Talk:Flash Gordon (film)/Archive 1

War Rocket Ajax...
Not sure if this is the sort of thing a reliable source can be found for, but I've always wondered whether it was a coincidence that Flash and Ajax were the names of rival brands of household cleaner? Given the number of tongue-in-cheek lines in the film, it wouldn't surprise me if this was deliberate. --YFB ¿  14:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Other Noteable cast Members


Craig T. Nelson - Voice of the monster (uncredited)

Dosen't belong here should be in FLESH GORDON

To-do
Just some suggestions I'd like to implement in the future: I'd like to do the film justice so if anyone would like to help feel free. Probably won't get around to doing most of the stuff myself for a while anyway. Luatha 09:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Inclusion of the soundtrack in the "media" section
 * Citations
 * Looking over the summary, possibly some trimming (e.g. explanation of Arboria's title - haven't read the summary yet but that stuck out)
 * Possibly a comparison with other versions if appropriately cited sources can be used to avoid original research
 * Explore details like the hawkmen scene and its origin
 * Some details from the special features if I get around to buying the film or someone else has a copy and some free time
 * Great points all. Except for the Arboria bit, why would a little Latin scholarship meet such a fate? Dr.K. 04:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance (Devolution) of the spoiler section
Just so it doesn't get buried in history, this article used to have a healthy spoiler section as in here.

Then it got organised as in here.

Then someone thought it was too long as in here.

Then they changed their mind and altogether removed it as in here.

As a rule such drastic surgery should normally be announced in the talk page. Dr.K. 09:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why the spoiler section simply wasn't edited. Why did it have to be totally removed? 24.58.169.119 12:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent question. I will try to see what I can do. Dr.K. 19:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it wasn't salvageable. See WP:NOT and WP:ENC. I'm not surprised though that it got put back, the fiction articles tend to be controlled by people who want fanlisting style pages and not encyclopedia articles. Looks like one editor and an IP address that showed up later put it back without looking into how things are supposed to be done. DreamGuy (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are better ways to edit problem sections. Tagging, copyediting, cleaning up. Wikipedia is full of such sections. Making sections disappear makes copyediting rather difficult. To put it in other terms you cannot copyedit what you cannot see. Dr.K. (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion
There is a request for a 3rd opinion on the editing of this section. But it appears that the section has been restored, so there is no dispute here. If people feel there is a dispute, please leave a message at my talk page. I'm delisting the request.  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 22:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Plot sections
I don't see this particular incident as being serious. Both editors have been talking together in a civil manner, and neither have engaged, as far as I can see, in an edit war. Also, I see value in the views of both editors. However, I've been asked to make clear the situation regarding plot sections in articles. The consensus across the 'pedia is that plot sections are acceptable subject to some conventions. The Film Project have come up with this guideline which says in the first paragraph: "The plot section is made self-contained (and is a totally separate section designated by ==Plot==), so plot details and actor names already mentioned in the lead section, and/or mentioned in a cast section, are repeated here. Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words (about 600 words), but should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as a complicated plot." The MoS, which is widely regarded as a reliable guideline says this. WP:NOT, which is official policy, says this. These guidelines are best consulted and carefully considered when writing up plot sections. There is a tendency in some articles for the plot section to dominate, and I do sympathise with a desire to clear away plot trot in favour of critical examination. However, trimming and shaping is considered a better approach than simple deletion. Also, Wiki policy and a general principle which has wide consensus among the Wiki community, is that disputes are best handled via discussions on the talkpage. While an edit summary can inform other editors of the basic intention behind an edit, they are not designed to handle dispute discussions. A dispute is not necessarily a bad thing - most articles grow stronger through active and committed editors discussing the best way forward for an article. If your edit is challenged, take that as an opportunity to discuss and test your ideas with an editor who shares a similar interest. Keep well!  SilkTork  * SilkyTalk 14:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Region 2 DVD
The DVD with the commentary was NOT the only one available. At one time a 'barebones' edition disc was available, you're talking about a typical early R2 DVD, film and little else. I know because I did own it at one point. Douglasnicol (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the barebone dvd, I had it also. It was a straight lift from video with a stereo only soundtrack. Brucie76 (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Gordoncast-1980.jpg
The image Image:Gordoncast-1980.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --04:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(get ready for the) FOURTH opinion!
As the author of the original synopsis for FG80, it's my considered opinion (and please remember that it is just an opinion) that editing the synopsis down any more would have only removed key points pertinent to the film.

Also in my opinion, the more someone likes a film, I believe the more they might expect to either find an entry for said film to be a little more detailed, or to just add more details on their own. I've written synopses for (and enhanced others for) varying entries on here, too, including Hooper (film), Romeo and Juliet (1968 film) and Turk 182. Just a matter of personal preference if you ask me.

I've been doing some re-editing on the original synopsis and I gave some thought to re-posting it. But I am open to suggestions if anyone has any.
 * (Professor2789 (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC))

PS: Thank you Dr. K, for your use of adjectives in describing my synopsis. I've never had anyone call them "healthy" before; different, but not unlikeable.


 * Thank you Professor2789. Sorry for the delay in replying but I just saw your comment. Yes indeed. At the time I wrote my comments above, in 2007, I remember that the section as you wrote it was lengthy, well written and very interesting, therefore I used the adjective "healthy" to denote its length and overall great shape as opposed to the sickly stub it became some time later. Thankfully it has substantially recovered since then. By the way I share your views on synopsis writing. Take care for now and it was nice meeting you. Dr.K. logos 02:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Image issue(s)
The fair use of image:Flashgordonfilm-Williamson.jpg in this article is questionable. Listed below is/are the reason(s) for this:

Spot image that is not discussed in the section. Even if it were discussed, the image itself would add nothing.

