Talk:Danger: Diabolik

Untitled

Since Diabolik is a thief who ruthlessly pursues wealth with litle consideration for the rights of others, and only fights other criminals when they inconvenience his cut of the take, I doubt we can count him as a hero in any sense of idealism. He is not that much different from Richard Stark's Parker in that respect, although obviously more stylized. As such, I would remove that "Superhero films" tag. 01:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)~Enda80

I'd vaguely argue that. He's not really a superhero but almost like a super-villain! Kind of like a reverse-batman kind of. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI- Had to fix the caption on the picture. In the movie there are both black and white Jaguars. As in the comic, Diabolik's Jaguar is black, while Eva's is white. Thus, that is Eva's. emb021

Fair use rationale for Image:Diabolik Jaguar.jpg

Image:Diabolik Jaguar.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 Wikipedia articles 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 02:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hero or villain?

Though we now see Diabolik as a terrorist, when the film was made, many saw the Italian government as being the villains who oppressed them and took their money. Diabolik blowing up the tax offices had the people behind him. In the comics, he mainly takes money from other villains but in the film, it was from the government. He only very rarely kills police. (193.250.53.199 (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC))

MST3K

Please don't add information about this being the last show without a proper source. This goes against WP:RS and WP:OR. Currently, it just lists the date of the show, not that it was the final episode. Thank you! Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Danger: Diabolik/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GamerPro64 (talk · contribs) 23:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

So I saw this movie through Mystery Science Theater to prepare myself for the new season so I'll take this review. You can see feedback for this soon. GamerPro64 23:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Not a bad way to watch it! *Going down to the store* *going to pick up some bread*. Just as a heads up, I know they are using a shorter version than the full-length, so don't refer to the MST3K one for the plot. ;) Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

And now with the review.

Lead

• That looks fine. GamerPro64 23:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Plot

• "Valmont builds up an identikit picture of Eva" - How was he able to do that? GamerPro64 23:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

They do not really have a name for the device in the film. Even one of the girls asks what it is (in an English dub) and does not get an explanation. Would it be wrong to just call it a computer/device? Otherwise, I do not think its essential through the plot. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• "Valmont has made further plans to lure Diabolik out of hiding by having one of his henchmen kidnap Eva" Should rework this sentence. GamerPro64 23:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Re-phrased to "Valmont has one of his henchmen henchmen kidnap Eva. " Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• "Eva makes her escape as Diabolik kills Valmont, but Diabolik is then trapped, and takes a golden capsule." Should also rework this sentence to flow better and make more sense. GamerPro64 23:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Re-worked. I think its clearer now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• "However, if he does not get an antidote for the pill within twelve hours, he will truly die." So does he get the antidote? GamerPro64 23:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a really dumb part of the film which I'm not sure is in all versions. There is no scene of him getting a new pill, but he's back to life with just a few minute to spare and no further explanation. I guess we are to assume Eva re-administered it to him? Either way, Diabolik is back alive. I've left out the last part because it does not really effect the later part of the plot. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• "The steel casket containing the gold had been irradiated allowing the police to trace it." Also should be reworked. GamerPro64 23:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Re-phrased to make it clear this is how the police track it to find Diabolik's hideout. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Cast

• Pretty basic for a section so its fine. GamerPro64 23:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Production

• Everything seems to be done well for this section. Besides a few minor fixes, I would like to make a comment on the last sentence in the section. "This led to the same sets, such as the set for Valmont's night club in Danger: Diabolik, being used in both films". Is it possible to get a comparison shot of the sets in both films? GamerPro64 17:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The valmont's nightclub scene (which is cut in the MST3K version(!)) is a really colour-toned scene with lots of zooms and pays more attention to half-naked people then an establishing shot. :) I tried to get one before, but a picture sadly does not really help the statement out. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Also, is there any major information about Post-Production of the film or is there not enough info to warrant its own subsection? GamerPro64 17:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Sadly not really much to say. I even tried to dig up some information about Morricone's score but could not find much other than the tapes from the score he composed are long lost. He used to compose scores for about 13 films a year, so I'm not sure how much specific memory he had for Diabolik and could not find any interviews regarding this film specifically. There is not usually a lot of information about film scores or editing for relatively minor films such as this. There is so little info regarding the production of the film, it was only this decade did I learn about the previous failed Diabolik film and only this year that I could dig up box office and specific release info. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Release

