Talk:The Rock (film)

Why Isn't Alcatraz Ever Said In The Movie?

I've been trying to figure out why this is. Every time they refer to the location they call it simply "The Rock". Never once in the movie does anyone say "Alcatraz", even though we all know that is the place they are talking about.

-- They say it multiple times. One is Hummel's first phone call. Then the woman talking about the warden. I counted more than 26 and then stopped.

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

• Gonthier, David (2006). "Between The Rock and a hard place: The Alcatraz Movie". American Prison Film Since 1930: From the Big House to the Shawshank Redemption. Edwin Mellen Press. ISBN 0773458336.
• Good, Howard; Dillon, Michael (2002). "The Rock: Ethics as Entertainment Violence". Media Ethics Goes to the Movies. Praeger Publishers. pp. 159–176. ISBN 0275970817.

Quotes

Shouldn't the quotes section be deleted? There is a reference to this film's space in Wikiquotes at the bottom of the page.

I dont know why this article refers to VX as VX-2, I never saw it mentioned in the movie at all.

milton the best hahahaha Maybe the -2 indicated its a Binary chemical weapon, but this wouldn't be true either way since both times when a pearl is dropped the effects of the gas are present (this wouldn't happen in a binary system). I tend to doubt this though as the movie indicates the writers have knowdledge of binary weapons during the defusing scene in the gas chamber when Goodspeed mentions that the "poisons mixing", which is common in sarin gas.

On that note I am going to edit this page and remove the fictional part.

If you look in the first part of where they attack the weapons deopt, there's a large yellow 2 on one of the outside walls, so the VX-2 probably means that the room is the number 2 storage room for VX, or something similar.12.182.100.224 23:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

After seeing it a few more times, the 2 does just refer to VX, number 2 storage12.182.100.224 00:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What's up with the VX being stored in those spheres anyway? Is that how it works in real life, or is it just done to make the stuff look more creepy in the movie? Also, when the SEALs supposedly deactivated the motion sensor how come Hummel's Marines were able to detect them anyhow? Masterblooregard 19:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

When The Cage was being filmed. I will always call the film by it's original name. The laser sensor was the most classified of all Special Forces Equipment. When The SEALS moved it, it has also a built in motion sensor so move it and thinking the lasers are still working. Think again. The motion sensor went off and alarmed The MARINES.

---

I have no idea of why a huge share of this article was deleted and replaced by a "Please complete this article" message. The only thing I can think of is vandalism, but maybe there was a reason. Either ways, I replaced that message for a stub message. If anyone has an explanation for this all, I'd like to see it on this talk page. Thanks.

Mackeriv 17:39, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

the movie was a masterpiece

the movie was the best ever written it is portrayed rather nicely i would prfered the scene when nicholas cage burns the flares.

Yeah, this movie is really great, I love it! :D

Yeah I enjoyed it thoroughly but I had a hard time swallowing the notion that Force Recon Marines could subdue a team of SEALS. No disrespect to Force Recon of course.

MARINE Force Recon can subdue a team of SEALs. If you saw the situation SEALS were trapped.

Trivia mistake

"Alcatraz closed on March 21, 1963. John F. Kennedy was killed on November 22, 1963. Therefore it is impossible that one of the secrets stolen by Connery was the identity of John F. Kennedy's assassin."

I don't think this piece of trivia makes any sense. It is clearly possible that in the story a document containing the plot to kill JFK was created before it actually happened. Therefore when Cage's character looks at the microfilm he could very well have found out who killed JFK. --Jayson Virissimo 19:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You forget J Edgar Hoover was still alive after Kennedy's assassination. And, Mason was also moved around to other Maximum Security Prisons. And, also if you notice he escaped from Alcatraz so he probably did not go back to Alcatraz once he escaped. And, there was record of when he was grabbing the documents. So he could have escaped and kept on spying and was then caught again. Reason why there was no dates mentioned he was arrested, escaped, and also when he gathered the J Edgar Hoover Files.

Another Trivia Mistake

-One Marine on several occasions dons a beret. Berets are not worn in the Corps.

-The F-18s rolling out of their hangars (which are navy jets) say "US Air Force" on the side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.50.118 (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Bold textDoes anyone know what the name of the theme song to this is? It's really good but I can't find it anywhere.

