Talk:Max Havoc: Curse of the Dragon/Archive 1

Wikified as part of the
Wikified as part of the Wikification wikiproject! JubalHarshaw 16:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

References?

 * The reference list could use some formatting (read: consolidation): I've added a template indicating this.
 * I have also removed the trivia section (Please see Trivia for information on lists of trivia in articles) from this article. bwmcmaste (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There were two items, on is already in the article, the other (about the sequel) should be added. Rich Farmbrough, 13:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC).

deletion of section posted by Ccurnan
Max Havoc: Curse of the Dragon is cited with numerous verifiable sources for the information contained within it. There is no original research allowed on wikipedia. The fact that you claimed to have been "there" (the inference being that you know what "really" happened and no one else does) is irrelevant. If you have information concerning: Pyun telling GEDCA he was leaving the project; Pyun not getting paid for directing the film; the loan amount being $400,000 at the onset, etc, then please post it with verifiable cited sources.

Your claim that "the civil trial was cancelled" in January 2012 is wrong. The civil case was not cancelled. As evidenced by currently cited source(s) on the Max Havoc: Curse of the Dragon page the case went to the Honorable Judge Michael Bordallo's court room in early February 2012. At that time the case was pushed until March 22, 2012 when a status conference will be held. It was pushed from its February 2012 bench trial date because the two sides in the case are trying to come to an out-of-court agreement and asked the judge for more time. And even if they do settle out-of-court with a non-disclosure agreement, it will not negate the publicly available verifiable information that has been available for years prior to this (maybe) out-of-court settlement. You asked wikipedia to get its facts straight, perhaps you should do that very thing.

When has this article ever said that Pyun was named in the lawsuit or had ever been deposed by either John Laing or GovGuam? Sprinkler21 (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Sprinkler21

Settlement section
I created a new section ==Settlement== with sourced and cited information about the settlement agreement. In the ==Controversy== section I edited some of the court action dates to make them past tense, as they have now happened in the past. I also edit out a dubious unsourced section by User talk:70.189.192.168 that, judging from that users past edits, was probably an attempt to whitewash and censor by Albert Pyun and associates Sprinkler21 (talk) 06:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Sprinkler21

Or an attempt to get facts out. As an example reporters in the Guam backwater call the film a "boxoffice bomb" which can only be true if the film was intended to be released theatrically. Clearly the film was designed to be a tv and home video product. This entire article needs knowlegable people to create. It reads like ignorant amateurs created it. That's the problem, in the contributors attempt to pin blame, no attempt was made to get accurate facts. It needs a business reporter's input with hard facts and not yellow journalism attacks. Sprinkler 21 is clearly a biased Guam inhabitant and not very educated on the movie business. Hence his attempt to interpet from a prejudiced and colored point of view. This has been true with much of what was written by these backwater reporters in biased news sites. So much inaccuracy. The question I always had is how did this deal happen, who was responsible on the Guam side (I know its more sensationalistic and lazier to pin fault on Hollywood types). Hopefully, Spinkler 21, will explore truly what happened and whether it was Guam officials who profited. I know Guam is known for its graft and sex industry but there's some truth here not being revealed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.192.168 (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You talk with a lot of ignorance, bias and prejudice about Guam, no?: "Backwater," "Graft," "Sex industry?" There's no backwater individuals or graft or sex industry in Henderson, Nevada now is there? It's common knowledge that Max Havoc was hawked to Guam as a theatrical feature. This can be found in early reporting on the film in 2003 and 2004 (and later) by various Guam media. The film never played in theaters and was a failure in many other ways and unanimously panned everywhere as a "bomb." Hence, no yellow journalism in calling the film a "box office bomb." If you feel the Max Havoc page should be written by knowledgeable non-bias people and doesn't contain accurate facts then why don't you contribute to it? However, you do have to use verifiable cited sources and you can't do that, now can you? Sprinkler21 (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Sprinkler21


 * btw, the entire Max Havoc court saga WAS covered by a business reporter; Pulitzer Prize winning Los Angeles Times business reporter Kim Christensen covered it for the Los Angeles Times on June 13, 2007. The article "Camera, legal action! The making of a kung fu flick on Guam turns into court battles on both sides of the sea" is currently a cited source in the article, if you had even bothered to look. Sprinkler21 (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Sprinkler21

