Talk:Repo! The Genetic Opera/Archive 1

Removed reception opening line

removing "Almost all reviews of Repo! The Genetic Opera were either extremely positive and praising, or extremely negative and scathing, with almost no middle ground."

This is because a quick check of metacritic shows the most common review score is 5 out of 10 (as middle ground as you can get) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.214.155 (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Budget

Can someone please find out and post the accurate budget of this film? Because I know for a fact that it isn't $45 million. TekBoi [Ali Kilinc] (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the director, it was made for approximately $8 million.94.173.12.152 (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed "Gore" section

"Wonderfully orchestrated to be slightly horrific and completely gross, yet never losing the edge of fun?" ... "But let me be clear, this is NOT a proper horror film" ... " "Either way, horror fans will be happy to know that there is plenty of red flowing throughout the film." ... " "In one particularly kickass moment" ... How much was this editor payed to write this thing?Deadlyhair (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "needs infobox" tag

This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB. Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 20:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Stage play

We need to add some info on the stage play. When did it start? Original stars? Directors (I recall reading that Bousman directed the play at one point)? Changes made from play-to-play? Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 05:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The plot...

Why is it constantly being deleted? The full plot (with spoilers) is HIDDEN for now, no reason to delete it. It will be hidden until Nov 7, release day for Repo!, and until then, why delete it? The other plot summarizes without spoilers, and is not a word-for-word copy of the one released. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 21:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Might it just be easier to save the piece as a Word doc and delete it for now, then come and quickly repost it on the day? It would save you having to keep reverting the article as it is bound to be deleted again by someone. magnius (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Who the hell deleted the plot? Just keep it up and hidden! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.28.19.63 (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's NOT hidden to me, a spoiler warning is absolutely required!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.235.2 (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There are no "spoiler" warning by Wiki standards. It should be assumed by all that if you are reading a Wiki on something it is going to cover it comprehensively (briefly or not), and frankly if you don't want spoilers on a movie don't read the Wiki on it. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

absurd

"Editing of these films took place in adjacent studios leading to suspicion of possible, but unprovable plagiarism." How does one plagiarize in the editing stage? Some limited plagiarism by foley is possible during sound editing, but you otherwise cen't create what isn't already there. I'm removing it. Bustter (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The controversy section is back, and still illegitimate - the only "controversy" is in a certain die-hard faction of this film's fanbase. It's certainly not WP worthy...at all. 72.74.21.210 (talk) 05:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The controversy section is very legitimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.48.130.33 (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It most certainly is not. Bloody-Disgusting (a user-run horror webzine) is NOT sufficient source to blatantly shout POV, unfounded, weasel-worded claims, simply for the sake of fan-promotion. If there is no reputable citation for the article (badly written rants by an angsty director do not count) I will remove it. Theintrepid (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I don't recall Darren Lynn Bousman (the "angsty director") 'ranting' about it. People were asking him about it quite a bit, and he answered. But I don't have a problem with removing the section until more sources are readily available. I'll do it now.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If you put repo vs repo men into Google, you'll find the huffingtonpost, shocktillyoudrop, i09 and a load of other sources. Both the Repo! creators and Repo Men creators have been interviewed on the issue now. I think enough sources exist to bring this section back to life in some way. - Besprayed (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Soundtrack

I'm confused about this wording "A 22-track soundtrack was released online on September 30, 2008, and another will be released in CD-format to coincide with the release of the DVD." If this means that there isn't a CD version available for purchase that's wrong because you can buy it right now from Amazon.- http://www.amazon.com/Repo-Genetic-Opera/dp/B001FWXOBO/ bigpindahouse —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC).

Doesn't mean there isn't a soundtrack out already, it means exactly what it says there. ANOTHER soundtrack release is in talks to coincide with the release of the DVD. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 01:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This movie appears to be terrible

And I think there should be more mention in this fan filled page devoted to it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.29.3 (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Give it a go, then. It mentions the Rotten Tomatoes rating, find some more if you think it needs it. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 09:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I added a source which goes as far as to say it could be the worst ever made in the receptionOttawa4ever (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, Rotten Tomatoes now rates it at 82%. Perhaps this should be amended? 174.100.228.74 (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering it still says 33%, I'd say no. You're looking at the RT Community section, that gives a different rating to the critics...but it may be worth noting if consensus allows.magnius (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Collapsible tables not for article content

Those collapsible tables in the "Musical numbers" section need to be expanded by default, in order to conform to Manual of Style provisions for printed and archival versions to not have hidden content (MOS:SCROLL.) Rather than fix it myself, I think the people working on this article should consider the merits of a WP:SUMMARY article for that section. I'm not sure. 69.228.216.131 (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Headlines

• EXCL: Repo! The Genetic Opera's Darren Bousman, November 3, 2008

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Plot Section too long

Listen, I like this movie, but the plot section is absolutely massive. They aren't supposed to be second by second, shot by shot tellings of the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.175.76.67 (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I thought I added a "plot" template but someone removed it apparently. I'll add it back.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I shortened the summary by a good bit. Is it good enough now to take the "plot" template down?Crboyer (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how this edit is any better. No offense, that plot section remains the most convoluted plot summary I've ever read-- it really needs to be chopped down and generalized. I don't think the general public needs a play-by-play, much less a redundant one that mentions the character's roles more than once.173.60.207.189 (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I shortened the Plot massively. It seemed to still be too long after several apparant edits and was still giving a play-by-play of everything in the film. I removed the play by play and kept it short and simple. Scott2814 (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Awful.