If the above concern(s) can be addressed in light of the relevant policies and/or guidelines, the image use can be retained. If not, the image needs to be removed from the article.

- J Greb (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism archetype?
To me, this film was notable for introducing the idea of crashing an airplane into a target, and so for example at the time I thought of the Frank Eugene Corder attack and each of the 9/11 attacks as a "Flash Gordon". For example:


 * Flash crashes a small plane into Zarkov's greenhouse
 * Flash's rocket is electronically hijacked by Ming and crashed into the ground
 * Flash threatens to crash Ora's spaceship into Frigia unless she allows him to use the thought amplifier
 * Zarkov and Dale on the rocket cycle are intercepted/hijacked by hawkmen
 * Flash sets off a bomb and uses grenades to capture War Rocket Ajax.
 * The original plan for War Rocket Ajax is that "with all the fuel in it... Boom!" it will take down the lightning field. Flash accepts this as a suicide mission.
 * Finally Flash crashes War Rocket Ajax into Ming's palace (indeed, directly into Ming)

Of course, this leads me to wonder -- could fiction have contributed inspiration to the Corder attack and the later more-serious attacks? Of course, this isn't the only potential source, e.g. Stephen King's novel The Running Man involved such an attack, though the film timidly avoided it -- but this is the earlier reference. Of course, I'm not suggesting any additions without sources, but it seems interesting. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand what the previous comments are about but, the "real" inspiration for the 9/11 attacks came from Tom Clancy []. Clancy needed a way for Jack Ryan to become president, so he wrote about an airliner used to attack the State of the Union Address, killing the fictional President and the entire US congress. After the real 911 attacks, Clancy was interviewed by the History Channel and stated that he regretted what he wrote. Also, immediately following the 9/11 attack, writers and movie makers were interviewed by the FBI and CIA, to come up with every possible scenario. The man who wrote [] stated that he wrote the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.81.76 (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering that a bomber accidentally slammed into the Empire State Building in the 40s, it would be difficult to see any of these "literary" and movie references as influences, as they were preceded by a real-world event. It should also be noted that skyscrapers were often designed taking into account the possibility of an accidental plane strike. One doesn't have to be very bright to imagine deliberately crashing an airliner into a building. Tom Clancy needn't have made his arrogant "they're-so-dumb-they-never-would-have-thought-of-it-on-their-own" apology. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Jones' Dubbed Voice
Watching the film yesterday, I noticed a lot of looping, especially of Jones' voice. The looped voice sounds exactly like Dirk Benedict. It's close enough that the average viewer wouldn't notice. (Jones' voice can be spotted in scenes where the set's ambiance is audible. The looped dialog is dead.) WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Dubbing in general
My impression is that any scene in which Jones speaks needs everyone to be dubbed, so that means Dale Arden much of the time, or the two pilots at the beginning.

Is that a correct impression? 99.237.143.219 (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

“Gordon’s Alive!” quote…
It’s odd that the section saying that the above line is Brian Blessed and the film’s most famous line, neglects to say that this is due to it being sampled in the Queen theme song, rather than from the film directly. Jock123 (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Filming in Scotland
The fact that they filmed in Scotland was quite well known at the time; the use of The Ashaig aerodrome for the opening is actually mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Skye. Furthemore, the newspaper which Flash is reading is The Aberdeen Press & Journal! Jock123 (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Fellini
Fellini never wrote Flash Gordon stories in Italy, source: Comic Book Legends Revealed #403. Hyju (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

What Links Here oddities
The What links here list shows a bunch of links from football-related pages that have no links to this page. What's causing that and what can be done about it? 68.2.235.85 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

1980 or 1982?
The first paragraph says it is a 1980 film, and the side-bar says 1982 - Ithink the 1982 date is correct, but any reason for the 1980 attribution - was it made and shelved for a time? Jock123 (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Digging around, IMDB says the UK release date was 10/12/1980, so a lot before the US 1982 date (nearly two years); I know that film releases were staggered, but that seems a lot! Our local cinema in northern Scotland didn’t get it until Easter following its London debut, and that seemed a long wait at the time! Jock123 (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * IMDB says that the US release date was 5 December 1980. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080745/releaseinfo  Also, the Flash single and the Queen soundtrack were both released in the US in January 1981 and February 1981, respectively.  They were released when the movie was still showing in the US theaters, they certainly were not released more than a year ahead of the US release.  I do not believe that the 1982 US release date for the movie is correct.150.250.85.190 (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Flash Gordon (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://archive.is/20120730020751/http://www.dwscifi.com/news/2001-gordon-s-alive-flash-returns-to-cinema-screens to http://www.dwscifi.com/news/2001-gordon-s-alive-flash-returns-to-cinema-screens
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219065455/http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=189641&d=1061&h=0&f=0&dateformat=%25o%20%25B%20%25Y to http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=189641&d=1061&h=0&f=0&dateformat=%25o%20%25B%20%25Y

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

"Flash Gordon (flim)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Flash Gordon (flim). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The Perverted Villains
THIS is something I've always noticed and found particularly interesting and unique about ALL the VILLAINS in THIS flick - how they all seem to have a SEXUALLY PERVERSE edge to their characters. With the famous whipping scene and also in certain lines of dialogue like "Seize the Earth woman and prepare her for our pleasure" and "You tortured her, didn't you?!". "Yes, an interesting girl! I think she rather enjoyed it." not exactly lines you'd hear Darth Vader or the Emperor utter in a bland Star Wars "epic", huh?

(Tyrian Watts (talk) 08:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)