Talk:XXX (2002 film)/Archive 1

Director's Cut
The XXX: State of the Union article claims that XXX dies in the Director's Cut of the movie. Can someone verify and elaborate on this? And, if this is the case, then how is it that Vin Diesel was originally signed on for the sequel? Was the scene in the Director's Cut where XXX died left out specifically in order to leave the possibility of a sequel? --LostLeviathan 05:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've bought the Director's Cut in DVD and Cage does not die there. The Cut adds some scenes and makes other scenes longer, but that's all. However, I haven't seen the extras. So there might be something going on in them. -Abaraibar 11:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There's an extra on the Uncensored Unrated Director's Cut DVD entitled "The Final Chapter - The Death of Xander." It's a short that connects the first film with the sequel and was made after Vin Diesel decided not to participate in the sequel.  Xander Cage was played by Kristian Lupo, one of Vin Diesel's stunt doubles.

Costume Question
I know this is an incredibly weird question, but does anyone know what the hell kind of pants VD is wearing for the first part of the movie? --65.27.246.163 01:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

lil question
!!

right heres what buggin me in XXX when cage is checkin out the cars yuris got for him a song plays when he unveils the gto from under the cover i jus wondered if any1 knows what its called cheers

Cars
Not be annoying, but who cares about the cars in the film? :/  —♦♦ SʘʘTHING  (Я)  22:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know. I pulled the entire section. Half of the cars on the list were never seen, only mentioned and had absolutely no relevance. At any rate, it's not a car flick, so I axed it. EvilCouch 23:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

trivia?
The line 'Although not explicitly stated in the movie, director Rob Cohen stated within an audio commentary track for the DVD release that the antagonist, Yorgi, was meant to be an anarchist and alluded to the other members of Anarchy 99 as being anarchists as well.' is kind of pointless. The term 'Anarchy' in the groups name is indicative that they are anarchists. Also, in the dialogue within the movie X and Yorgi discuss ideals (when yorgi quotes the punk song). Do we really need to explicitly state that they are anarchists? -Localzuk(talk) 20:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I was the editor who originally posted that Trivia note, I should explain why I found it necessary. Associating with anarchists, and being an anarchist myself, one might imagine I would recognize a fictional anarchist when I see one.  However, I find nothing within the movie Explicitly refers to the antagonists within the film as being anarchists.  This is key.  An explicit reference to anarchy should be required for such a thing, as within pop culture there is little understanding of anarchy (or ism, if you are not of the post-left trajectory.)  Let us run down this list you've presented: 1) The rebel/crime group is referred to as "Anarchy 99."  Yorgi even states in the line why this is so, "that is what we have been living in for the past three years." (I'm paraphrasing.)  Granted, if we lived in a society that associated anarchy with anarchism, this would be clear, but we sadly do not.  Anarchy is associated with wanton violence and mayhem.  As such, many may assume the name is a reference to the groups criminal behavior; 2) Within the film, Yorgi and Xander speak of vague ideals of "freedom", but this isn't grounded in any named philosophy, and quoting punk songs should not be confused with a discourse on anarchist philosophy.  Not all anarchists are punks, myself included; 3) Yorgi's monologue is perhaps the most overt reference to anarchy as a political philosophy made in the movie, but listening to it near the end of the film caused me to react to it within the context of everything I had seen proceeding it -- that Yorgi was simply speaking of vague freedoms from responsibility.  By the end of the film, I was confused into believing Yorgi was a Russian Nihilist, until I listened to the director's commentary, in which Rob explicitly explains that Yorgi was intended to be an anarchist (a word never even used in the film.) He then proceeded to explain his interpretation of anarchism, which was predictably negative.
 * Now don't get me wrong. I agree that this should be removed from the Trivia section, but only because trivia sections in general are frowned upon, and are intended only as temporary caches for facts.
 * I suggest creating a subsection for themes expressed in the movie, and including anarchism as a subsection within it. Other themes which Rob Cohen described in the commentary were iconoclasm, and nihilism.  Anarchism was intended as a component of this.  His meta-theme was the creation of a new form of spy film for a younger generation.  The "death of the tuxedo" opening scene can also be mentioned.  A villain as anarchist was meant to be a replacement for the villain as capitalist, or communist.  I haven't watched the movie or listened to the director's commentary in a while, so I can't do this myself.  However, I invite you and other editors to make the attempt. --Cast 03:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, I see what happened. When the Soviet Union fell, ANARCHY did indeed happen in the former Warsaw Pact countries. The governments were in chaos, the Army was one step away from martial law, coups could have happened at any time. Food, fuel, basic necessities were scarce. This is not the ideal "punk rock" version of anarchy, nor is it the "hippie" ideal of everyone loving each other in peace version of anarchy. This is what Anarchy really is: the breakdown of civil law and authority. The chaos that leads to strongmen/warlords coming into power much like Genghis Khan or Saddam Hussein, taking the country over and ethnic cleansing is the result. Instead of everyone loving each other peacefully and no police to stop a guy from smoking weed, you get armed factions killing unarmed peaceniks just because they can. THAT is the Anarchy referred to in the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.80.228 (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The antagonist can't be anarchist because they are an organisation with leaders in charge of it, specifically Yorgi. That defeats the entire point of anarchism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.113.110 (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * But near the end, when the rocket boat is launched or a bout to be launched or just before he buys the farm, Yorgi talks about no more large cities and no more governments - that's what anarchy is all about. 03:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.33.104 (talk)


