Talk:Independence Day (1996 film)/Archive 2

Production
Shouldn't we have a section about how the film was made? I do know two items that should be useful (from the DVD commentary):
 * The idea for the film came when Emmerich and Devlin where at a press conference for Stargate. One reporter asked if Emmerich believed in aliens. He said he didn't, then the reporter said "What if you wake up one day and see a massive spaceship the size of a city overhead?" Emmerich turned to Devlin and said "I think I have an idea for our next film".
 * The US military was going to provide costumes, vehicles, and personnel for the film. However, they dropped out after the filmmakers refused to take out references to Area 51.- JustPhil[[Image:Flag of Germany.svg|15px]] 15:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It was more likely that they just read the book or saw the film of "war of the worlds" and decided to steal the plot without crediting the original author. The plots are absolutely identical, right down to the virus at the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.146.46.247 (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Resources
StarBurst (0955-114X) n.330, November 2005, p.44,46, English, illus Lighthearted look at the top ten alien invasions in film and television Film Review (0957-1809) v.Spec. n.52, June 2004, p.68-87, English, illus 'The top 20 blockbusters of all time' featuring details of INDEPENDENCE DAY (1996). Radio Times v.312 n.4068, 23 February 2002, p.56, English, illus Short article about the production of the film. Filmwaves (1460 4051) n.15, July 2001, p.36-39, English, illus Argues that although the Blockbuster represents the apogee of dominant cinema under advanced multinational capitalism, it also embodies many contradictions, such as the tension between spectacle and narrative. '''Literature/Film Quarterly (0090-4260) v.28 n.2, August 2000, p.140-148, English Part of a whole issue on Shakespeare on film, this article argues that INDEPENDENCE DAY makes extensive use of HENRY V, both the play and the Olivier (1943) and Branagh (1989) versions.''' Sight and Sound (0037-4806) v.8 n.7, July 1998, p.16-19, English, illus '''An argument that cinematic portrayals of the US President fall into 2 camps: the good saviour or the destructive demon Analyses Mike Nichol's PRIMARY COLORS as an example of a Hollywood Presidential fantasy. Mentions several other films''' Sight and Sound (0037-4806) v.8 n.5, May 1998, p.68, English Corrections and additions to the filmographic data in the review of INDEPENDENCE DAY in Sight and Sound August 1996 [p.53]. Metro (0312-2654) n.112, December 1997, p.73-77, English, illus Analytical review of INDEPENDENCE DAY In Camera, July 1997, p.6, English Short article about the Baden-Würtenberg Film Academy in Ludwigsburg, Germany & the oscar-winning success of graduate Volker Engel & the team of 14 graduates and students who made up the Special Effects team on INDEPENDENCE DAY. TV Guide (0039-8543) v.45 n.23, 07 June 1997, p.18, English Transcript (1356 7624) v.2 n.3, May 1997, p.79-87, English Article looking at film criticism mentioning BEYOND THE CLOUDS, INDEPENDENCE DAY and SOME MOTHER SON in a discussion on the importance of 'stunning visuals' Creative Screenwriting (1084-8665) v.4 n.1, April 1997, p.88-98, English, illus An examination of the successful use of religious stereotypes in DEAD MAN WALKING (1996), and INDEPENDENCE DAY (1996). note on the Charles M. Powell Award for marketing Sight and Sound (0037-4806) v.7 n.2, February 1997, p.6-9, English, illus '''An analysis of Tim Burton's MARS ATTACKS! that compares it as a 'personal and anarchic' movie to the 'corporate and patriarchal' INDEPENDENCE DAY (1996).''' Moving Pictures International (0959-6992) n.24, February 1997, p.8, English The rush to ready films for a specific release date is hav- ing an influence on the quality and subsequent success as films like FIERCE CREATURES, LAST ACTION HERO, INDEPENDENCE DAY and CABLE GUY testify. Screen International (0307-4617) n.1088, 13 December 1996, p.42, English, illus on the marketing for INDEPENDECE DAY (US 1996) in Japan Cinéaste v.22 n.3, December 1996, p.39-41, English Film and History (0360-3695) v.26 n.1-4, December 1996, p.90-91, English, illus Film and History (0360-3695) v.26 n.1-4, December 1996, p.92-93,88, English Attempts to explain the popularity of INDEPENDENCE DAY. Screen International (0307-4617) n.1085, 22 November 1996, p.37, English, illus Screen International (0307-4617) n.1079, 11 October 1996, p.25, English, illus In Camera, October 1996, p.30-31, English, illus Article about the increasing numbers of films using digital effects and the Cineon system, particularly considering the films INDEPENDENCE