Talk:Lifeforce (film)

External link

 * Video capture (contains nudity)

Excuse me but exactly which tome of Wiki law does it violate to observe the physical characteristics of the space vampire?
 * It's considered a violation of WP:OR to state that the female space vampires have nice boobs. Bart133 (t) (c) 16:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous. This observation is no different than the one made as to the female space vampire's nudity.  Or that fact that she's beautiful.


 * I have to wonder whether any of the people who continue to vandalize my edits to this page have ever seen this movie. And if so, exactly what it is  about the movie that stands out foremost in their minds today?  Is it the plot?  Hell no!  The writing?  Absolutely not!  The acting?  With apologies to Patrick Stewart, I can get a better performance from the local hobos for a mere pint of Thunderbird.  No, quite clearly, the only indelible image imparted by this travesty of a film is the very sweet and lovely space vampire, and it strains credulity to deny that her greatest asset in terms of physical appearance is in fact her nice boobs.  It is the only thing worth of note in this movie and if any of you were honest, you'd let my edit free.
 * Here I am, participating on the talk page. I think the passage describing Matilda as having nice boobs is appropriate, it is simply the truth, and it is really all that stands out in this film.  I do not see why this wikipedia entry should not reflect that, and so I will make the edit again.  Ideally, you all follow the rules here, you will all participate on the talk page if you do not agree.  You have to abide by the rules too.  This isn't vandalism.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

I feel that reducing Matilda to a brief comment about her breasts is an insult to female space vampires everywhere. Wikipedia needn't stoop that low, in my opinion. C d h (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol! Good Response... I Own the DVD of "Life-force" and enjoy it for its Fortean relevance as well as the admittedly dazzling charms of Matilda May. But I think the film is too often under-rated. It has a suitably morbid tone, and ramps up competing blends of creepy eroticism. Most of the actors try to do well with rather poorly constructed Expository dialog. One REAL weakness is the rather clumsy puppet work with the Life-Drained liches that the victims become. Also Steve Railsback is ALWAYS so strange that I just end up watching to see what odd thing he will do next. Mentioning Matilda Mays "Boobulance" in the text is just stating the obvious as well as being tacky & Lame. For descriptive wiki text it's an easy "FAIL!" Just reference nudity at the most & leave it at that.71.6.81.62 (talk) 02:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)mbd71.6.81.62 (talk) 02:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC) 7:21pm, 2 July 2009

Fair use rationale for Image:Lifeforce.jpg
Image:Lifeforce.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Proportionally?
"The three vampires escape from confinement and proportionally transform most of London's population into zombies." What does "proportionally" mean in this sentence? (It's in the Plot section.) DavidCh0 (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I changed the word "proportionally" to "exponentially". This is to note that the rate of change increases faster as the transformation continues. But anyways, this article on the movie has gotten very bad from what is was a year ago.Gary Joseph (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The Mancini Soundtrack
Do not know if this should be added to this page or to the page for the film Runaway Train (film). However the main title music Henry Mancini wrote for this film was re-used as the backing for the Runaway Train trailer. IMHO it actually works better in that role as the music seems better suited for swashbuckling action adventure. Graham1973 (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead and Plot sections
From these two sections alone, the article seems to be a reasonable addition to Wikipedia and the remainder is worth editing. My focus was on Wikifying, concision and encyclopedic tone. --Soulparadox 10:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

copyedit
This article would be helped by a "Critical Reception" section, which is common for most movie articles. Expressing opinions by reviewers, and aggregate sites such as Rotten Tomatoes. Also, I could not find any source for additional revenue streams that would be accrued from movie rentals/video sales, although I would expect there to be some (I believe Waterworld was a huge money loser, until you factored in video sales, and then it's revenues made it into a money-maker). --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 17:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead
NinjaRobotPirate, if you are wondering why I made this edit, which you reverted, the answer is simply that I believe readers would expect "science fiction" to link to an article on science fiction as a genre rather than to one on science fiction films. So, the general link is more appropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SPECIFICLINK, it should point to the most specific link. This isn't a "science fiction", it's a "science fiction film".  Why did you leave "horror" to still point to "horror film"?  It doesn't make any sense to change either, and it makes even less sense to change just one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with NRP. ---  The Old Jacobite  The '45  14:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Film/novel Vs Lovecraft
With regards to this edit, I've reverted for essentially the same reasoning as TheOldJacobite did - the section refers to the novel, not the film. It's not enough to say that what is relevant to the novel is relevant to the film - in this instance sources need to be found and used that state theat the film contains the same Lovecraftian overtones as the novel does.

You cannot use the argument of "The novel is Lovecraft, the film is based inspired by the novel, ergo the film is Lovecraft as well." - that's the very definition of synthesis

And for what it's worth, I don't consider the film to have Lovecraft elements in it at all, it's a straight forward Sci-fi vampire flick. the film shares elements of the novel without doubt, but differs in so many important parts that different references are required for the film. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert on Lovecraft, so I can't really get into details, but I agree that I see no classic Lovecraftian elements in the film. As to this new addition, it clearly is all about the novel, never mentioning the film, so it's not relevant here. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  13:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Changes
I made a bunch of changes to the article, so I figured I'd explain them in a little more detail here than is possible in an edit summary. The actors' names are already listed above, below, and beside the plot; it's highly redundant to list them in a fourth place. As such, there's consensus at WT:FILM not to list actors' names in plot summaries, but I don't have a URL handy to link this consensus. I'd have to go look for it in the archives.

When I clicked on the "mixed reviews" citations, it turns out the source says it received negative reviews. In the lead, this was further softened to "mixed-to-positive". I changed both to what the source says – negative reviews. The Rotten Tomatoes score is fairly positive, but we can't synthesize from those reviews that there was a critical reappraisal. I personally like the film and think there likely was a critical appraisal, but that's immaterial to what we write in a Wikipedia article. I did a quick Google search for it, but it didn't turn up anything I could immediately cite as proof there was a reappraisal. It's definitely something to think about for article improvement, though.

Another thing I changed was the film's nation of origin. Previously, it was labeled as an American film, and someone changed this to American-British. BFI says it's British, however. I also checked Variety, but they don't mention the nationality. AFI doesn't have it listed. So, I cited BFI and called it British. There was definitely American involvement, but we'd need a source to call it an American film, especially given what BFI says. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with your changes, NRP. I made some minor edits in the infobox and lede.  The RT score is dubious to me, as it could be weighted toward more contemporary reviews.  The reviews at the time, as you point out, were negative.  Still, I love the movie. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  20:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, when there isn't a critical consensus on Rotten Tomatoes, their score is generated without context. It's useful data, but it can't be interpreted.  Sometimes I like to explicitly identify that RT collects both contemporaneous and modern reviews.  That way, people hopefully aren't confused by conflicting sources.  Reviews can be negative on release, then trend more toward a positive score on RT, especially when there aren't many reviews cataloged.  It only takes a few positive reviews to flip something from the "5 out of 9" (56% positive) range to the "8 out of 12" (67% positive) range.  Is that a critical reappraisal or just a statistical blip?  Who knows.  We have to leave that to a reliable source to interpret.  On the positive side, I think we should be able to find such a source eventually.  It's not an obscure film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed on all counts. ---  The Old Jacobite  The '45  00:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lifeforce (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/20160426130410/http://blogs.indiewire.com/leonardmaltin/tag/film-reviews to http://blogs.indiewire.com/leonardmaltin/tag/film-reviews

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) 14:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Known For
this movie has a certain visual style that should be acknowledged if only to not seem oblivious. Where have I seen a media impact header? 136.34.176.115 (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)