Talk:Legion (2010 film)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 January 2021 and 11 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Morgandonatello. Peer reviewers: Nathaly005, SPBrewster.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Legion (1997 film)

Hi all

I may have caused a problem ! I created Legion (1997 film) and my friend just told me that there is a film out (this one) lol

May need to look at renaming Legion (2010 film) or creating disamb page or at least putting something in the header "If you are looking for..." etc

thanks
Chaosdruid (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

sections removed

Why have the sections "Plot" and "Cast" been removed ?

Chaosdruid (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism. It's been restored and I've requested protection.

SemiProtected: Please fix these errors

The Archangel Michael (Bettany) falls to Earth in Los Angeles, cuts off his wings, and .....

This is the first line under plot and "Cuts off his wings" links incorrectly to Transubstantiation Smitty1337 (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Also "Confronted by two LAPD officers, he kills them both, and takes their car." Michael does not kill the man in his arms, the angel possessed other cop shots him in the head. Smitty1337 (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

this line "As night falls, a wave of possessed humans attacks the barricaded diner." the word Possessed links to Demonic Possession which is actually explicitly denied in the movie by Michael when percy mentions biblical references. They are Angelic possessions.Smitty1337 (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"The next day, Sandra hears her husband's voice calling to her, and looks outside to see him staked to a cross," Can it be mentioned that he is cruxified upside down, i believe this is relevent since it is the angels saying he is unworthy to die in the same manner as christ, just as St.Peter did Smitty1337 (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This one im unsure on "God is now likely to send the one other being" i dont think the one should be there, i belive the words used was "Another like me" using one implies there are only two arcangles Smitty1337 (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

also you call charlie a he —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.229.234 (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Every use of the word "he" is accurate. i assume you refer to this statement at the end "When the young Charlie asked why He had changed, her mother said, "I don't know. Maybe He was just tired of all the bullshit."" as that's the only one that mentions charlie in the same sentance without the verb direction action at "He" to charlie. however this sentence "he"= God, not charlie? is this the one you spotted or is it another He? Smitty1337 (talk) 08:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

For the far-right movement, see: Legion of the Archangel Michael.?

This seems a bit obscure. Couldn't we link to a disambiguous page, rather then this? thats the origional name of a movement that happened 80 years ago in russia, its not even called that anymore its Iron Guard. wouldnt Roman Legion be the most likely candidate for this? This article does not even have the words "Archangel" or "Michael" in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smitty1337 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

i propose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_(disambiguation) be the link Smitty1337 (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

after reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hatnote#Disambiguating_article_names_that_are_not_ambiguous i retract my previous statement, there should be no hatnote Smitty1337 (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

God or God in christianity

This movie makes numerous references to christianity, the cross is shown, revelations is quoted. I changed the link to go to the christian god for this reason, rather then the article god which is just about the concept of a diety, rather then the god of abraham. Saying it could be the muslim god, or the jewish god, or any specific denomination of abrahamic god is irrelevent due to the christian references. Smitty1337 (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If you strongly feel this is not adequate you could change it to Abrahamic_religions#The_Supreme_Deity instead, however as i stated there are christian references. Smitty1337 (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Directly out of the screenplay this line should suffice. but i can find more if you disagree still.

AUDREY

So you’re here to protect us? MICHAEL Not you... (looks at Charlie) Her. Charlie reacts in shock, as all eyes are suddenly on her. CHARLIE Me?! Why me?! MICHAEL Because your child is the only hope humanity has of surviving. In response to that, Charlie does the only thing someone can do when told such a thing. She LAUGHS. CHARLIE No way! But Michael isn’t joking and Charlie’s laughter becomes genuine fear. CHARLIE (stunned) Jesus Christ... MICHAEL Exactly. Jeep stares at Charlie, as if suddenly his entire life is starting to make sense. JEEP You’re sayin’ she’s the mother of

the Messiah?

Smitty1337 (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I was actually fine with the edit to the specific type of god and was kind of surprised it was reverted. Granted I'm newish to the film project so there may be something I'm not thinking of, but I agree that linking to the appropriate diety (and the movie does give plenty of clues) would be more helpful of a context for any readers who don't come from an judeao-christian or islamic background, and, therefore, may have less familiarity with concept of the god of those belief systems. Millahnna (mouse)talk 23:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about what you "know" but what you can cite. Is there a citation that the "Christian God" is the one portrayed in the move? Where is the reference? It doesn't matter how many "clues" you find. If there isn't a source for a statement it doesn't belong in the article. As to the claim that the Mormon,'s Jehovah's witness' worshiping the "christian god". Ask the pope, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, they would disagree with you. So a cross appearing doesn't justify your edit. I accept the suggestion of the link going to Abrahamic God. I am going to put that in. --Adam in MO Talk 06:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of WP:PLOT where the story itself is the source. If the concept of christian god were being addressed in any other section, I would agree. Millahnna (mouse)talk 06:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

i have provided a source, the screenplay itself page 54-55 where which contains the above listed quotes, Wiki policy on plot does not require a source other then the primary (I.E. the book/screenplay) here is the policy

Citations about the plot summary itself, however, may refer to the primary source - the work of fiction itself.

as for Mormon not being christians check this source and for Jehova's Witness these The pope and archbishop do not get to decide what other people's faiths consist of. Papal infalability only works inside the church not on wikipedia.

