Talk:2081 (film)

NPOV, reliability, possible COI issues?
Please remember that no matter how much you like or admire this film or its political message, Wikipedia is committed to NPOV, which means that it reports the balance of opinion from reliable sources. The inclusion of effusive puffery from small-time film and political bloggers, some of whom were misidentified as if they were magazine editors or professional film reviewers, is not appropriate. Furthermore, there is no justification for eliding the political aims of the film, its producers, its funders, its admirers, and so on. This is a conservative niche film.

Furthermore, it seems apparent that this film is being promoted heavily by "Web 2.0"-savvy libertarian activists. On the off chance that anyone who is involved with MPI has been editing this article, they should read WP:COI and consider that policy's implications before editing further. 174.91.175.225 (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My changes have since been reverted on the preposterous grounds that they are "vandalism." The current version contains inaccuracies and blatant puffery. This needs to be fixed. For now I will simply tag the article, pending further discussion. 174.91.173.36 (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Cult Following
I am a huge fan of the short story (I am a sci fi geek), the film is a radical contrast with the teleplay (which sucked). I don't see it as a libertarian thing. If you do some research beyond wikipedia's borders you will see the bit torrent site stats for this film. It has clocked more than 2 Million downloads on just one site. Vonnegut is hardly conservative and your lack of knowledge on this alone is enough to question your edits.

With regard to the film magazines listed. Reel Suave appears no longer to work but any film fan can tell you it did exist. this doesn't mean it was not relevant. And your questioning a site like Revolution SF again shows how little you know about Sci Fi. If you have constructive edits then make them but here it seems you have some political axe to grind.

Unless you can bring something more to the table I am going to remove the tags. I note, for instance, the IMDB ranking... you can't make stuff like that up with 2.0. If you want to give the film a bad review by all means go ahead--but don't do it on a site and call your opinion fact. Handicaperrr (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Filmonic not a reliable source?!
My friend, get thee either to film class or geek up. I don't mean to be rude but calling Filmonic a dubious source or suggesting it is puffery to quote them is really ignorantHandicaperrr (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

John Fraim
Okay, I have no idea who John Fraim is or the relevance of this to a wiki article. Consequently, I agree that he should be removed and I am removing it but if someone wants to put it back in they only need to reverse me... :-) Handicaperrr (talk) 02:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on 2081 (film). 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/20080916234837/http://americasfuture.org:80/doublethink/2008/05/calling-card/ to http://americasfuture.org/doublethink/2008/05/calling-card/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

John Galt Synopsis Reference
Please avoid comparing story elements of the film to other unassociated films in the story synopsis. (203.57.208.75 (talk) 05:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC))