well have the Chinese poster for it here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per my reasoning above PLUS the french title should be removed from the opening, I didn't notice that had been added. This isn't a niche Japanese title that never saw a western release or was released a significant amount of time after the original, it was released 2 days later. Its a major english language release featuring english stars and a serbian star in a futuristic western setting for the majority of the film. It wasn't released in French and later translated, and articles about english films on the foreign language wikipedias that I have seen do not carry the English title, just the local release title. There's a very overzealous push here considering this is the English wikipedia and so basically every single person outside of France and French Canada has no idea what that french poster is nor gains anything from seeing a french translation of "The Fifth Element" in the lede, since that is all it is. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think it will confuse people. I've followed several foreign film articles and I've never seen any user change the title or ask on the talk page about the film in question having a foreign title. That's a little presumptuous to assume everyone will be confused. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support French poster. The idea of the poster being in English for visual identification is pretty much null when you look at the actual poster used, which is a far cry from any of the readily-identifiable elements of the film or its marketing. A Google search for "the fifth element" shows at least three English posters in its first page or two, none of which are close copies of each other; it also shows that Jovovich's character is by far the most recognisable aspect of the film. So if we're not going with the simplest visual key (Jovovich as Leeloo) then go with something neutral, in which case the unequivocal original release poster (a similar search for "le cinquieme element" shows one poster over and over) should trump the idea of picking one of the several English-language posters. GRAPPLE X 18:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The idea is not, necessarily, that there should be one poster to identify the film, but that the poster should identify the film as an English language film. I mean, they only used one poster in Germany to market "Das Funfte Element", but that does not mean a German poster would be preferable over an English one. I know that is not what you are saying, but I think the point is made. The fact is that the film's original title is "The Fifth Element". In light of this fact, it makes sense that we should use a poster that includes the film's original title, regardless of how it may have been marketed in any country.  Chickenmonkey  00:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – My comments in the above discussion are more comprehensive, so I will only briefly summarise here. When choosing a title for the article we don't necessarily use the original title, we use the title that is the most frequently used in English language sources as per WP:COMMONNAME, with the rationale being that is the title that will be most familiar to English language readers. Since the FUR states that the sole purpose of the poster is to visually identify the work to readers, then it is logical to apply the same reasoning and adopt the poster art that will be the most familiar to English language readers. This isn't brain surgery: if we use the French title as the name of our article we would use the French poster art, but if we use the English title as the name of our article then we should use the English poster art, since both the name of the article and infobox image essentially serve the same purpose. Betty Logan (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support A French film by a French director first released in France would seem to indicate that the original release poster is relevant. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

English language film, within the English language Wikipedia, whose original title is The Fifth Element, though. Le Cinquième Élément, the title on the French poster, is a translation of this English language film's actual original title. أنا أحبك (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – Simply put, as long as the title of the article is The Fifth Element, the English-title version of the poster should be used. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

  Note:Just a thought to consider that nor all English speaking countries use the same English title for films. For example, the film High Tension in France is known as Switchblade Romance in the UK and High Tension in the US. So which poster would be most appropriate? Using the original country of production makes sense in this area, and should be applied to all film works in these areas. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The most appropriate poster would be the one that matches up to the title we have chosen for the article: if we go by the French title then I would expect to see the French poster bearing the French title, if the article is known as High Tension I would expect to see the US poster, and if we had chosen Switchblade Romance as the title of the article I would expect to see the UK poster. It just seems sensible to use the same rationale we use for selecting article titles, otherwise our approach to how we identify the topic of the article is inconsistent. Betty Logan (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand there are rules in play, but if I was from the United Kingdom, came across the article for the film by only being familiar with the UK title and saw the American poster, then I would think I was on the wrong page initially more so if I saw the poster for the French poster for the French film. Either way, that's a French-language film so it's not that relative to the discussion I guess.. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Even though the film is french directed it is English and directed towards international market, by no means a french poster would be relevant to the article, it would be actually misleading. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 00:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Just a reminder that User:IllaZilla also posted above, before this new section was created, with a detailed opposition that should not be discounted. From the comments of those who have weighed in on the issue raised by User:Sjones23, we are 7 to 3 in favor of the international poster, with a clear emerging consensus and the discussion set to conclude on November 26. أنا أحبك (talk) 02:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - English-language Wikipedia, international poster goes in the infobox. I'm not convinced that the infobox poster guideline really means to force the original-producing-country poster down every other Wikipedia's throat. For this article, given its dual-major-language production, I would endorse one or both of the following:

A. Per WP:IAR also include the original French poster in the ==Releases== section with FUR per poster per use and supporting critical discussion, n'est-ce pas?

B. Add a hatnote, linking to the French Wikipedia article

--Lexein (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to including the French poster in the "release" section, but I don't think we can invoke an IAR against the FUR for it because it's a legal thing. There would need to be some specific commentary about the French marketing and theatrical poster to use a second image. Betty Logan (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Yep the IAR is only regarding using two posters per article, not against the need for a FUR per poster per use, with supporting critical disussion in prose. We're on the same side of this. --Lexein (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion closed. Clear consensus established; RfC removed. This discussion may be raised again, in a new section, after six months if there are grounds for doing so. Please do not add further comment to this section. أنا أحبك (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Interpretation of Ending 2

I actually have a small hintquestion: at the end of the film the Evil/weapons planet is stopped just in front of the earth and is "frozen", you see the earth, the moon in orbit and these very evil planet that (! ) looks the same as the Earth's moon .... It should be indicated that the Earth's moon was already a stopped evil weapon planet, too? ... that would even make some sense: eventually the whole thing is supposed to be repeated every 5000 years. (However, then humans/aliens are probably are in the fight against Eivl much more successful when they have left only one other "moons" ... :-). Or evil can be stopped further away and perhaps all the asteroids in the solar system belonged to it? :-) Ich habe eigentlich nur einen fragenden kleinen Hinweis zum Schluss: als Das Böse/der fliegende feurige Waffenplanet kurz vor der Erde von den 5 Elementen gestoppt und "eingefroren" harmlos gemacht wird, sieht man die Erde, den Mond im Orbit und eben diesen Bösen-Planeten, der (!) genauso aussieht wie der Erdmond.... Sollte damit geg. angedeutet werden, dass der Erdmond auch schon so eine gestoppte Böse-Waffe war? ... das hätte sogar einen gewissen Sinn: schließlich soll ja das Ganze alle 5000 jahre sich wiederholen. (Allerdings sind wohl dann die Menschen/Aliens im Kampf dagegen sonst viel viel erfolgreicher, wenn sie bis auf einen sonst keine "Monde" hinterlassen haben... :-). Oder kann das Böse auch viel viel früher viel viel weiter weg gestoppt werden und etwa die ganzen Asteroiden im Sonnensystem gehörten dazu?--77.176.147.161 (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Please note that new Talk page threads should be listed at the bottom of an article. As to the subject at hand, this would constitute original research unless a reliable source has discussed it. DonIago (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Gemini Croquette

Who portrayed this character, and should it be mentioned in the article? I think she appeared in the Macarena music video. Please notify replies on my talk page. serioushat 11:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The latter would seem to be WP:TRIVIA unless a reliable source took note of it. DonIago (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Budget

In my search for references for this article I have noticed that several different figures have been given for the films budget. The following references are currently used somewhere in the article. I am going to continue to go with the figure of $90 million, since that figure has been found the most.

