Talk:Tank Girl (film)

Name that tune

Does anybody here know the name of the song that plays during the first Tank Girl/Jet Girl animation sequence, just before the scene with Kesslee in the bodycast? I've been trying to find out what it is for ages to no avail.

Radical AdZ 13:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"2 Cents" by Beowulf. Crying shame it wasn't on the soundtrack disc - there was even a music video of that song to promote the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.209.74.201 (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Name that Group

The movie's opening credits are "Girl U Want" by Devo. However, on my DVD copy, it sounds like female vocalists -- it doesn't sound like Devo. Was the opening song replaced for the DVD version? --Mdwyer 06:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Devo rerecorded Girl U Want for the soundtrack based on a cover of it by Soundgarden, apparently because it was too expensive to license the Soundgarden version. Presumably this was changed for the DVD. --Radical AdZ 21:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TankGirlsTank.jpg

Image:TankGirlsTank.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Digital wireless photo camera

In the movie, Tank Girl gets a digital wireless photo camera. The item used in the movie looks like a "Dycam Model 1" ( alias "Logitec fotoman" ) digital still photo cam, of course without wireless data transmission. I got such a cam at that time, too :-) hemmerling (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tank Girl (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (talk · contribs) 22:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Don't think the cast section was necessary, since the cast is mentioned in the "Plot" Section.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Dup links to basically all people in the "Cast" section
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

More comments laterOtherwise I think it's okay. A couple months ago, this whole article was somewhat of a mess, but I give a big thanks for you for fixing it.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I removed the cast section and simply added the two members who weren't already mentioned in the plot to that section. This effectively addresses both your concerns, though I think it would be acceptable to have a wikilink in a list (such as a cast section) and also in the prose. Thanks for your review. It was a lot of work but I thoroughly enjoyed overhauling this article. Freikorp (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Passing, well done.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Potential sources

Themes:

• du Preez, Amanda (1 October 2009). Gendered Bodies and New Technologies. Cambridge Scholars Publishin. ISBN 978-1-44381-323-5. Freikorp (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the July 1995 issue of Empire magazine contains an interview with Jamie Hewlett that has some interesting information on post-production. Freikorp (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Found Empire's review of Tank Girl but the website doesn't seem to include that interview with Hewlett.

Issue 1288 of London's Time Out (magazine) (April 26-May 3 1995) features the cover story "Strip! How Tank Girl got screwed by Hollywood." Freikorp (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The Guardian mentions that issue and described it's cover drawn by Hewlett and includes it on a list of classic covers. Found the Time Out London review of Tank Girl, it was a negative review.

The Web Archive has a section called The Magazine Rack which includes scanned archived copies of magazines which can be a good place to find more sources.

• Starlog Magazine Issue 213 Tank Girl interview with Lori Petty.
• Starlog Magazine Issue 214 Tank Mechanic interview with Rachel Talalay.

Tank Girl video game? https://archive.org/details/mean-machines-sega-magazine-33/page/n15 (Not mentioned at Tank Girl or Tank Girl (film) or anywhere else in my brief searches so maybe it wasn't made or released?

A deeper dig might turn up more sources but that's all I got for now. -- 109.79.182.126 (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Quotes from blu-ray special features

Extended content

Vintage "Making-of Tank Girl" featurette. All quotes from interviewees, selected quote from narrator. Petty: [On relationship between Tank Girl and Keslee] We have this wonderful love-hate relationship, he hates me and I love that. McDowell: My characters a pretty powerful man. Ambitious, deadly, charming perhaps, everything that Hitler was. Watts: [On Jet Girl] She’s very shy. When tank girl comes along, she sort of like, teams up her and gradually her character escalates more and more and she becomes the person that she truly is. Ice-T: Everyone in this movie is extremely frightened or Rippers. [What is a Ripper] DNA, umm, splice mutant that’s part kangaroo and part human being. Talalay: We had to take the sort of concept of a half man half kangaroo and give each of them an individual character, umm which I think we’ve accomplished really well. They’re very funny, very charming and they’re all completely different. Winston: They’re really an amazing creature, i’m very excited for people to see what we’ve done with them, we wanted to be dramatic, and we want theses characters to be something you’ve never seen before and at the same time, we want to allow the actor to come through that make-up and for you to read the emotion that is coming from within that actor. Narrator: Each actor face had to be covered in surgical glue when the foam rubber pieces were applied. Ice-T (in make-up): Right now i’m trying to itch my ear, my real ear is way down here (points to several inches below prosthetic ear). Cathey: Can I say hellish? It itches and it’s hot. Coffey: I wanna pick my nose, and be able to scratch my face and I can’t. It drives me crazy. Ice-T: You guys are gonna enjoy it, cause everyones gonna see the characters but be aware people are dying inside those suits, no joke. Unidentified crew member: [on challenges of shooting the action sequences in full make-up and customers] I think we worked very hard to surround ourselves with the right crew so no-one gets hurt. I think it’s going to be a major charge for you and hopefully it’s a great joyride. Talalay: The whole film is an incredible challenge. We tried to bring surprises all the way through. Petty: Flame-throwers, missiles, bow and arrow, Tank Girl comes in pow pow pow. Baseballs, Tanks and Bad Tattoos: An interview with Actress Lori Petty. Questions not about the film omitted. How’d you first hear about Tank Girl: I don’t remember when I first heard about Tank Girl, I don’t know it was just an audition then when I read it I went [laughs] well i’m gonna get this [laughs] I was like well here’s my new job. And I was so happy, i went in there I had my walkman and I was listening to music and I was just thrilled I remember I was laying on this couch and I was just like well this is so fun, and uh they ended up casting another girl at first, and she was really hot and she was English, but uh she didn’t work out and so they called me and I was on set like two days later. How would you describe Tank Girl: She’s every woman, she don’t give a fuck, she’s just really funny and sexy. If I knew Tank Girl was gonna be rated R, I would have just done the whole movie naked, because I was so mad when they rated that movie R, because there’s nothing R in the movie, nothing! The only reason it’s R is because it was a woman pulling that madness, and nowadays they get away with it, but you know, one of my plights in life is always to be about ten years ahead of myself and others, which is OK, some of us have to do it we gotta open the door so that other people can walk through I don’t have a problem with that at all but if we got to do that again if we just like went back in time I would just be butt-naked murdering people. It would really be fun. What was your first impression of Rachel Talalay: When I first met Rachel I noticed she was very short. She’s a very small person [laughs]. She’s very very passionate. Rachel was very into it, it took her years to get the rights to the movie, and they finally said yes and let her do it and she was just on it 24/7. She lived it she breathed it. She got pregnant during the movie; she still just fought on fought on fought on. She was Tank Girl’s champion, for sure. What’d you get from the comic: Well there’s a plethora of comic books. I mean I just wallpapered my trailer with them. I read everything I could. The boys were on the set all the time. I just wanted to do service to their vision more than be Lori Petty’s Tank Girl because i’m not, it’s their movie their vision. But I loved every second of it, it was such a great team experience, the hair the make-up the costumes the director the produce the writers the comic book writers, you know I had so much to draw from. I was very thankful to have all that. How’d you like those costumes: Well what was great about the costumes and what was great about Arion (spelling?) who, i’m pretty sure she won an academy award I may be wrong I know she’s been nominated, but she also designs for everyone. We had such a great working relationship the costumer and I because I said yes to everything. What was there to say no to? It was just so inventive .I had these kneepads that had smashed baby doll faces on them. Like smashed babies! [Laughs] So much fun. And tube socks on the elbows. I was thankful I had nothing to say no to. What do you think about Catherine Hardwick [production designer]: As i’ve said before the people just gave a million percent and Catherine Hardwick was one of those people. She collaborated with Alan and Jamie and the producers but it was her taking something one-dimensional and making it three-dimensional, making it liveable making it workable. It actually turns on it actually turns off. Things like that. It wasn’t like ‘don’t touch anything’ it was like ‘beat the shit out of it Lori you can do anything you want to this’. And Catherine is a genius, the medium for her was just ridiculous. And she always wore a bird on her head, ask her about the bird on her head, everyday she had a bird on her head. What was it like to work with Malcolm McDowell: He’s a living legend. Period. And I loved his professionalism, his kindness, his attention to detail. He’s someone you want to emulate. He’s very