Talk:Super 8 (2011 film)

Citation
Does the first line REALLY need a citation...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.252.233 (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism
This article is being vandalized by many users. When i tried to revert it back to last possible correct entry, my edits were also reverted. Please, someone responsible, revert it back to original, as i am new to all this editing business. Thanks. Aashish.gupta (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Is someone trying to hide "spoilers"
I came here to see if there was more info about the movie now that it's been released, and I find a locked page and a teaser summary based on the trailer. I thought spoilers were allowed on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.218.100 (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Critics got an early viewing; the film comes out for the general audience June 10th. The page is locked due to persistent vandalism. 68.32.198.228 (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Then someone with access to edit it should at least update it with some links to reviews and more information about the movie now that the reviews are out. The current synopsis reads like a teaser press release, we know a lot more about the movie now (e.g. the creature is vaguely humanoid and the flying cubes compose it's spaceship/armor).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.218.100 (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from JFD888, 11 June 2011
==Plot== Joe Lamb is a 13 year old boy from the fictional town of Lillian, Ohio whose mother was crushed to death in an industrial accident. She was not supposed to have worked that day; Louis Dainard, an alcoholic who has had run ins with the law, drank that morning and called in sick. His daughter Alice attends the same middle school as Joe.

Four months later Joe and Alice drive out with their friends Charles, Preston, Martin and Tom into an abandoned farm to shoot a zombie movie on 8 mm film. During the production they witness a white pick up truck drive onto the tracks ahead of an oncoming train. The kids run up to the truck and discover Dr. Woodward, their biology teacher, behind the wheel of the truck. He instructs them to forget what they saw, otherwise they and their families will die premature deaths. The Air Force comes up to secure the crash site while the kids drive away quickly.

After days of strange phenomena (microwaves disappearing, car batteries vanishing, people abducted) the kids decide to view Dr. Woodward's abandoned truck at their school where he is thought to have kept personal belongings. In there they discover that the government imprisoned an extraterrestrial who crashed it's ship on earth in 1958. The ET has been tortured and treated poorly by the Air Force, even though his only express wish is to repair his ship and return home.

After Alice is kidnapped by the Alien, Joe finds its subterranean lair underneath a local cemetary and manages to rescue Alice. Shortly after all the missing metal re-appears in the night sky, as a ship begins to take form. The movie ends with the star-like ship blasting off towards the ET's home planet with the ET onboard.

JFD888 (talk) 04:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Riddled with grammar errors or inconsistencies
The current version at the moment of this writing is full of minor errors or inconsistencies that would compromise its quality with regard to Wikipedia standards. They mostly pertain to grammar errors, for example in the synopsis, "and dragged of screen and is killed" should be ", dragged off screen and killed", "one of the white cube's" should read "one of the white cubes", "flips on it's side" should be "flips on its side", "from his mothers death" should be "from his mother's death". Also, "the Creature" is capitalized only once throughout the entire segment, which is inconsistent.

I would have edited the page save for the fact that I can't. Hungpluto2003 (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I would like the chance to clean up this page too. There was some major plot details that were left out of the synopsis. Dragon Lizard Reptileus (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Less than ideal name for this article
Wikipedia now has articles called Super 8 (film) and Super 8 mm film. The latter is obviously the older topic, about something that has been known since it was first produced as Super 8 film. Nobody ever mentions the mm aspect of it in the name. I find it disconcerting that a new movie (whose name, ironically, came from the name of the earlier product) has taken over the name of a long existing product in Wikipedia naming conventions.

Is there any chance of adding something to this article's title to better differentiate? Maybe make it Super 8 (2011 film), and let the older article use the more common name for the product of Super 8 film. HiLo48 (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'll put in a redirect. Algr (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this article should use either Super 8 (2011 film) or Super 8 (movie). The older, Super 8 mm film article should use its original Super 8 film title. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with HiLo48 and M0rphzone, and I've moved the article about the film format/type of film to Super 8 film. The hatnote at the top of that article should be sufficient to steer people to the correct article if they are actually looking for info. on the movie and mistakenly go there first.  WP article titles about films, when needing the disambiguator "film" in the title, always include it parentheses, which is an additional reason that people looking for info. on the 2011 movie are unlikely to type "Super 8 film" in their browser's address bar.  SJ Morg (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Rubik's Cube unknown in '79? Puh-leeeze!
I graduated high school in May 1979 and everybody had a Rubik's Cube by then... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.23.250 (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Someone has now boldly removed that item anyway, as being inappropriate trivia, but I need to point out that you really have an argument with the Rubik's Cube article. Maybe you can add something there. HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I had boldly removed the item, and I still support its removal. The Wikipedia article needs to be encyclopedic, meaning that it should provide pertinent coverage about the film. While I have not seen the film, a quick search engine test shows zero fuss about any kind of discrepancy regarding the Rubik's Cube. (Search "super 8" "rubik's cube" in Google News Search.) This to me shows that it is a minor oversight at best, and encyclopedic articles are not in the habit of reporting such trivialities. Exceptions would be major coverage about films that have a large number of discrepancies, like Plan 9 from Outer Space for example. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 03:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not Vandalism
Pointing out mistakes in movies like the pointing out that the Rubik's Cube was not around in 1979, will only draw more interest in the movie. Instead of removing this look for more mistakes and add to this selection.