• This section looks fine. GamerPro64 01:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Reception

• "the film being featured in the final episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000 on August 8, 1999." Since the show is back on Netflix that will need to be updated. Also, since there were different American versions of the film you should specify which version they riffed on. GamerPro64 01:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

They seem to be using the American dub, but is that considered against WP:OR? I'm not sure if the show itself edited parts out or if thats part of the American release either, so I do not want to mislead anyone. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• The use of the word "praised" is overdone in the third paragraph. GamerPro64 01:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Removed two of the three. Your right. That was too much. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Aftermath and influence

• The second paragraph just uses the same source for each sentence. Not sure if that's an issue or not but it might be redundant. GamerPro64 01:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I know that can be redundant, but I try to play it safe as more information may come that can be expanded there, and I'd rather play it safe in case people try to edit it in the future. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I guess its fine the way it is unless someone else thinks that's a problem.

Images

• Images look to be licensed correctly so they're fine. GamerPro64 20:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

References

• All of the sources are reliable to use. My only comment is the Google Books link to the "Reading Mystery Science Theater 3000: Critical Approaches" book. Kinda pointless if you ask me. GamerPro64 20:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

By the time you read this it'll be removed. Yeah, it doesn't belong I think. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

General

• This is just a general observation. I suggest looking over the entire article to look for some punctuation errors. Throughout reading it I've been seeing the lack of necessary commas and am unsure if I missed any else. GamerPro64 01:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I'll try to go through it, could you give specific examples? Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I went through the article a bit, but I think I see what you mean. It was mostly in the receptin section. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

All right I think its safe to say that this article passes. Congrats. GamerPro64 14:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Soundtrack

The soundtrack section appears to be a single. Is there any more information we can add/remove from this? It seems bare and not really containing enough information for its own section currently. I'd propose stating that the single for the song from the film was released in a home video/home media section. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, looking at the source given it just mentions there is a song in the film. That hardly warrants a soundtrack section which implies info on the songs release and it does not credit who is Christy either. I've removed it. Please do not add information that is not back up by the source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Budget Error

The budget for this film was estimated at about 400,000 USD - NOT 200+ million. See the IMDB entry and other sources. There is NO WAY this was a 200 million dollar + production. Nor was the box office anything like $200+ million. $200,000 - maybe. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I see now that it was in Italian currency. Still - convert it to US dollars. It is very misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.39.86 (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Whom are you addressing? You know you can edit the article, right? PepperBeast (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Not going to convert it because we should WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention we don't go by IMDb as a source per WP:RS/IMDb. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Seth Holt's version as separate article?

Hey Andrzejbanas, do you think it might be worthwhile creating a separate article for the info about Seth Holt's version of this movie? I don't have the Curti book you used for most of your references here, but today I found an article that he wrote for Video Watchdog (the info from which was the basis for the amendments I added from Lucas' Imprint Films commentary) in which he not only builds on the info about the production included here, but also describes the plot in detail and includes numerous insights from Jean Sorel. As a comparative example, James Cameron's unproduced version of Spider-Man is discussed in detail in the Spider-Man in film article, as well as in a shorter form in the article on the 2002 movie.

And just checking, what was the reason for not including any info from Glenn Erickson and Trailers from Hell? That website is run by movie veterans rather than casual fans. PatTheMoron (talk) 09:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Uhh, if we can find enough information? I feel like it would pull a lot from the the one Video Watchdog article. Perhaps a Diabolik in film article or something, that could also include information. It's up to you, I think you'd know more about it than I. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)