Talk:The Belko Experiment

MGM and what other company?
What other company besides MGM will distribute this film?

Someone suggested Universal Studios to be the other company.Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 06:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I removed the category Universal Pictures films from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.48.206 (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

According to Forbes: "The U.S. distribution arrangements and release date will be decided soon after MGM sees the final cut." Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Variety Insight says Orion and BH Tilt will distribute it. The article also cites another source, Movie Insider, which says High Top Releasing will also release it.  I don't see what makes Movie Insider a reliable source, though.  I suggest we remove both it and High Top Releasing – unless someone can come up with a better source for High Top Releasing's involvement. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

We'll see. 73.79.235.32 (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Old school special effects.
Someone at Comic Con claimed that the production team used cherry Slurpee juice darkened with Coca Cola for much of the blood. I'll update if I can find proof of this. 2605:E000:AA1F:E400:7561:AB82:F5B3:F611 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Turning away the local Colombian staff
It's not clear why the guards turned away the local Colombian staff at the gate if this is an international experiment that's happening all around the world.--2003:6F:8C4E:D8E0:9428:2CD9:55ED:BFD1 (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia talk pages are for discussions on improving the article, rather than discussing the subject of the article itself. That being said, it is mentioned in the film that the local Colombian staff do not have tracers implanted at the base of their heads since they aren't at a high risk of being kidnapped. Without the tracers, there would be no way for the "scientists" to kill them so the experiment wouldn't work. Hope this helps. 122.252.159.247 (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Production companies
NinjaRobotPirate I know you like sources for companies, but putting highest reliance on a source created well before the film was released (and is not corrected later from what I have seen) is not best practice. A review from Variety is much preferred over Variety Insight. If you really want an uncredited company included, it needs to be labelled as such. But as neither the Variety or The Hollywood Reporter review lists MGM as a production company, it is best to remove it. And the companies should be in correct order. - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not just what I like personally; it's what consensus and WP:V say to do. Like I said in the message on your talk page that you reverted, Variety Insight is sourced from the studios themselves. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you think the source for the reviews is? There is no consensus that prefers Variety Insight over a later Variety review. The reviews at the time of release are clearly more reliable. There is nothing that makes Variety Insight - which is not updated with later corrections when films are ultimately released - a better source. And this is the place for discussion, not my Talk page. - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * NinjaRobotPirate referenced an archive page here that is one day before the film's release, so the claim of "later corrections" is false. Furthermore, I see multiple sources mentioning both MGM and The Belko Experiment. I would be fine with a note that contextualizes its involvement with the film. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You should be more careful about labeling a "claim" as false. As far as I can see once data is posted on Variety Insight it remains the same. It is not updated or corrected when it is archived. This is evidenced by the difference between the Variety Insight listing and Variety review, which I have seen with other films as well. So if this Insight page with data for this film - likely created more than fifteen months earlier when the film started shooting - was archived one day before the film's release, that in no way means it is as up to date as the Variety review. I would support putting sourced info in the article prose that MGM was initially involved in the development phase but then went uncredited when the film was released, but a note in the infobox is unnecessary, particularly as it seemed the reason NinjaRobotPirate went after this issue of insisting on sources even for credited production companies was to avoid having too many of them in the infobox (making it ironic for him to be pushing for an uncredited company's inclusion here). - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The simplest compromise is to label MGM as (uncredited) in the infobox. I will implement that shortly. Gothicfilm (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's done. I see in the edit history that multiple other editors have removed MGM completely, only to be reverted. Clearly there is a problem with listing an uncredited company. This new compromise of leaving MGM in the infobox but adding the uncredited label will hopefully be acceptable to most users. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Link to wrong person
The second part of the plot says that James Earl is the actor for security guard Evan. But it links to a 1700-century painter with the same name. I dont know how to fix that so I guess I’ll just leave a note here
 * Fixed, apparently for the second time. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

One day after they arrive at work
This might take place on that on that one girl's first day but the rest of them have been working there for a while as is evidenced by their interpersonal relationships and dialog talking about management not caring about their quality of work for years/months. Oh I see "One day...." this needs to be reworded. Ansarya (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)