Talk:Speed 2: Cruise Control/Archive 1

Error on page
The Father Ted parody referenced in the article was of the original Speed not Speed 2. It is mentioned on Speed (film) - I'm going to remove it from here as it is not relevant.81.144.191.248 13:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Its on channel 4 right now Seamusalba (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats it finished now (what a crap film! Cant wait for Speed 3!) Seamusalba (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sequel speculation
A contributor has been repeatedly adding speculation about a third Speed film:. While it is common to include sequel speculation on film articles I don't feel that the sources that are cited in the section conform to Wikipedia's reliable sources policy. The policy states: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources."

The sources used in the section are:

http://www.speed3themovie.com/ http://digg.com/news/entertainment/Speed_3_IGNITION_Yes_I_am_serious http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD_wV_9m_Mk

I don't believe any of these meet the criteria to be regarded as a reliable source.

The first source (http://www.speed3themovie.com) is a website that could have been set up by anyone. It is not clear who owns the website, but if it is an official site it is clearly not idnetified as such. WP:SPS rules out the webiste as a reliable source, and the policy states: For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.

The second source (http://digg.com/news/entertainment/Speed_3_IGNITION_Yes_I_am_serious) is a web forum posting, which is also ruled out as a reliable source by WP:SPS.

The third source (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD_wV_9m_Mk) is a Youtube video. Youtube is not a reliable source. Reliable source examples states "YouTube and other video-sharing sites are not reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. In some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher, but even then should be used with caution". Since the video was posted by "zjrock", the authenticity of the video cannot be established so is not acceptable as a source.

While I don't object to such a section in principle, such as section needs to be referenced with sources that comply with WP:RS which it clearly doesn't in the current form, so the section should be removed until more appropriate sources can be found. Betty Logan (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree to the above mentioned information and I do accept that such sources are indeed hazy, however the added part clearly states that some hype over a new film with the links to show what sort of hype there is. Nowhere in my addition does it say that this is a sure thing, in fact it stronly indicates that it is most likely not going to happen.  I just wanted to put it in and allow people to judge for themselves.  Nothing more.  If I was trying to make the "sequal" look 100% gospel truth real, then I would understand. but I'm not.  Just trying to show people reading the article what is out there.  Cexycy (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I did some research, and the only reliable discussion of a third film I can find is people asking Reeves if he would do the film. This is an example. However, there is no actual action taken toward a third film and no reliably sourced indication that a studio is developing this project. I do not think the sequel section belongs here, but if we see coverage of action, such as Variety reporting that the studio hired so-and-so screenwriter to pen a script for the third film, I support inclusion of that kind of information. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Budget
As per usual the actual budget figure is unclear. As of writing the infobox lists $110 million as the budget figure.

From the Los Angeles Times "De Bont acknowledges that the movie came in over budget but shoots down reports that the original $100 million has soared into the $135-million to $160-million range. The movie is on schedule, he says. It's not out of control. When the movie wraps at the end of this month, it should come in "close to $110 million"--providing nothing untoward erupts."

Box Office Mojo lists the budget as $160 million, the upper range mentioned by the Los Angelese Times. This fits with my experience of Box Office Mojo tendency to round the figures up.

Unless there are more sources or some particularly good reason to change, I think we should stay with the $110 million figure the director told the LA Times. -- Horkana (talk)


 * As always these figures are iffy at best. We can always use a budget range as we do on other articles in these circumstances, but I'm inclined to use the figure the director gives since the LA Times gives no source or rationale for the $135m-$160m figure. I'd rather use an actual concrete figure than just speculation. Betty Logan (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)