DAY, ERASER, FLIPPER and MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE released in the summer of 1996. On the release of INDEPENDENCE DAY in Italy Screen International (0307-4617) n.1077, 27 September 1996, p.9, English, illus Article about recent changes in the release strategies for Hollywood blockbusters, particularly on the release of INDEPENDENCE DAY in Europe and other films in 1996; focus on Spain, France, Germany, Italy and Great Britain Film-Echo/Filmwoche n.36, 07 September 1996, p.30, German, illus Interview with Volker Engel about the special effects for INDEPENDENCE DAY Film Review (0957-1809), September 1996, p.30-33, English, illus p. 30-31, 33. Bill Pullman talks about his role in the film INDEPENDENCE DAY. StarBurst (0955-114X) n.217, September 1996, p.10-17, English, illus Interview with actor Jeff Goldblum about his role in INDEPENDENCE DAY and interview with the special effects team of the film about the miniatures, the flight and fight scenes, visual effects and other effects Empire n.87, September 1996, p.108-114,117-120, English, illus Director Roland Emmerich, producer Dean Devlin and stars Jeff Goldblum and Bill Pullman discuss the making of INDEPENDENCE DAY (1996) Cinefex n.67, September 1996, p.58-85, English, illus Article about the special effects in INDEPENDENCE DAY (1996) About the visual effects, particularly the miniatures and pyrotechnics, the 3-D animation, computerized effects and the filming of the flight scenes and the space ships Films in Review (0015-1688) v.47 n.9/10, September 1996, p.70-71, English, illus Article discusses the concept of cinematic art and proposes that INDEPENDENCE DAY (1996) and TWISTER (1996) can be considered as works of cinematic art. American Cinematographer (0002-7928) v.77 n.9, September 1996, p.12, English Errata. Correction to a mistakenly captioned item in the article in the July issue of American Cinematographer (p.45) re. a supposed CGI effect. Cine and media n.4, September 1996, p.4,5[English], French, illus Film Comment (0015-119X) v.32 n.5, September 1996, p.3-8, English, illus Article about the critics' and audience's response to INDEPENDENCE DAY (1996) Sight and Sound (0037-4806) v.Supp n.Money, September 1996, p.12-13, English, illus '''An examination of the making of a major blockbuster, using Roland Emmerich's INDEPENDENCE DAY as a prime example. Includes details on Emmerich, details on a merchandising deal, a table comparing blockbuster US box office grosses.''' Sight and Sound (0037-4806) v.6 n.8, August 1996, p.6-8, English, illus An analysis of Roland Emmerich's INDEPENDENCE DAY which argues that it condones the millions of dollars spent by the USA on their missile-defence system. StarBurst (0955-114X) n.216, August 1996, p.21-24,44, English, illus Review of INDEPENDENCE DAY with various statements by the filmmakers and actors Film Review (0957-1809) n.Special, August 1996, p.64-67, English, illus Interview with the people behind the scenes of INDEPENDENCE DAY. Premiere (0894-9263) v.9 n.12, August 1996, p.64-71, English, illus Feature introducing INDEPENDENCE DAY including articles on special effects, an interview with Carl Sagan, an article on 'Area 51' and an annotated list of Hollywood films featuring aliens. Cuts (0961-7965) n.64, August 1996, p.27-33, English, illus Article about the special effects on INDEPENDENCE DAY including an interview with visual effects supervisor Tricia Ashford. Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.28 n.1, August 1996, p.14-15, English, illus Looks at the special effects used in INDEPENDENCE DAY TV Guide (0039-8543) v.44 n.30, 27 July 1996, p.5-6, English, illus Brent Spiner hopes his roles in INDEPENDENCE DAY and PHENOM- ENON will free him from the character of Data in the STAR TREK series. Screen International (0307-4617) n.1067, 19 July 1996, p.6, English On the current trend of studios keeping the TV rights for major box-office successes instead of selling them Screen International (0307-4617) n.1067sic, 12 July 1996, p.2, English, illus On the box office success of INDEPENDENCE DAY and the 1996 summer box office predictions StarBurst (0955-114X) n.215, July 1996, p.21-24, English, illus Article about the story of INDEPENDENCE DAY with statements by Dean Devlin and other cast and crew members Fangoria (0164-2111) n.154, July 1996, p.20-25,78, English, illus Interview with Dean Devlin on the making of and the ideas behind INDEPENDENCE DAY; includes a short feature on ARRIVAL as another alien film American Cinematographer (0002-7928) v.77 n.7, July 1996, p.32-42, English, illus Article on director Roland Emmerich and cinematographer Karl Walter Lindenlaub's collaboration on INDEPENDENCE DAY focusing on Lindenlaub's work with models, choice of film stock and equipment, and lighting techniques. American Cinematographer (0002-7928) v.77 n.7, July 1996, p.43-50, English, illus Examination of the use of traditional models and miniatures mixed with digital compositing to achieve the special effects on Roland Emmerich's INDEPENDENCE DAY. Premiere (0894-9263) v.9 n.11, July 1996, p.78-83, English, illus '''Jeff Goldblum describes his experiences on the set of INDEPENDENCE DAY. Mostly illustrative.''' Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.27 n.11/12, July 1996, p.10-13, English, illus A discussion of the making of INDEPENDENCE DAY, focussing on the special visual effects and including interviews with Roland Emmerich and Patrick Tatopoulos Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.27 n.4/5, January 1996, p.7, English, illus Screen International (0307-4617) n.1060, 31 May 1996, p.14-16, English, illus Article about the current trend of science fiction films: list of recent films and their box office; list of films in production and article about INDEPENDENCE DAY and the special effects Empire n.83, May 1996, p.12-13, English, illus Cinefantastique (0145-6032) v.27 n.6, February 1996, p.8-9, English, illus A discussion of the making of INDEPENDENCE DAY Screen International (0307-4617) n.1042, 26 January 1996, p.47, English, illus Part of an advertisement of Twentieth Century Foc for their releases in 1996; Premiere (0894-9263) v.9 n.4, December 1995, p.42, English, illus Note from the set of INDEPENDENCE DAY. Variety (0042-2738), 14 August 1995, p.22, English note further cast listing Variety (0042-2738), 10 July 1995, p.21, English
 * Top 10 Alien Invasions
 * [Keyword Hit]BAUGHAN, Nikki: The top 20 blockbusters of all time
 * [Keyword Hit]COLLINS, Andrew: The Reel Story Behind...Independence Day.
 * WAYNE, Mike: Blockbusters and 3rd Cinema
 * [Keyword Hit]FRIEDMAN, Michael D.: Independence Day: the American Henry V and the myth of David
 * BRUZZI, Stella: The president and the image
 * [Keyword Hit]Additions and corrections
 * [Keyword Hit]LOYON, Peter: The Imagination of Survival: Alien Invasion in Independen...v
 * [Keyword Hit]German Film School graduate wins Oscar for SFX...
 * SISKEL, Gene: Stereotypes amid spectacular effects
 * [Keyword Hit]WOODS, Alan: Pretty, vacant
 * [Keyword Hit]MOON, Wendy: Religiously using stereotypes
 * Screen International (0307-4617) n.1097, 28 February 1997, p.20, English, illus
 * [Keyword Hit]HOBERMAN, J.: Pax Americana
 * [Keyword Hit]PICKARD, Christopher: Time is of the essence
 * SCHILLING, Mark: Marketing Focus: Fox's ID4 Campaign
 * DOWELL, Pat
 * [Keyword Hit]DVORAK, Ken: Independence Day: A Survival Guide for the Next Invasion
 * [Keyword Hit]DIXON, John: Aliens'R'Us: A Critique of D4
 * LUDEMANN, Ralf: International Box Office Comment
 * LUDEMANN, Ralf: International Box Office Comment
 * [Keyword Hit]Digital effects play starring role in summer films.
 * [Keyword Hit]Screen International (0307-4617) n.1077, 27 September 1996, p.4, English, illus
 * [Keyword Hit]LUDEMANN, Ralf: Breaking the crush Barrier
 * [Keyword Hit]HOFFMANN, Kay: Einmalige Chance perfekt genutzt
 * [Keyword Hit]RYNNING, Roald: The American President
 * [Keyword Hit]SLOANE, Judy; BACAL, Simon: Independence Day and Jeff Goldblum / Independence Day Specia
 * [Keyword Hit]NATHAN, Ian: Houston, we have a big problem
 * [Keyword Hit]PROKOP, Tim: Fireworks
 * [Keyword Hit]MITCHELL, Rick: Devil's advocate: art and cinema
 * Errata.
 * [Keyword Hit]NOBLE, Tim: opinion: Independence day
 * [Keyword Hit]JONES, Kent: The summer of our malcontent
 * [Keyword Hit]Making a movie and making money: 'Independence Day'
 * [Keyword Hit]TAUBIN, Amy: Playing it straight
 * [Keyword Hit]BACAL, Simon: Scorched Earth / Preview
 * [Keyword Hit]RYNNING, Roald
 * [Keyword Hit]Alien Nation
 * [Keyword Hit]BISHOP, Harvey: Independence Day
 * [Keyword Hit]WAGNER, Chuck: Independence Day
 * [Keyword Hit]RUDOLPH, Ileane: Declaration of 'Independence'
 * CARVER, Benedict: Fox to keep ID4 for television
 * [Keyword Hit]CARVER, Benedict: ID4 sets new record in US
 * [Keyword Hit]BACAL, Simon: State of Independence
 * [Keyword Hit]GREY, Ian: Declarations of Independence
 * [Keyword Hit]WILLIAMS, David E.: Worlds at war
 * [Keyword Hit]MAGID, Ron: The end of the world as we know it
 * [Keyword Hit]GOLDBLUM, Jeff: Declaration of Independence
 * [Keyword Hit]WAGNER, Chuck: Independence Day
 * [Keyword Hit]WAGNER, Chuck: Independence Day
 * [Keyword Hit]WIDDICOMBE, Rupert: Sci-Fi: Back to the future / Invasion Earth
 * Front desk in production: loving the alien
 * [Keyword Hit]WAGNER, Chuck: Independence Day
 * United International Pictures: 1996 Preview
 * [Keyword Hit]O'NEILL, Kristen: In the Works
 * FILM PRODUCTION
 * Film production