This page is nothing like any other Wikipedia page, and it's fairly evident why - the people editing this and adding to it are going to be the (fairly extensive) fanbase, who probably have little clue when it comes to being unbiased. If you're going to include (unnecessary) quotes from BloodyDisgusting and Horror.com, make sure you include them from the more well-respected news sources as well. It's sort of obvious where the real editing leaves off, and the fan-raving begins.Pianoabuser (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Australian Release

The line in the Release section about Australia states that it was released in theatres on Feb. 5th. I know this to be incorrect. It was shown for a limited time in western australia for about two weeks but hasn't been released in any other states yet- commercially or otherwise. Can anyone find a certified release date or at least amend the details of the one listed here? 123.2.110.196 (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Extended Soundtrack

I think it should be noted the extended soundtrack is avaliable for purchase because this site: [1] has the extended soundtrack avaliable on purchase and it was released on 20th Febuary 2009.

Extended Soundtrack

I think it should be noted the extended soundtrack is avaliable for purchase because this site: [2] has the extended soundtrack avaliable on purchase and it was released on 20th Febuary 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.17.12 (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That's all very well and good, but the way it's been updated is, as with the majority of the Repo! fanbase's edits to this page, terrible. Getting to it now.Pianoabuser (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You gonna get to it soon, or are you just going to keep whining about how much better it'll be once you get to it? 24.228.54.78 (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, user who's too terrified to have their own account - I woke up and realised I had a life to get back to. And just because I was being doing a u-turn, it doesn't change the truth of what I said - when this page started, it was bloody awful and written with ridiculous bias. That's not whining - it'd be whining if I was upset by it, and I really don't give a damn. Pianoabuser (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed paragraph from theatrical release

I removed this:

With a cult following already well under way and growing bigger by the day fans still were wanting more Repo! after the Road Tours. Shadow Casts started forming all over the world. It was clear the fans would not let Repo! die. Then it was announced that Repo! fans around the US could do the leg work and book a local theater to show Repo! and now all around the world Repo! is playing on a monthly basis mostly with shadow casts also backing up the movie. By mid April 2009 Repo! was already booked through the end of the year (2009) and still adding more and more shows and selling out the shows.

I don't doubt that this is true, but at the same time, it comes off as overtly promotional and is unsourced to boot. I'll see if I can make it Wiki-passable, but if someone else can do it, go ahead.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Repo Fan-dom

I think there should be a section about Repo fan-dom, as it's a large part of the Repo world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.3.150 (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Film listing

The article contains a section with the heading Film listing. What is a film listing? And what is the relationship between the list of numbered titles in that section and Repo! The Genetic Opera. Are those songs performed in the rock opera? If so, that should be explained; otherwise the section should be deleted since it isn't clear what that list has to do with the subject of this article. Johan Lont (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Gross

The gross has to have increased by now with all of the Road Tours and other things. I haven't seen the gross number increase. Have they not yet announced their profits from those things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.39.106 (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the gross doesn't usually include those things anyways. That is why it generally doesn't matter to a studio if a movie is a theatrical failure, but a success on home media like DVD. The gross is theatrical income. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Carmela Largo/Amber Sweet name issue

I corrected the section on the character of Carmela Largo/Amber Sweet to reflect the fact that the name change IS directly addressed in the song Happiness Is Not a Warm Scalpel. Wynn3thd (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

More than one Repo Man?

Watching the film and listening to the soundtrack, I was never clear whether or not there was more than one Repo Man. Popefelix (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

There is only the one shown. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

During the scene for Night Surgeon you will see several more Repomen come out from their respective places in the cooler. I counted atleast 4 or 5 others aside from Nathan. He is simply the one that the movie is focused around. Scott2814 (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Scott is right, there a scenes where you see more than one Repo Man Look: A screen grab from DVDTalk.com which shows 3 masked figures. The next lyric is "repo mEn" -- Besprayed (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Repo Man

Shouldn't their be a section on the whole flap with the more recent Repo Man film? That movie's page has one, I'm fairly sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.23.195 (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Probably something for "controversy" but just that there is one, not who was right. -- Besprayed (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)