It was a custom soundtrack made by Hans Zimmer, not a released song. Search the internet for "the rock soundtrack" 220.233.46.171 (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Another Word on the Trivia

"Sean Connery's characters full name is John Patrick Mason. The name is an anagram of sorts. By taking the letter "O" from John and Mason you get OO then the name Patrick is 7 letters. The theory is that Mason is the original James Bond. This would explain Bond's change in apperance from Sean Connery to Roger Moore." >When the movie first came out, there was some buzz that Connery's character was supposedly the original James Bond. Obviously, the movie itself could not use that character without permission. But, if the movie is watched from the perspective that Mason is Bond, Connery's character definitely has the presence of "double-O seven." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.28.98 (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This is stupid. Let me present this 'evidence'. Mason is really Douglas Fairbanks because both names are 16 characters long. Jerry Bruckheimer is 16 characters long too. Please. Also, if you remove the letter "O" from John and Mason you get Jhn Masn. It's a stretch and unless you have a source, it doesn't cut it.

Boy, you sure know it all don't you.

John Patrick Mason. Actually stands for two Patriots John Adams and Patrick Henry both of which are Freemasons. Freemasons which of course in known as Mason. If you noticed how Connery spoke, he was a patriot for The People exposing the truth. And, was not under orders by either US or British Government. British Government denied his exsistence because he was not under orders by them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.141.171 (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Rock (movie).jpg

Image:The Rock (movie).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Remake?

There was a movie made in the 60ies or 70 ies (judging by what I saw), where a US officer with three companions seizes an ICBM silo, threatening to launch the missiles and thus start world war three if his demands (compensation for the families of men dieing in secret operations) were not met. Given the similarities in plot, couldn't The Rock be considered a sort of remake or at the very least drawing inspirations from the older movie? I am sorry, I do not remember the title oif said movie, nor did I recognize any of the actors, one of the conspirators was an overweight black man with a beard, the actor who played the president of the United States I remember as somewhat fat. thestor 18:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Eh, doesn't sound similar enough to be a remake. IMO it would have to be an intentional remake for it to be considered one, with multiple overlapping themes, and most likely the exact same title Masterblooregard 00:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Not a remake it is was made due to the POW/MIA not being accounted for and being left behind. And, no compensations are made to their families since Special Forces missions are deemed classified. Provided you saw the movie NAVY SEALs. Missions are so classified saying it was a training accident. This was originlly supposed to be the sequel to NAVY SEALs known as The Cage. But, due to Michael Biehn and the whole SEAL Team getting killed they did not have LT Curran. But, renamed to CMDR Anderson.
• It's definitely not a remake. The movie you are thinking of is 1977's Twilight's Last Gleaming with Burt Lancaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.28.98 (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Synopsis

Does anybody think that the synopsis might be just a little too long and detailed? They're supposed to give the general idea of the movie plot, not every little thing that happened. Soyseñorsnibbles 21:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'll put the appropriate template at the top. Lemme find it. Knippschild 21:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone removed the template on Oct 25, but I think the synopsis is still way too long. Perhaps we should put the template back on? -- CWesling (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur and put back up the template. Seems too detailed for a general plot of the film. Just for kicks, Microsoft Word counted 1,933 words in the Plot section alone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Plot Joedaddy09 (talk) 04:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The plot of a film is what the movie is about. A Synopsis goes through every detail. Some people are interested in movies and come to Wikipedia to read up. They don't want the film spoiled by having everything pop up at them, so I have edited the page to now be a brief overview of the film's plot. See if I care. It's not fairObriensg1 (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

VX Goof

Shouldn't one include the information that the effects of VX and mustard gas were merged (and the latter's blatantly exaggerated in the process) for dramatical purposes? In actual fact, VX does not cause any horrific blistering of the skin.--Cancun771 (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't exactly IMDB. We focus on encyclopedic information, not trivia. While the fact is interesting, it would probably not be best suited for Wikipedia. Knippschild (talk) 06:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. It is major misinformation in popular media. An encyclopedia is exactly the place to set such things straight. There is a huge difference between adding that bit of information and including a complete list of goofs, including any frames with a mic boom in the shot.--Cancun771 (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