Resources -- hunt 'em down! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Internet resources
Since I'm going to improve this article little by little, I'll be listing sources, from when I surfed the Internet. THROUGH FIRE   JUSTICE IS SERVED!  21:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Independence Day: Extended Edition (DTS) (1996) michaeldvd.com.au. Retrieved on September 25, 2007


 * INDEPENDENCE DAY:UK (Released 1996)


 * Progress Continues on Independence Day 2 Retieved October 9], 2007
 * they were working on another movie..gotta find why it was scrapped...
 * 

Excuse me?
What is all the above? There's pages of it. I thought this was the discussion page? What is all this stuff doing here please?

I only looked in to add another reference to another film. I don't think that the references to other films should be discouraged. ID4 is a very knowning film. And a masterpiece too I might add.  SmokeyTheCat   •TALK•  22:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Those are sources. They could help bring the article up on the quality scale. Adding references is very trivial that would not help improve the article's quality, especially if the trivia is from IMDB. Their trivia is copyrighted. And, its so useless to add their trivia here, as theres already a link to the ID4 page on IMDB. A reader can go look at the trivia over there.

I suggest you choose another color for the red in your sig per Accessibility, as it is too bright, someone who is colorblind will have issues with your sig. this is how it would look to them.

THROUGH FIRE   JUSTICE IS SERVED!  14:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

References to other films
I really don't see why someone keeps deleting some obvious references to other films while leaving in some that are far more tenuous. Please don't.  SmokeyTheCat    •TALK•  15:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Give a very good reason why I should not, one that would seem logical considering following the polices and guidelines of wikipedia, and how stuff go about here. See, when I removing the trivial stuff, it is per WP:TRIVIA; trival stuff are discouraged, and if an article has these kinds of sections it will never reach a good article status. And some of the trivial stuff people are adding seem like original research; people just adding random stuff. Plus, some of the trivia is taken from IMDb. I dont need to explain again why I remove it.

So, when I remove the trivial stuff, I considering, like 1 guideline, 1 policy, and 2 articles on how to get this article to a good article status.