 * Having a simple gang-oriented power structure as seen in the film isn't contrary to anarchism. There's a very rudimentary, over-simplified, and downright incorrect view of anarchy by society at large that the term and philosophy is consistent with utter chaos.  This, I doubt, is how few modern, practicing anarchists would identify themselves.  Anarchy is about a lack of government and large-scale social organization.  While these FORMAL institutions are frowned upon, most anarchists believe or subscribe to a sort of "survival of the fittest" mentality.  Outright chaos is bad for everyone, no matter what political beliefs one subscribes to.  Anarchists, ones not born of a dozen punk albums at least, understand that there will ALWAYS be power struggles, they just believe that this "power" should be derived from something a little more...primal? natural? innate? ...than our current systems of government.  So if Yorgi was the "leader" of his little crew, it was because he was the most vicious, ruthless, whatever, and his underlings preferred his "rule" to anything that they could come up with.  They're his willing subjects, presumably free to come and go, unlike the government.  If someone doesn't like it, they can usurp, walk away, whatever...much different than being dissatisfied with a country's government.  Patrick of J (talk) 09:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The plot violates copyright
The plot summary should be a summary. As it stands, it is a copyright violation as it tells the entire story. I am rewriting to try and get it down to the maximum size of 600 words. Please do not add any more detail to this summary.-Localzuk(talk) 20:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have done a brief summary, can someone expand it a little to around 600 words - but do not go into huge amounts of detail? Cheers, Localzuk(talk) 20:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Made sections
Made new sections (Writing and Marketing) and added what was already listed under the introduction section. Also moved some info under the appropriate section. --MikeAllen (talk) 00:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

wats the name of the of the song dring Columbia with the hip hop song of latinos

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved per MOS:TM and MOS:CAPS -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

XXx → XXX (film) – The title of film is the nickname of main character (Xander Cage), "Triple X", or it should have been "XXX", not a stylized "xXx" one. Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 13:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. One of the clearest cases in recent times: a misleading and almost totally uninformative title. Without the addition, an unmitigated irritant for almost every reader unfortunate enough to stumble upon it; with the clarifying precision, informative for everyone, and entirely innocuous.
 * See the DAB page XXX, with its dozens of entries; see 41 content pages that include "xxx", with various mixes of case.
 * N oetica Tea? 00:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, but on MOS:TM and MOS:CAPS grounds, not for being "uninformative". Powers T 15:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per LtPowers. Steam5 (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mountains
Where are the majestic mountains shown in the avalanche scene? I never saw anything like that when I was in Prague.211.225.33.104 (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