• 50 million: [2]
• 70 million: [3]
• 80 million: [4][5]
• 90 million: [6][7][8][9]
• 95 million: [10] (not currently used in article)
• 100 million: [11] Freikorp (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• $90 million is the number given in Luc Besson's film diary.LeeloosGotAGun (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Luc Besson's film diary refers to the book "The Story of the Fifth Element" by Luc Besson, published in 1997, the first half of which is Besson's diary entries on production. Given this fact I think sticking with the figure of $90 million is definitely the right call. If someone could tell me what page number the figure of $90 million appears on (so that I can use it as a reference for the article), that would be appreciated. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Fifth Element/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Meetthefeebles (talk · contribs) 11:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Big fan of this film, so I'll review :) Give me a few hours to put something together... Meetthefeebles (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Right, let's get started. First things first:

• Disambiguation: Two found using the Dablinks tool; Gaumont and Golden Reel Awards both link to disambiguation pages. Can these be fixed please?
• Images: The infoxbox poster is fine under it's fair use rationale, the gun image is fine and the cab image is also probably fine under it's fair use license. Captions are fine and correctly formatted per WP:Caption and compliant with WP:WAF.
• Dead links; One showing on the search tool but when I click it seems okay. A few redirects; it might be worth updating the urls in ref.35 & ref.7 to help prevent possible WP:LINKROT
  • Links 52 and 58 are now also dead. Can these be replaced? Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• Quick Fail issues: Can't see any cleanup tags, there seems at first glance through to be plenty of inline references, no evidence of edit warring

As always, I'll be reviewing using WP:WIAGA. I'll also refer to and be using as a guide WP:MOSFILM, which although not strictly part of the GA criteria does provide excellent guidance on style, content and structure which will assist with assessing c.1b and c.3a-b.

Okay, I'll work through by section and leave any comments below:

Lead

• Per WP:FILMLEAD, name, year of release, genre & nationality of film all present as required. First paragraph correctly identifies the director and the stars of film, though part of me wonders if Chris Rock is also a 'star' of this film (admittedly he is absent from the promo poster).
• I wonder if there is merit in blue-linking Major?
• A question – is the central plot of the film the destruction of Earth or the 'survival of humanity' as you state? Certainly the Great Evil is stopped prior to destroying earth but in the film universe humanity has colonised various other planets.
• There is an inconsistency with the budget figure I've spotted when looking at one of your sources; the book cited at ref.5, 'Playing for Profit' (at p.58), claims the budget was $50m. The lead of the article claims it was $90m and this is sourced later at ref.2. That is a big discrepancy.
• The rest of the lead looks fine to me.

Plot
This section looks fine. Unreferenced but permitted by WP:MOSFILM#plot. I can't detect any obvious evaluative elements. 678 words means it is within the guidance provided by the MoS. Some small comments/suggestions:

• Suggest blue linking extraterrestrials
• Also suggest blue linking sarcophagus
• Per WP:CENTURY, uncapitalize '23rd Century'
• "The priest of the Mondoshawan key, Vito Cornelious..." reads a little odd to me. Suggest slight amendment to read "The current holder of the Mondoshawan key, priest Vito Cornelious..."
• Suggest blue linking shapeshifting? It also appears to be one word rather than a pair of hyphenated words.
• Picky point – is Leeloo 'created' or 'recreated' from the rescued hand?
• The attack on Leeloo by several Mangalores and also her being shot at (and seriously wounded) by Zorg on the cruiseliner before being found by Dallas with her hand dangling from an air duct is missing from the plot. This seems to me to be a reasonably important plot point and perhaps should be included?
• Consider blue linking consummate

Cast

• I would expect to see a little more in this section that simply a list of the main protagonists per WP:CASTLIST. However, I note that much of the suggesting material from the guideline is included in the Production section, so I see no major reason for qualm here.

Themes

• This is considered a primary section by WP:MOSFILM and it is missing. Can a theme section be added; there are certainly several that seem to run through the film (war/violence/aggression greed, issues relating to capitalism to name some off the top of my head)?