So, what your reason why I shoud not remove the trivia? And if you think the other refernces are tenuous, then remove them. THROUGH FIRE   JUSTICE IS SERVED!  21:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the things that made ID such a good film is that it is so knowing, such a conscious film. The references to other films are a large part of that. By removing the references to them you are showing that you don't really understand what the director is trying to do. I won't get into an edit war with you about this but you are making the article worse not better and so less likely to get Good Article status.  SmokeyTheCat   •TALK•  14:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"so less likely to get Good Article status"? Making the article worse? You dont know anything about getting an article to GA-class if you really think that. You act as if you really know what the director was trying to do. You certainly do not. You only speaking from a fan's point of view. Your not really speaking from a Wikipedian's POV. I like this movie and yet I can still see whats wrong with this article. Your reason is not a very good reason. You are not considering the polices and guidelines. THROUGH FIRE   JUSTICE IS SERVED!  22:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you are simply ignorant and wrong.  SmokeyTheCat   •TALK•  20:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And yet you will not give a good reason, considering Wikipedia polices and guidelines. Hm. THROUGH FIRE   JUSTICE IS SERVED!  21:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

GA
A short list of suggested improvements to the article can now be found here. While they won't get it to Good Article status, they should be a useful start and we can look at it again once some of them have been implemented. Best regards, Steve  T • C 08:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia
In the one scene where the Americans were trying to contact other countries for the counter-attack, there's an F/A-18 with the Israeli flag flying next to it. However, Israel doesn't operate the F/A-18. In addition, there's a scene shortly afterwards in the control room that shows what looks like an F-14 squadron based on the Japanese home islands, despite the fact that the F-14 has only ever been exported to Iran - Masterblooregard 01:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

ID4?
Why is it called "ID4"? ID I get, but why "4"?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The "4" refers to the 4th of July, when the finale of the film takes place -- U.S. Independence Day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.156.80 (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Goofs and Trivia
Generally discouraged, though someone might be able to glean something useful/notable from them.

Goofs
In the desert scene where pilots of Royal Air Force are receiving the Morse code message about the counter-attack, in the background an F-16 with RAF roundels can be seen. But RAF does not use F-16.

Trivia

 * The scene where an Israeli fighter jet is refuelled by Arabs was censored when the film was shown on Malaysian television.
 * On the Saturday following the September 11, 2001 attacks (September 15, 2001), the Fox television network had planned to air this film, but due to its content (because of the destruction of America's most important cities would likely be offensive to many in light of what happened as well as the World Trade Center itself, also showing the clip of it still standing after the alien attack) aired Mrs. Doubtfire instead.

Best regards, Steve  T • C 14:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

V
There should be a mention of V somewhere. The imagery of the alien spacecrafts hovering over major cities come straight from it. Morana 12:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Feel free to mention it as an influence, if you can find an appropriate citation of the makers' mentioning it as such. Best regards, Steve  T • C 13:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Revertion of Recon Vehicle wikilink
There is an article already on wikipedia about the M93A1 NBCRS vehicle. I see that the reverter probably monitors this page, so I won't get into pointles reverts, but I must point out the rationale behind the edit. Having seen the dispute over trivia, I agreed on removal of all the trivia items, bar this one, for the simple fact there is an article on it, and several people might not be convinced there is a vehicle capable of withstanding an EMP and reporting visually on the failure of the mission, as is seen in the film. The visual confirmation scenes are as significant part of the drama of the film, and the article is already littered with references to real world objects in the film with wiki articles. Therefore if you can suggest another way this link can be included, or provide a better justification than 'this is not needed', feel free, and others comment aswell. Linking of related articles is a cornerstone of wikipedia MickMacNee (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Months ago, When I began editing this article, I was confused about how to edit the plat section, I asked on WikiProject Flims assesment how to do so. One of the suggestions was "Try to focus on what drives the plot forward and nothing else." Mentioning does seems to dirive the plot as it seen briefly. So I deemed it "not needed"   THROUGH FIRE    JUSTICE IS SERVED!  05:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seem much more detailed plot sections than that before. I propose either a few words and a piped link (to not specifically name the vehicle) in the plot section, e.g. "confirmed by a ground team", or, a paragraph in the production section MickMacNee (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Were it to be included, a line in the production section saying the M93A1 NBCRS recon vehicle was used would certainly be permissible, providing an appropriate citation could be found saying the film-makers used it. Steve  T • C 13:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I took it as read that it was fact, having been in the article previously MickMacNee (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * When writing about a primary source, it's best to be ambiguous about specific brands of vehicles, technology, etc. I've seen edit warring because editors thought that a car was a certain year or not.  It's appropriate to ambiguate the issue per WP:PSTS: "To the extent that an article or particular part of an article relies on a primary source, that part of the article should... only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge."  One would need specialist knowledge to recognize the recon vehicle's exact type, so it's best to just identify it as a recon vehicle unless like Liquidfinale (Steve) indicated, its specific usage by filmmakers can be cited as part of production. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with that, my concern was more for the type of viewer that might not realise you can have a vehicle like that that can survive an EMP and then provide visual confirmation, after all the film was full of so many other plot hols its nice to confirm it isnt. And like I said, the link to an existing article was made by someone else, I took it as read the type was correct. But there can't be that many of them around, I doubt it would require 'expert' verification, there are pretty good shots of it in the movie. MickMacNee (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