Thanks for looking for citations, though per the plot policy you noted (which is what I was talking about above) you shouldn't have needed any. If there continues to be heated debate about this, I'll drop a line over at WP:FILM; most of those folks have been working on film articles much longer than I have and would have a better idea of how the policy applies to this instance than I do. But again, and for the record, I do believe you are correct because this applied to the plot summary specifically. All of that said, I have no idea if the mediafire link you used for the reference in the article will stand. I've gone looking to see if there has been debate on that site in the past (since anyone could post any version of the script and claim it was the final) but suspect that if there is, it's buried in an archive somewhere. So just a heads up, don't be surprised if someone removes the ref because it's that site. I have no idea. Happy editing. Millahnna (mouse)talk 08:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

even if you dislike the site i acquired it from, those lines are in the movie, and that makes the primary source (the movie) state that the unborn child is jesus christ's second coming. And your right i dont need to source that because its not an interpretation, its stated by michael. Smitty1337 (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Umm actually those lines are not in the movie. At 43 minutes and 13 seconds is where the "Jesus Christ" line would be and it is not. There is not one cross, or reference to Jesus Christ in the film, at all. All there are is a non specific abrahamic god.--Adam in MO Talk 20:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

if that is the case then I concur with the decision to do it with abrahamic religion supreme diety. Do we have consensus on this now? Smitty1337 (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we do. --Adam in MO Talk 01:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you both know I'm easy on this so yeah. As long as it's something other than just the god page I'm cool. Millahnna (mouse)talk 01:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, its a content dispute that doesn't end up on ani or arbitration. This thread should be archived.:)--Adam in MO Talk 06:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

expand tag

think we could remove that yet? the article seems pretty decent now. Smitty1337 (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed and done.--Adam in MO Talk 03:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Review

"The film received mostly negative reviews from critics. Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reports that 71% of 60 critics have given the film a positive review, with a rating average of 7.3 out of 10"

So how are we justifying the phrase "mostly negative" given that 71% of reviews were positive? 152.78.82.215 (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see how 71% positive on RT translates to "mostly negative." Metacritic gives it a normalized 66 & cream of crop is 25% (from 8 reviews). I think it'd be mixed reviews at worst. 76.206.42.189 (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Must habe been wrong citing or just a very poor snapshot ot the real critics. If you look now, you see only 18% positiv! So it's not only negative, it's very negative! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.134.229.124 (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that Rotten Tomatoes is given way too much weight in the ratings of movies. A quick look at IMDB and the movie has gotten primarily 5/10 stars from over 53,000 users!!!! Rotten Tomatoes has only a sample of 100 reviews listed. Do those 100 reviews matter more because they were written by "Professional" reviewers? I think that the primarily negative reviews should be changed to mixed or mediocre at worst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.71.132.250 (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the real issue is whether or not critic review aggregators versus user reviewed aggregators are more appropriate for the Reception section of a film page. Personally, I think both should be present, but is there a criteria page that asserts the importance of having them in that particular section? Many of the pages that I visit with a Reception section often include the RT rating when possible. At the end of the day, I feel like it's best to trust the experts since they are the professionals and their reputation is on the line, but just because a movie doesn't hit "fresh", doesn't mean it's not worth seeing at all. Jamodalamo (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

2009 or 2010?

"Legion is a 2009 American apocalyptic supernatural thriller film" IMDB has 2009, but all release dates are 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.225.9 (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm also a little puzzled about this. If the release dates are 2010 then we should change it in the lead section as well. --Gonnym (talk) 08:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems like it was vandalism that was never reverted. I've fixed it. Mkdw^talk 10:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I would WP:AFG on the part of the editor that changed this article to say "2009." IMDB had the wrong date for a long time. Many web sites take their data about a movie from IMDB meaning someone doing a spot check would see "2009" and assume it's correct. I have corrected the IMDB record but suspect it'll be months or years before "2009" gets wiped from the Internet. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Legion (2010 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100125203408/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/film-reviews/legion-film-review-1004061304.story to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film-reviews/legion-film-review-1004061304.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)