Production

• Unlink Maïwenn Le Besco per WP:OVERLINK; it is already linked in the cast section above.
• "The Fifth Element was shot in Super 35 mm film format. Most of the principal photography was filmed at Pinewood Studios in England. Some scenes were also shot on location in Mauritania. The concert scenes were filmed at the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, except for the special effect shots that show the Planet Fhloston through the ship's portholes. Nearly all of the visual effects scenes were hard-matted with the aid of computer-generated imagery." This section appears to be unreferenced?
• Otherwise this section is sound; engaging, well drafted and good use of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE

Release

• The Initial Screening section is a near word for word copy of the source material and is perhaps a little close to WP:COPYVIO. I'm not sure necessarily that there is a major concern here but if you can change the text it might be better?
• Is "major box office success" puffery? Suggest finding a reliable source which states that as such as using that here? Also, unless I'm going blind, I can't find anything in ref.2 about a worldwide gross of "over $263m"? Ref.3 seems to be the correct one to use here?
• I'd like to see some sources for "The first Blu-ray Disc release of the film occurred on 20 June 2006. It was widely criticized as having poor picture quality by Blu-ray standards, " – you provide one source which isn't a 'wide criticism' even accounting for the wording it uses.
• The rest of this section is very good

References

• What makes ref.4 a reliable source? It just looks like a Blue-Ray shop to me.
• I looked at pretty much all of the English references and they are almost all fine. I'll have to trust you on those in French, as I can't speak French. The format is sound overall.

Overall comments

• This one is pretty close to GA standards. The prose is very good save a couple of tiny issues raised above, the referencing is consistent and comprehensive, the images are good, there are no WP:NPOV issues or WP:OR. The only really substantive issue is one of depth; I'd expect to see a theme section in compliance with the WP:MOSFILM guideline and once this is added and the other smaller issues above are addressed I think we'll be about there. I'll place the article on hold pending a response. Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for the review. I'm just about to go to work so i'll get started on all these issues in a few hours. Freikorp (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Remaining issues
OK. I've looked at all your suggestions and I have implemented almost all of them. I would like to note:

• I previously started a discussion on the article's talk page pointing out the discrepancies I had found in the film's budget. I have found 5 separate figures for the budget however I have found the figure of 90 million in four separate references so that is what I am going with. Feel free to discuss; I am unsure what to do with so much conflicting information so going with the mode seemed to be the best option.

• Hmmm, a difficult one. What I would suggest is to perhaps consider adding a note, outlining the discrepancy and the reason for preferring $90m. Something along the lines of The budget of the film was $90m{note}" then in the note something like "This is the most widely quoted figure{ref}{ref}{ref} but other sources show budgets of $60m {ref} and $50m {ref}." I think that should deal with the discrepancy? Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• You are correct in stating the paragraph "The Fifth Element was shot in Super 35 mm film format..." was unreferenced. It was already in the article before I started editing it. I left it in in good faith. I have now removed it. I honestly don't mind one way or the other.

• I'd like to keep it in as it is information which benefits the article but if it cannot be sourced it will have to go I'm afraid. Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Links 52 and 58 are now also dead. Can these be replaced? Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• You state "What makes ref.4 a reliable source? It just looks like a Blue-Ray shop to me." I don't disagree with you that it is a blu-ray shop, but every source, regardless of notability, can be considered reliable for something. This reference is only used for a review of the blu-ray (completely acceptable imo) and that the film was described as Besson's 'life-long pet project'. Considering that we have a separate more reliable source that Besson did in fact start working on the film as a teenager I believe using this source to state that it has been described as a life-long project is reasonable. This statement is not biased in any way. Again, I am happy to discuss, and I am also willing to remove the reference and all attributed statements if it comes to the point where it is keeping the article from reaching GA status.