Please cite the verifiable source that the film was presented as a theatrical feature. I'm saying if the film never did play a single theatrical date its revenue would not come from "boxoffice". I don't think the reporter understood the term and used it to be sensationalistic and to bias the film's performance. I don't think any of these reporters ever really researched the film's performance - which was good enough to spawn a sequel. I don't see why these "reporters" can't use accurate information that is specific to film's performance on home video market worldwide and its performance in television sales and airings. There's an easy way to get this information if these "reporters" wanted to get accurate information. My feeling is these reporters all wanted to slant the story in a certain direction and they didn't present balanced reporting. It's like they didn't want to write that the film did well enough to have a sequel. Why wouldn't they mention this? Why can't they provide specific and accurate financial information instead just the inaccurate and lazy "boxoffice bomb". It might not seem like it to you, but these reporters or their editors all had a story to "sell". It's sad that people take their "facts" as facts. Most of the Times article is hear say and innuedo. Ask Christensen if he left out any comments that didn't directly fit his intent. I'm sure he'll fess up to the fact that the editorial control of the story was dictated by the need to sell papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.192.168 (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The film was presented and sold to Guam as if it were to be a theatrical feature. It makes perfect sense to call it a "box office bomb" if it didn't get released in theaters as the film makers claimed that it would be. On February 7, 2004 The Pacific Daily News published a story called "2 movies to throw a spotlight on Guam" written by Steve Limtiaco. In it, MAX HAVOC: CURSE OF THE DRAGON director Albert Pyun says The films are scheduled to be released in theaters in much of the world early next year... The article can be found on the producer's website here: http://www.rigel.tv/NewsEvents/News_Details.asp?nid=%7B0D380160-9C31-4656-826B-AB79A9E0375A%7D&typeid=%7BE08004A7-235B-4E31-8389-37AB8C37D319%7D. I have included this information and cited source in the main article. Please do contribute to the main article about how well the film did on home video and tv sales so much so that it warranted a sequel. If this information is so easy to get then you should have no trouble citing a source and putting it in the article.  I'm sure the taxpayers of Guam would love to know how swell the film did financially. Might beg the question if the film did so well then why did John Laing not pay the loan back and instead default and cost Guam $800,000? Sprinkler21 (talk) 05:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Sprinkler21

Exactly my point. If these were really great investigative reporters they would be able to track the revenue (which is not very difficult), instead they distract everyone from the the issue - where did the money go and how much was there. There was one idiotic article in some Guam magazine called Umo or something which essentially just cribbed online news into a poorly written article. This is really the weak spot for wikipedia. They get amateurs to think they are knowledgable about a subject. There's a lot of inconsistency across the many subjects covered. And in many cases there's a point of view or bias in the articles. Wikipedia is really just a collection of web info where amateurs can cut and paste to make them think they are intelligent or worthwhile. In any case, I return to my point which is how can a film "bomb" at the box office" if: 1) it never played theatrically; 2) how can the reporter say it was a bomb without proving that Laing did NOT make a lot of money with it? Whether he paid off the loan is a seperate matter. i mean really, did not anyone think about why a sequel HAD to be made? Hmm...guess that's not really important and neither is the tracking of which countries its be distributed in...that would be too much to much work for the reporters. I'm not faulting you Sprinkler 21, after all you're just using what "news" is out there but its very sad state of reporting that they can't find such easy information to gain. I think the real news is how Laing might have really pulled off a financial coup while the reporters support his claim of financial failure. Only on wikipedia I guess. The reporters never got this story right from Day 1. They never understood what was really going on and instead someone Christensen uses sources like crew member Ralph Coon as a reliable source! Laing wins because he gambled on over simplification and likely counted on the press to back up his claims....of course he made no money...the news said so! Argh...


 * I don't know how to be any clearer: You are welcome to edit the Max Havoc page but you must use verifiable sources to back up any information you may add. Thank you. Sprinkler21 (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Sprinkler21

Lates additions May 2012
I've got problems with this section:

Laing's efforts to get the courts to recognize he was swindled failed, GEDA officials while waging a press campaign, never brought fraud charges to trial.

We should change the wording a bit. Was Laing swindled or was GovGuam swindled? Also, some of the new additions seem to have already been covered in the article already and need to be removed for redundancy or at the very least reworked to fit into the flow of the article. I added a cn tag for the David Silva section. Also who says that GEDA was waging a press compaign? Seems to me it was the island media covering a story of interest to the island. Sprinkler21 (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Sprinkler21

I cleaned up this new section a bit. Condensed it some and cited source for Laing's claims of loans and incentives and GovGuam's denials. The David Silva sentence still needs to be cited and remains cn tagged. Sprinkler21 (talk) 05:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)Sprinkler21

New section SETTLEMENT PAYMENT HISTORY
I created a new section called Settlement Payment History to include information about the settlement payment. Sprinkler21 (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Sprinkler21


 * Properly formatted editor 66.229.59.165 inclusion of KUAM quote into portion of body of article that is already cited and sourced with Quintanilla's KUAM story. Added another detail from GEDCA admin regarding payment of settlement and sourced and cited said quoteSprinkler21 (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)Sprinkler21


 * Added GEDA interview with Ray Gibson and cited source. Sprinkler21 (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Sprinkler21