At the same time - if we display one piece of trivia, it would be "unfair" (if you know what I mean) to not post others. This bit of information would probably be more appropriate if there were a section titled 'Criticisms' as seen by the majority of the media and society. But Criticism sections are not lists of individual issues, but rather a prose/paragraph style of writing. As such you'd need many other notable and generally-agreed criticisms to go with the article. On a side note, many people may agree that a large part of enjoying movies is the suspension of belief and allowing somethings to be dramatized. Just my two cents though. Knippschild (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Horrible Writing Under "Plot"

It honestly looks like a 12-year-old wrote it. It was riddled with typos and grammatical errors. Although I tried pruning some of them, it might need a rewrite. For example, "stragerling", "exponsing", "mounth". Really?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mreccentricity (talk • contribs) 18:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Bulleted list item

It looks like some editing has been done but this section needs improvement. "Consulting" is not the same as "acting as consultant to"... Like this: Now: "The team infiltrates Alcatraz, through the underground tunnels with Mason's guidance. They are ambushed by Hummel's marines in a shower room, killing all the SEALs and leaving only Mason and Goodspeed alive. " Rewritten: "Mason and the Team enter Alcatraz through the underground tunnels, but Hummel's marines ambush and kill all the SEALs in a shower room, leaving only Mason and Goodspeed alive." Or, leave it all out. I'm not sure that this level of detail is needed anyway -- the entire plot of the film could be summarized in a couple of paragraphs, while mentioning that the shower room scene is one of the most memorable in modern cinema, despite the movie, as a whole, UTTERLY SUCKING. 24.27.31.170 (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Eric

Is Robert Duvall really in it?

His filmography here doesn`t list. The same with IMDB.com and his official site. (Kokken Tor 00:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokken Tor (talk • contribs)

"The Rock" on Metacritic

Similar to the first Bad Boys film, this article did not mention Metacritic, which that may be necessary. Even though the current ratings on Rotten Tomatoes is a 67/100, the current ratings on Metacritic is actually mixed, only getting a 59/100 rating. CHAK 001 (talk) 10:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Fictional Medal of Honor Recipients

New wiki user here, was unsure if this should really be added or not. Since it doesn't seem this page is likely to be checked, I went ahead and added the film page to the category: [[Category:Fictional Medal of Honor recipients]]. There are pages in that category that are the pages of books or films already, so I'll follow that example. The character Brig. General Frank X Hummel, played by Ed Harris, is a fictional Medal of Honor recipient, and in the opening credits leaves his Medal of Honor on the tombstone of his deceased wife before setting the main plot of the movie in motion. If I recall correctly, in the past, the character was given it's own stub page of some kind, and was listed in this category. --Padenton (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to say what else the director/producers worked on

I don't believe edits such as this are appropriate; I've asked for additional opinions or editorial assistance at WT:FILM. In any case, at this point the appropriate thing to do is discuss the matter and reach a WP:CONSENSUS, not edit war over the situation. DonIago (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no need to include other films in the lede that the director/producers have worked on. If someone is interested in finding out more about the director/producers, they can click on the links for those people's individual articles. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I also concur. We have to be careful with this kind of wording. Sometimes I use this wording because a reliable source mentioned the specific work and because it fits the context. For example, it can be worth mentioning a previous film if that film led to a director getting the one covered by the article. Here, though, we are dealing with a vacuum that casts a promotional tone on this passage. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Depends on the case, if there is a particular reason why mentioning other works is relevant, for instance, to illustrate a notable change in genre, or a first big budget outing. In this case:

• the director and producers both have so many big movies that picking a couple seems arbitrary and illustrates nothing in particular, therefore in part it's confusing ("why specifically those as examples, is there some meaning I'm missing?");
• listing more than one or two previous credits for no obvious reason bloats the lead;
• the lead should summarize article content: the article doesn't, and probably shouldn't, list extraneous producer and director credits.

For these reasons, for this edit, in the interests of keeping the lead straightforward and easy to read, I agree with removal. --Tsavage (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with not namechecking other films in this case. As Fortdj33 points out, the reader clearly has the option of clicking the links if they are that interested in the person's work. Betty Logan (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep, support not having lists of other films the director has done, for the reasons already stated. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Rogue marines

Hi. can we please changes all occurrences of the word "marines" in this entry to "rogue Marines?" the article is much clearer that way. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)