serious about his work. Hit it, quit it. You know, have a drink, go home. I loved looking in those big blue eyes and it was just a blast having Malcolm around. I don’t remember Malcolm being silly, I really don’t. I don’t mean that in a bad way, we had to work hard it was long, hot, miserable, sandy, sweaty, and all the costumes and the make-up, we had a lot of work to do, so we didn’t really fuck around [laughs] that much. How about Naomi Watts: I don’t know if she was being that character or if she was truly that shy, cause like I said I was really busy, everybody was really busy, and I loved working with her she [is] super-talented, just gorgeous on screen, super professional, but she was very very quiet and shy and I would say ‘Naomi you have to come to the light, see the light, you have to stand in front of the lights come here come here, and she was just very shy and reserved. Like I said I don’t know if that was part of her character, work, or if that’s how she was, but she was not world famous diva she is now, in a good way! In a good way a world famous diva, we all want to be world famous divas. What about Ice-T: Well here’s the thing I would come to work like 3 hours early they’d come to work 4 hours early, the Rippers, so I never saw these people without their costumes on. I mean never! So it was pretty funny when i’d see Ice-T 3 months later where he’d be like ‘Hi Lori’ and o’d be like ‘oh hi [confused look], oh right we worked together every day for months [laughs]. I was just so used to him and his costume. But you know he didn’t know he had a costume on, all the time. So then at the end of the shooting day they would go and take their costumes off and I would be taking my hair out and my make-up off and my tattoos off and then we’d go home and come back and do it again, so it was pretty funny that I really only knew them as kangaroos. Like I didn’t know them as human beings, but we would sit around and talk, and Ice-T’s an actor he’s a very good actor, we’d talk about ‘How’s your apple stock doing’ [laughs] he’s not like a cop killer, he’s a very cool, sweet professional dude. Can you talk about Jeff Kober as Booga: He has a big heart. And the fact that they have all this accoutrement and still he has to show all this love and empathy and passion through Stan costumes. I just love him, I saw him the movies a couple months ago on an escalator, and again I was like I know that guy, let’s see [moves hands placed above and below eyes] I know this part Oh that’s Booga! [Laughs] But I just never, like I said it was hard for me to hang out with them without their costumes. The Tank!: The Tank was awesome, I mean the tank was remarkable it was really fun to play on until they made it go [laughs] you know it’s ok until it actually moves. Cause that will squash you in a minute. Whenever you say action boys do things like 10 times harder and faster, I mean i’ve had my nose broken in fights and on screen because you’re supposed to pretend and then they go action and then they go BAM [swings fist] you know stuff like that. So I was on the tank and we were supposed to go like this fast [moves hand slowly] well they coaction he goes VROOM [moves hand fast] and i fell off the turret onto the wheel row, like on it, and i could watch the wheel just going around. It was like a movie within movie and somehow I lived, and I rolled like that for a minute and after I said to them ‘Why didn’t you stop!’ and he said ‘Well I couldn’t see anything’, because I was laying over the hole. And I was like well you should stop if you can’t see! But they moved on to another scene and I was alive so they could keep filming. What were the shooting conditions like in White sands, NM: [Story about another filming experience omitted] Yeah it’s hot, it’s filthy, it’s sandy, but you know what ‘would you rather be home?’ No, so.. I was like a mole on Marilyn Monroe’s face. I was just happy to be there. What was it like shooting Liquid Silver: Liquid Silver was shot in an abandoned Phenix mall, they just didn’t have enough money to finish the mall, so it was just there. So we had the run of the mall and I couldn’t go back to my trailer to change my costume, so they were like Lori just find some spot to change your clothes and get back and I was like OK! So I just found some like closed Baby Gap or something and went in there and changed my clothes; couldn’t get out the door was locked. I was locked inside of the Baby Gap for like half an hour and none could find me and no one knew where I was. And I just though well they’ll find my bones one day [laughs] cause it really took a long time for them to find me. But that bit was super fun. I loved the singing and the dancing. Were there boundaries imposed on the film: There were no boundaries on Tank Girl because it’s a comic book, so that’s how you can always get out of it. No one can say to me ‘You can’t do that!’ Because it’s a comic book! I can do it if you drew it [laughs] you know what I mean. There was no ‘A cop wouldn’t say that’ well Tank Girl would do anything so it doesn’t apply. The being “in character” is your wildest imagination, so whatever you can think up you can do. I could do. Did you improvise a lot as Tank Girl: I wasn't aware of how much I ad-libbed. As I watched it I went 'I just made shit up' [laughs] Like 'The super has left the model' all these silly things i know I made those things up i'm insane. And the fact that they allowed me to do that, I was very thankful for. I think once you get the ok like, get an inch take a mile kind of thing, I was pretty good with that, with just going for it. And when we did the changing the costumes Rachel's just like ' Just do, just whatever' and we did it was fun. What about the reaction from Hewlett and Martin: Tank Girl was their baby. The guys who made the comic book, so to see me walking around in these costumes i'm sure was a bit off-putting, and they were lovely to me just wonderful sweet guys, but I can imagine if I wrote a book and then you're gonna make a movie out of it and i'm watching this shit going 'are you kidding me', you know so I don't know I was never involved in any 'we like this we hate this', they were there and they were just loving it, they were