 * Again, properly formatted Henderson, Nevada IP's new information on Max Havoc payment. Fleshed out information from IP's Pacific News Center source. Sprinkler21 (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Sprinkler21

recent notability/undue weight questions
The film's controversy was written about by The Los Angeles Times and carried out over the AP wire. The film has been in the California courts and Guam courts for over six years. The film and its ensuing controversy have been written about extensively in the Guam press, Saipan press, Lonely Planet travel guides covering the region, and at the Pacific Island Develpment Program/East-West Center at the University of Hawaii. The film's fallout has effected numerous Guam business people and, ultimately, every Guam tax payer and every single Guam visitor that stays in one of the island's hotels and pays Guam's 12% Hotel Occupancy Tax. The film stars a famous Polish model, a famous German martial-arts actor and costars various famous Hollywood B-movie types. The film was directed by a well known B-movie director. I believe all of this makes the film and its controversy notable as per Wiki-standards. The article is cited and sourced with numerous verifiable sources and secondary sources. As for the recent undue weight question, the article presents both GovGuam's side and the film's producer's side, both sides being cited and sourced. If you believe the article is lopsided weight wise, then please add information you feel is lacking and please cite and source that information. Thank you. Sprinkler21 (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Sprinkler21
 * I would like to have a discussion about this, but with no response to build consensus, I can't help but feel like the article was a victim of drive by tagging.Sprinkler21 (talk) 07:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Sprinkler21
 * removed tags after 30 days without consensus discussion. I feel article does not suffer undue weight and/or notability issues. Please see explanation above. Sprinkler21 (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Sprinkler21

Created Legacy section
Since the lawsuits are now over and on the 10 year anniversary of the film, I decided to create a Legacy section citing and sourcing the 2014 book "Islands of Empire: Pop Culture & U.S. Power" by Camilla Fojas from University of Texas Press. Also, much from the Legacy section is sourced to references that have appeared on the page for years. Sprinkler21 (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Sprinkler21


 * Also worked on general clean up on the article, removing redundant links and changing the article to read in the past tense. Sprinkler21 (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Sprinkler21


 * Man, you really seem to hate this movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.19.16 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The movie itself? Hate, no. Indifference, yes. What I'm interested in is how the film deal with the director and producer and GovGuam came to be and how it ultimately turned out. I feel that many of the specifics of that deal and the resulting lawsuits/trials/controversy that you removed without discussion are important to the article. As the film critic for DVD Talk said, "the controversy of the film is more interesting than the film itself." The controversy of Max Havoc dominates nearly all sources I could find. This being the case, I don't feel the page suffered from undo weight issues. Several infamous films that have Wikipedia articles have very detailed histories of their controversies. Ishtar (film) being one. The Twilight Zone Movie being another. Now The Twilight Zone Movie does have it's own controversy page, Twilight Zone tragedy which might be a good idea for the Max Havoc page - Have a separate detailed page for the controversy. I think this is unnecessary but I'm willing to discuss it with any Wiki editor that wants to. Perhaps you would actually like to have a consensus discussion? You were incorrect in stating that the Laing vs. GovGuam fraud trial in Guam Superior Court "begun" as a Bench Trial. It was in the hearing phase with a Bench Trial scheduled before an out of court settlement was reached. If you had discussed your revisions here before unilaterally blanking a majority of the page I would have pointed that out. At the very least a  detailed reading of the cited sources would have revealed that to you. If you are unhappy with the plot of the film receiving "only 3 sentences" why don't you expand on it? I found your above comment to me to be aggressive, rude and stupid. So much for Wiki editor civility. Sprinkler21 (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Sprinkler21


 * I've requested a consensus, but nothing. So….. I'm beginning to replace specifics of controversy that were blanked by IP. The film is mostly known for its controversy and that makes the specifics of controversy important for inclusion. Sprinkler21 (talk) 05:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Sprinkler21

WE ARE THE ALBERT PYUN ARMY
We live in California. We Live in Florida. We Live in North Carolina. We live in Las Vegas. We live in Washington. We are in contact with Albert Pyun and Cynthia Curnanan. Our job is to right the constant incorrections on Wikipedia about our favorite film maker Albert Pyun espicially about the film he made in Guam MAX HAVOC: CURSE OF THE DRAGON. You can lock up the Albert Pyun page and the Max Havoc Page but we will wait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.0.16.217 (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Got the same message from Pyun as you did fellow fan! LET THE TRUTH BE KNOWN ABOUT MAX HAVOC:CURSE OF THE DRAGON! Wikipedia is spreading lies about Albert Pyun and I'm sick of it and he is too. We will not let our hero down! We will cahnge the information hear to reflect the truth and not the lies it spews now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.103.242.94 (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

aNOTHER MEMEBER OF THE ALBERT PYUN ARMY HERE AND CHECKED IN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.128.123.119 (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The Truth about Albert Pyun and the film MAX HAVOC: CURSE OF THE DRAGON can be found here:
http://www.impactonline.co/features/1704-albert-pyun-max-havoc-unclassified      There is simply no other reason to believe anything ON WIKIPEDIA or IN THE GUAM PRESS. They have a vendetta against the man. WE ARE THE ALBERT PYUN ARMY!


 * An article from a fan site with the director of the film talking about himself is not considered a reliable source. Sprinkler21 (talk) 07:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Sprinkler21