• I am happy to accept the source for the purpose of a review; that is what it purports to be and so fair enough. I am less inclined to accept the source as reliably recounting Besson's life long ambition/project. Per WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Does this source have such a reputation? My preference is to take out the 'lifelong project' statement: we already have a supported statement that he worked on the film at age 16 so nothing too great is lost from the article IMO. Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• The only suggestion/comment that I have yet to address is the lack of a theme section. I will endeavour to work on that tomorrow. Freikorp (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Good progress being made. I'll continue to leave this on-hold whilst the outstanding issues are worked on further. Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I have now finalised the budget issue and the bluray shop reference issue, and have addressed the new dead links issue. I have added a theme section. I know it is a bit thin, but i'm not only having a hard time finding references i'm also not entirely sure how to write the section. I was looking through current good articles for inspiration and I noted many of them do not have a theme section. If the section is too small to meet GA status or is inappropriately worded please let me know; any advice on how to write the section would be appreciated. Freikorp (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the theme section would be a bit thin for a feature article nom but for a good article nom what is there now is fine. I think we are about done.... Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A well written, well-referenced, nicely illustrated article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I've assessed this article against the requirements of WP:WIAGA and, in the light of improvements carried out, I'm awarding GA-status. Well done! I think in due course this one would have half a chance at FAC but if you planned to give it a shot there I'd recommend a peer review first. In the meantime, please consider reviewing another good article nomination. Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'll review a good article nominee myself when time permits, hopefully soon :) . Freikorp (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Fhloston

Fhloston and Phlogiston? A coincidence? Kortoso (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, well spotted! But you'll need a reliable source to add any information about this to the actual article of course. Freikorp (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Roger that, and thanks. Perhaps this will evince a reputable source. Kortoso (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably IMDB is better place to discuss this, but among early theorists/alchemists, another word for Phlogiston was "the fifth element". Kortoso (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Awards

This website provides a comprehensive list of every award this film was nominated for [12]. I'm not sure if it meets WP:RS, but if for nothing else i've found it very handy as a way of knowing what awards to search for better references for. Freikorp (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I've since used the above reference, along with the reference mentioned below that is used to back up that the film won a Bogey award, an inline citations that the film was nominated for an additional 4 Cesar awards (the article had good references for the 3 Cesar awards it won, just no other references for the other 4 nominations). If both of these sources are deemed to be unreliable I will simply remove both of them and the mentions that the film received the additional 4 Cesar nominations. Freikorp (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The Cesar Awards now list all their previous nomination and winners on their official website - so i've ditched the old, questionable reference and cited their official website instead. Freikorp (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

This reliable reference states the film won a Lumière Award: [13], I'm just in the process or determining whether this award itself meets notability guidelines. Freikorp (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm almost certain the Lumière Award and the Prix Lumière are in fact, the same award, and until I am told otherwise I am linking the award in the article to Prix Lumière. Freikorp (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

They were the same award. Someone else has merged the articles. Freikorp (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Awards this film supposedly was nominated for or won currently not mentioned in the article:

• Nominated for the Italian National Syndicate of Film Journalists Silver Ribbon award for Best Foreign Director (according to IMDb [14])
• Nominated for the Blockbuster Entertainment Award for Favorite Female Newcomer (Milla Jovovich) Found reference.
• It won the Bogey Award in Silver - According to IMDb and these not so reliable sources [15][16][17]. Freikorp (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC) The award itself is also of debated notability.
• The film received 12 nominations at the 1997 Online Film & Television Association awards, 2 of which it won. [18]. Once again, the award itself is not tremendously notable. Freikorp (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Themes (Gender)

I gather from this section that this film is bad and stuff, because it "erases" women and reinforces gender stereotypes, through the nefarious means of featuring men and women in various roles, some of whom are competent or interesting, and some who are not. Sheesh. These opinions are referenced, but are they notable? Because if not, then this section is devoting a lot of text to saying stuff that is not only absurd (in my opinion), but fringe. Iapetus (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I had trouble finding information on themes for this film; this is pretty much all I could come up with. That being said, I don't think there's anything wrong with the gender comments. It's only one paragraph and it contains two sources; one from a notable feminist journal and one from a notable academic publisher. Perhaps the feminist journal could be considered fringe, but I don't think they are given undue weight, and they make observations similar to a book from a mainstream academic publisher. I don't think the take home message from this film paragraph is that it's 'bad', I just accept that it plays into some gender stereotypes. Knowing that doesn't make me enjoy the film any less. If anyone else can find reliable sources on other themes in the film I would be more than happy to write new paragraphs based on the sources myself, so that the gender paragraph has less prominence in the themes section. I would like to hear more opinions on this though. Freikorp (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the critique is unfair and invalid, but if there aren't any other scholarly analyses, what are you gonna do? Brutannica (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Image:

Is there a better image to use in the intro? The current poster is a floating head poster, which is kind of bland looking. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Now a FA in Chinese Wikipedia

I have translated this article to Chinese Wikipedia here and promoted to FA status, and I want to thank User:Freikorp for his effort to write this amazing article. --Jarodalien (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Fifth Element. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.fathomevents.com/news/press-release/luc-bessons-groundbreaking-sci-fi-classic-the-fifth-element-starring-bruce-willis-and-milla-jovovich-celebrates-its-20th-anniversary-in-cinemas-this-spring
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090208011732/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearchInput.jsp to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearchInput.jsp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dvdsreleasedates.com/movies/2412/The-Fifth-Element-%281997%29.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Fifth Element. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141109175104/http://markmangini.com/Mark_Mangini/Resume_files/Hollywood%20Reporter.pdf to http://markmangini.com/Mark_Mangini/Resume_files/Hollywood%20Reporter.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Vin Diesel

Someone tried to add Vin Diesel as the unaccredited voice of the character 'Finger' earlier today. Surprisingly, this credit is actually confirmed by the Writers Guild of America supplied cast on IMDb: [19]. I can only find one RS source that give this a passing mention though: [20] (and this source probably doesn't make the 'high-quality' standard for FAC). In any case, the 'cast' section should only contain the main cast and not trivia (we'd have to expand it to include dozens of people if we also wante to include Vin Diesel). Unless we get some detailed information (like an interview with either Vin Diesel or Luc Besson regarding the matter) I'm not convinced this should be mentioned in the article; I don't see a way to introduce it into the article in a way that doesn't make it sound like trivia. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Ruby Rhod's name

I just wanted to point out that another fairly obvious "origin" for the name Ruby Rhod would be the ruby rod component of early lasers.

From the laser article: "Solid-state lasers use a crystalline or glass rod which is "doped" with ions that provide the required energy states. For example, the first working laser was a ruby laser, made from ruby (chromium-doped corundum)"... "These materials are pumped optically using a shorter wavelength than the lasing wavelength, often from a flashtube or from another laser."

Basically, the earliest lasers used a literal ruby rod as the primary component to collimate the beam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richfiles (talk • contribs) 17:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Musée Miniature et Cinéma - Cinquième élément.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

He kills the Mangalore leader Aknot

I think this bit of the plot is probably wrong. In the earlier scenes before Fhloston, Aknot is injured following Zorg's detonation of the weapons, and is seen telling others to go to Fhloston and retrieve the stones. The leader killed by Dallas is uninjured and, on screen, unnamed. -- ferret (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

You may be right about that one. I think naming this particular Mangalore Aknot is probably incorrect. DonIago (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Good point, I'm happy for the wording to be changed. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Per a version of the script, the Mangalore killed during "negotiations" is Akanit. May be just as well not to name him though, since it's not that important. DonIago (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The credits list characters named both 'Mangalore Aknot' and 'Mangalore Akanit'. At approximately the 1hr and 5 minute mark in the film the injured Aknot can clearly be heard telling 'Akanit' to take command and go to Phloston. I'm also inclined to not mention him though, partially as it's not important, but more-so because I know IP editors will conflate the two characters and frequently change it to Aknot. Damien Linnane (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Poor guy, guess he did have a name after all. But I agree the name is unimportant. -- ferret (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)