City-destroyer ships as cities?
I think it's reasonable to consider the city-destroyer ships to be cities in their own right, given their size and the obvious appearance of habitation. Furthermore, numerous aliens are shown inhabiting the mother ship, suggesting that similar is done with the city-destroyer ships. As the "entire civilization" was moved around to plunder planets, that would imply that many of the large ships - even if not all - are major population centers. 68.36.214.143 (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * an aircraft carrier is like a city, but we don't exactly call them cities but ship. imo the city-destroyer lacks the ability to self-sustain itself. it may have a machine shop like carriers do to repair and maintain it's fighter wing. but if it lack the ability to actually build fighters it lost, it would be dependent on its mothership to provide the economy. imo, that's the difference between a city and a military unit. the mothership may fit the city classification but the city-destroyer are unlikely to be as capable and independent. Akinkhoo (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

DVD
I added the small bit to the section about the DVD. the extended version was broadcast on Irish channel RTÉ One on 19/12/07--Irishboi (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Statement
In the second opening paragraph, someone wrote this:

The film's success was partially credited to an extensive marketing campaign that began in the United States with a dramatic commercial during the Super Bowl XXX,[4] for which Fox paid $1.3 million.[5] The publicity stunt marks the first time a movie was advertised during a Super Bowl.[6]

The last sentence is inaccurate, if you read the Variety article referenced. Independence Day was NOT the first film ever advertised during a Super Bowl, it was mearly the ONLY film advertised during that particular Super Bowl in 1996. The article in fact says, at the time of its writing in 2007, that there have been 87 films advertised since 1991, and Time Warner and Disney have been some of the biggest advertisers of the last 20 years. Anyone want to do a rewrite, maybe just delete that last sentence?

75.168.76.50 (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)shaner5000

I went ahead and deleted that last line. Maybe a line about how their campaign spawned a growth in Super Bowl advertising for summer blockbusters? Shaner5000 (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)shaner5000

Production
Did a revert back to the original "Stargate press conference" story as told by Devlin on the DVD commentary. Possible vandalism in converting this to a story about a bar mitzvah and Emmerich having a sister-in-law (which is impossible; he is not married and his sister has a husband). Moved marketing info in opening to this section. Moved "original ending" info to this section as well. -- Jombage (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Filming locations
The filmmakers did not travel to every single place that was depicted in this film (especially not Area 51). Yes, they can show the pyramids without having to set foot near Egypt thanks to the wonderful magic of special effects. List seemed to be copied from imdb, whose filming location info page can be very unreliable at times. Replaced list with filming location notes as seen during the end film credits. -- Jombage (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Box office
Added more box office information (mentioned records). Also removed marketing information that is already mentioned. -- Jombage (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Legacy
There's no need to mention every single detail of something slightly resembling something from the movie in all of video game pop culture. When that happens it becomes trivial, and makes the article overly long, both circumstances that go against Wiki Method of Style. -- Jombage (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Tobacco product placement (cigars)
Please edit and shorten for inclusion in the main article.

One enduring legacy of this film springs from its fabulously successful tobacco product placement."I would say it is fairly rare to see a film pander to the tobacco lobby so blatantly as to make the characters show such a non-ironic vocal appreciation for smoking."

Scenes setting up cigar smoking as macho and slightly rebellious are strategically built in throughout movie, and the climactic character development occurs when the formerly-nonsmoking David lights up a victory cigar, inhaling, and saying “I could get used to it.”

From a character-development point of view, the climactic moment of the film comes when the central character David (Jeff Goldblum) accepts and smokes a cigar as a symbol of his new-found manliness (won by saving earth from evil aliens).