 * I treated it as vandalism because you ignored repeated advice and requests, and were told it would be so treated if you continued in that way. You were referred to WP:AVTRIV. Can you see how that discourages what you are trying to do?
 * And please sign your posts with four tildes - ~ . It helps us tell who we're talking to. HiLo48 (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Read this "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all." WIMHARTER (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You have a point, but to me, only a weak one. Another aspect of Wikipedia is to seek consensus here before changing things again. Just posting your thoughts, and then reverting without awaiting a response (as you have just done), is considered not good manners. HiLo48 (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I realize this is settled now, but in case it comes up again I wanted to point out that the whole discussion is moot, because the Rubik’s cube was released in 1974 --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Stop it now
My comments about the Rubik’s Cube not be around in 1979, and another users comments about the Walkman should stay. If you saw a cell phone being used in move about the revolutionary war would it be an oversight. They only had land lines them :) WIMHARTER (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see my response to you on my talk page. This is not the kind of content that belongs in an encyclopedic article. If you Google the keywords, there is no real coverage about these discrepancies. They always happen in films, especially major productions with all these details. It's only noteworthy if coverage does exist. We as editors are not supposed to be originally researching the topic and providing insights not reported by any source outside of ourselves. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's common for IMDB to eventually list such things. Once it does, perhaps it can be used as a source. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * IMDb is user-submitted, especially for these kinds of details. The question is for this article, does it matter? By itself, it is pretty meaningless. However, if we had a paragraph talking about how filmmakers tried to replicate the era, and if secondary sources mention the Rubik's Cube discrepancy, that could be used as a detail to illustrate how the replication was imperfect. This article has very little content—compare to Cowboys & Aliens (film)—and there really needs to be more foundations. For example, in "Production", it mentions that filming took place in Weirton, we can use a reference like this to describe the events more. What I'm saying is, to discuss discrepancies, there needs to be a workable starting point, but from what I can tell, discrepancies in the replication are of very minor note. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 22:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is a possible source. While it says "blog" in the URL, it is under AOL-owned Moviefone, so it's more authoritative than someone's Blogger page. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * IMDB is not a wp:reliable source but see my comment and link (to an article in the UK paper The Telegraph) in the section above: the cube was released in 1974 so there is no discrepancy. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Poster
Not sure how to do it myself, but that poster needs to be reverted to an older one, as that one is fan made, and is not an official production poster. See here: http://www.movies.com/movie-news/drew-struzan-super-8-poster/3236 Silberwhatever (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Fixed! PTJoshua (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure this is the poster that should be used. --TravisBernard (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Box Office outside USA
I know the USA is the biggest market, but can we/do we make any attempt to include takings outside the USA? HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I updated the section to reflect the gross outside the United States and Canada so far. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Spelling
A minor point, but there seems to be some ambiguity about the spelling of Ryan Lee's character's name.

Google results for Cary vs. Carey seem pretty evenly matched. IMDB lists it without the "e". Anyone know what the actual credits say? Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 21:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I just came back home from watching the film and its CARY :) 93.136.50.243 (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Portal 2
Portal 2, a game by Valve Software contains an interactive trailer for this movie in it's extras. Should this be mentioned? --76.203.226.147 (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it should be given at least some mention, but I'm not sure which section to place that mention in the article. 50.81.207.68 (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Good Article
Does anyone think this is on par for GA status? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 19:04 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Mackinac Island resource
J.J. Abrams' 'Super 8' movie hails Mackinac Island as 'beautiful' vacation hotspot June 10, 2011 99.190.85.111 (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Found footage
Does this qualify? Someone just added it to the list, but I don't think it qualifies.  Serendi pod ous  13:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Camera equipment
Since the film's very title is Super8 and the technology plays such a central part in it, I suppose some words on their equipment might be appropriate, at least in the The Case section. The fancy first camera that they're capturing the alien on is a Eumig Makro Sound 64 XL (sans the rubber lens hood, made 1976-1980) from Austria, and the cheap replacement they're getting after the Eumig is broken is a Kodak Ektasound 140 XL (made 1973-1977), with the XL in both cases standing for XistingLight, a technology of increasing the shutter angle from 180 to 230 degrees, thus having each frame exposed longer and facilicating shooting at more difficult lighting situations.

The stock they're shooting on is Kodak Ektachrome160 Sound (that's the yellow and blue box the evil military guy picks up) made for live-sound under low-light conditions, however most of the footage in The Case appears to be shot on Kodachrome40 (still available in 2010 through various international vendors and processed by Dwayne's Photo, Kansas) instead, with only the garage scene shot on Ektachrome160. The scene at the train station might be Ektachrome VNF News Film with strong color correction to remove the greenish tint typical for VNF, but not Ektachrome160.

What's also kinda confusing is that they're using a mic whenever shooting, but the final audio sounds definitely like sloppy amateurish dub and foley, with only the chubby little director's afterword being actual live sound. Granted, there was no fresh sound stock anymore in 2010, however as you can see with that director's afterword, it's fairly easy to simulate the sound of Super8 live sound nowadays. --79.193.25.27 (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Pyrotecnics?
I removed the link to the "pyrotecnics" article with relation to Cary. A kid that is obsessed with setting off fireworks (homemade or not) has nothing to do with the type of activity discussed in the pyrotechnics article. I considered linking pyromania, but even that is a stretch, as the Wiki article on pyromania focuses on clinical pyromania as opposed to the activity portrayed in the film. Skinnypez (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Confusing Title Name
To distinguish Super 8, the movie, from the article "Super 8 Film" the title is "Super 8 (film)" which is more likely to be confused for Super 8 Film than had it not been included.


 * Neither topic can exist at Super 8, because that is a disambiguation page. Each article has a hatnote to explain the context of the article and provide a link to the other if that's what the user desires.
 * PS - Don't forget to sign your post by typing four tildes (~) . Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Cast order
The end credits use order of appearance. What is the order we use based on? Seems like OR based on speculated importance. Ranze (talk) 07:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

New Castle!
Wonder where he got the idea to reference New Castle and our fireworks domination?! I live there! 174.252.194.96 (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)