xXx vs xXX vs XXx vs XXX
Per above discussion this was renamed from "XXx" to "XXX (film)". However, currently the title shows as "xXX (film)". If it cannot be "xXx", so why not just let it be "XXX (film)", without lowercases? 85.217.44.90 (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoever changed it from xXx to XXx bit off more than they could chew, and made WP look like fools by not backing off and asking for help. Help is here. --Jerzy•t 20:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In my role as a member of the WP community, i would feel remiss if i failed to comment on this ridiculous miscarriage of the decision-making process. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry did not stop to ask themselves whether "van der Waals" was a trademark and neither should we. And in fact, "de Havilland" (or FAIK "De Havilland", or both) is a trademark for aircraft, but no one but an idiot spells it with a capital D in the middle of a sentence, nor do they with de Havilland Hornet.
 * (A trademark is in use when the purveyor of a product displays it to assure the potential consumer of the fact that the product comes from them; the studio may have a registered trademark on "xXx" that is applicable not just to films but also whatever it is they call the vaguely related junk sold to fans of the films. We are not writing about the trademark, but about several films that have titles that (as far as we are concerned just happen to) match or include what is presumably also a trademark. It's convenient for purposes of profit to assert the trademark to prevent competitors from confusing moviegoers, but each title's core function is as the title of a particular work and cannot reasonably detract from the properties that titles have. Whether there's a trademark or not, our article is about the movie, not the trademark, and the article's title should reflect the films title.  (It is the decision of the author and the publisher how to title a book (or correspondingly for other medium), and i would not have any other strong view about the decision to publish de Kooning: An American Master. Given our medium (and being a 'pedia, not a dict), we can do a better job for users by upcasing unless the first word is a proper name that does not get upcased in the middle of a sentence -- and our doing so does not constitute any judgment about whether it should get upcased at the beginning of a sentence or the beginning of titles that are not articles in on-line encyclopedia-style references.   (While the art of the film posters probably doesn't have a typical upper-to-lower-case ratio, the center X is clearly larger than the outer ones. More to the point, the articles in IMDb (which clearly cultivates a strong working relationship with the industry) is clear in using "xXx". And perhaps to the point, the entrepreneurs probably liked the racy hint of XXX that's provided by "xXx", but wanted a few printer's-points deniability from it.)
 * In my role as an editor with a grasp of the technical issue that has probably impeded implementation of the lousy decision, i came to the page to fix the title to what it obviously should be, but i'm not going to use the relative scarcity of that savvy as a club against the presumptively binding decision. When the miscarriage of the decision is eventually reversed, i'd be honored to make the proper fix as well. --Jerzy•t 20:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was not moved. -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

XXX (2002 film) → – "XXX" would refer to pornography. 2A02:C7D:564B:D300:F4E6:BFC0:4929:9A34 (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't know if the reasoning given above is valid. There appears to be inconsistencies between XXX: State of the Union and xXx: The Return of Xander Cage. It could be argued that "xXx" is a stylization. — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 01:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a valid request and per WP:NCF.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on XXX (2002 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/20120502204201/http://www.rammstein.de/history/ to http://www.rammstein.de/history/

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) 17:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2018
123.108.246.175 (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ivec os (t) 17:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2018
119.160.118.143 (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. qwerty6811 :-) Chat Ping me 16:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2018
45.116.232.42 (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC) Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. No request was made. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 15:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2018
39.42.249.250 (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 14:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2018
42.108.34.109 (talk) 03:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.-- QueerFilmNerd  talk 04:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:XXX (film series) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Most researched movie and music ever
This movie came out in 2002. In 2003 started this article. In 2009 made the article for the soundtrack at XXX (soundtrack). Pageviews / Topviews is able to report the most popular Wikipedia articles starting around 2016. As far back as the data goes, these two have been among the most popular Wikipedia articles. This is the world's most researched movie, and the soundtrack is the world's most researched music composition. The world is in a frenzy to access encyclopedic general reference content about this movie.

I know that Wikipedia typically does not intervene in academic critique but the world of film critique seems to have passed these two. I wish we could somehow encourage film students to deconstruct the movie and for music theorists to analyze the soundtrack, because apparently of all the art which humanity has produced these are the apex of query and attention. A research publication on every scene in the movie would not be excessive, and a review of every song would merely meet the evidence of 10-years of consistent demand. There are hardly any sources cited in these articles and if no one publishes more art reviews, then those sources may never come to exist to meet reader interest.

Evidence suggests that more people have researched this movie than almost any other concept ever.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  19:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)