This climactic character shift, from wimpy non-smoker to manly tobacco-user, is set up from the opening scene, in which the non-smoking ( David), is playing chess outdoors with his father. The father is smoking a cigar, but is shown as healthy and non-coughing. He brushes off his son's warnings as to health and suggests that his son is prissy for not smoking.

The tobacco theme develops through another establishing shot during the U.S. Air-Force briefing, during which top gun young fighter pilots are shown in a classroom situation as semi-covertly handing out something among themselves -- quickly revealed to be cigars -- which the pilots all accept. This implies for uncritical pre-teens that U.S. Air Force virtually condones covertly passing out cigars to fighter pilots on the eve of a world-at-risk mission, that healthy fighter pilots are all cigar smokers (and pushers), and that this is a glamorous rebellious activity. It shows no payment for the cigars. Tobacco in product-placement movies is always free.

This carefully-laid background takes only a few moments of screen time. The film then sets up then nerdy non-smoking David's brilliance as requiring him to accompany the most-macho fighter-pilot (Will Smith as Hiller) so that David can introduce the computer virus requisite to shut down the mothership's defenses so that they together can plant the nuclear bomb that will destroy the mothership, at great risk to their lives.

Manly exuberant air battle scenes ensue, in which the group of cigar-carrying fighter pilots are shown as courageous, self-sacrificing heroes.

As the heroics rage, the nuclear device planted by the nonsmoking David and the cigar carrying Hiller destroys the alien mothership. After they barely escape, Hiller just barely saves their lives in an additional heroic adrenaline-charged dogfight leading to the spectacular defeat of an alien fighter. This concludes as the two coronated heroes crash-land in the desert, the brilliant non-smoker and the healthy youthful bold healthy cigar-carrier, while the outflown alien craft spectacularly crashes. The pumped-up Smith vanquishes the alien pilot by opening his cockpit, punching him in the face, and dragging him across the desert.

Hiller still charged up from outflying and punching the alien, offers David a cigar, and the climactic character development occurs when David accepts and lights up. The cigars are depicted as the bond that admits the formerly whimpy nonsmoking David into the club of real men, as they bask in their victory and debris from the mothership fill the sky. The movie ends with David looking at the cigar and saying, “I could get used to it.” Cigar smoking is artfully woven throughout the entire plot so as to make cigar smoking seem like a virtual necessity for manliness. The film is an example of the glamorization of tobacco in filmsnow favored by tobacco sellers since they agreed to stop direct advertising to youth.

The Baltimore Sun relied on internal sources, that two cigar companies bid to have their product placed. Though the cigar portion of the Independence Day plot reads as if written by a cigar advertiser, the Sun's report was denied, but the results of the movie's glorification of cigars as the passkey to manhood did not pay attention to the industry's denials. Predictably, Independence Day started a young generation smoking and still swells the coffers of the cigar sellers.

Its 1996 release been followed by a hugely-profitable multi-year jump in the ranks of cigar buyers.

Tobacco product placementhas proven a devastatingly effective method for tobacco sellers to swell their profits by inducing pre-teens and teens to try tobacco. The sellers know far better than this age group that tobacco is highly-addictive, and that they have a chance to make a profitable and loyal customer from each pre-teen they can get to try their product. The target audience, young teenagers and preteens, generally fail to recognized the tobacco product placement as advertising. The tobacco companies turn to the funding of movies that glorify smoking has attacked where their intended audience is least defended.

It is cleverly designed to appeal to young men's desire for belonging among the kind of youthful, rule-breaking, healthy heroes, which is how cigar smokers are systematically portrayed in the film.

suggestion on reviews
This article only puts emphasis on all the negative reviews of the film. I think it's only fair that some of the positive quotes get inserted since the article already states the critics are pretty much 50-50 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.185.92 (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"starfighter" edits
In the film, the smallest of the three main types of alien ships are called "attackers" by the Defense Secretary and are labeled as such on a diagram seen at Area 51. I would suggest this would be the best term to use to help the reader in differentiating it from the other ships ("mother ship" and destroyers") when describing it in text. There is no reason to change the term to "starfighter" when describing them. The term is not used in the film, it may confuse the reader (leading them to believe the ships are seen doing battle in space during the film), and as stated in one edit, it links to an article of pure original research with no citations or sources. Repeated edits converting the term into "starfighter" are being made by a non-registered user (or perhaps users; different IP address) so can't discuss the issue on a user talk page. -- Jombage (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)