taking the piss really cause they were like can you believe they're fucking making this movie. Do people still bring up the movie to you: I get every story imaginable about how Tank Girl has affected people. I've been in the car and the guys biked up next to me and there was like me tattood on the side of his leg and i'm just staring at him like, wow! I don't think i'm going to tell him that i'm sitting here right now. I think i'm going to let him keep biking by [laughs]. Sometimes I go to different ComicCons and whatever and the girls have the bullet-bras and they've made up entire costumes out of things they found in their house, you know, 'Tank Girl got me through my parents divorce', i mean just all kinds of, I'm just very happy that she made so many people happy. I love that. I don't go to Mr Chow's and call the paparazzi to come take my picture stuff like that, but what's great about being "famous" I guess or making movies is when people see me and they think of Tank Girl or Point Break [...] they see me and they go [pointing in excitement]. C'mon, they point and smile, it's not like they're going boo and throwing rocks [laughs] it's not like i'm the devil, so it's lovely to have people go [really excited gesture] 'I was 14' and they tell you the story about Tank Girl and they show you some crappy tattoo they have of Tank Girl [shrugs] what's so bad, it's great. Why do you think "Tank Girl" still resonates with fans: I don't know, I mean if people knew what made movies classic or what made movies live so long they'd make more of them, you know so you can't define it. There's no formula as to why Tank Girl was so fabulous and why people love it so much, they're really isn't. It was unique it was new it was fresh, it was way ahead of its time and i'm happy that I got to do it and that i'll always have her. What would Tank Girl say to her fans today: Yo bitches we still here [laughs]. Thank you I love you I love you. Too Hip For Spielberg: An interview with Director Rachel Talalay. No direct quotes (took way too long lol), summary only. Last day of shooting - September 27, 1994. Last take - scene 200 Take 6. There were 300 camera rolls total. Rachel "fought very hard" to keep the 'rocket bra' from the comics in the film. An atomic symbol on the Tank is based on Rachel's only tattoo. Scenes were filmed in a closed down copper mine in Tucson. They were evacuated every week or two due to chemical spills. There was a lot of machinery that was still working, there were areas of the mine still active but they filmed in closed down sections. They had to be careful of mining trucks so they always drove on the left, which was confusing for North Americans so they made signs reminding people. Rachel found out about Tank Girl when her step-daughter gave her a black and white Tank Girl graphic novel as a Xmas present. She decided she had to get the rights to the film, which took about a year; there was a lot of competition. Tom Astor called and said they'd decided to go with Rachel, just as she'd hit the point where she had given up on getting the rights. The success of Freddy's Dead allowed her to be able to pitch the film, but she'd never pitched her own project before. James Cameron's company turned it down on the grounds they already had a project with a female lead - Joan of Arc. Spielberg's company Amblin said they were pleased Rachel thought their company was hip enough to do the project, but that they weren't. Jamie Hewlett was so amused by this that he designed a Tank Girl t-shirt that said 'too hip for Spielberg'. A Disney representative wanted to take on the project, but Rachel turned it down as they didn't think Disney would give them the R film they wanted. The tank got stuck in the sand. It couldn't reverse, which made getting it into position difficult. Jamie Hewlett worked hand in hand with Catherine Hardwick. He designed props, the tank, rooms, set dress, costumes. The tank Jamie designed would have had to have been built from scratch, which was not in their budget. Art director Simon Murton was given the job of taking Jamie's design and make them workable. There were no digital effects in the film, they were all optical effects, which are much more expensive. The comic doesn't have a strong sense of storyline, which left it a pretty open idea for what the film would actually be about. Rachel said she didn't really care what the story was, which she admitted may have been a problem. Rachel's least favourite question was "how did [tank girl] become tank girl?"; she wasn't concerned with background story. Rachel said she was trying to make a film that people would either "get" and love or hate; she didn't want anyone to give the film 5 out of 10, either 1 or 10 The studio decided they could get a lot of publicity by holding the open-casting sessions. The line-up in London, where TG was most well known, was between 3 and 4 hours long. People were sceptical that is was just a publicity stunt, which Rachel says to a degree it was, as she was asking the studio for a name actor. There was a lot of interest; Madonna wanted the role. Courtenay Love originally wanted to play Sub-Girl though Kurt Kobain's death occurred which made her unavailable. She later came back to be the "music advisor"; there was a separate music supervisor. The original person hired to play TG refused to cut her hair, which led to her losing the role. Petty did a lot of improv, particularly in the clothes changing scene at Liquid Silver. There was never any question that Watts would play JG; she was very easy to cast. Watts was too shy; she tried to stand behind Petty in some scenes. The shyness fit into the character of JG but Rachel told her she needed to be shy AND on camera. Otherwise Rachel had strong praise for Watts. Rachel hired Catherine Hardwick because she loved the project as much as she did. She identified with the uniqueness and opportunities of the project, and was very passionate and had hundreds of ideas. The producers was very insulted that Rachel chose Catherine over more established designers; Catherine has only done small films at that time. Rachel convinced the producer to meet Catherine; meeting with her and the fact Catherine had an article in the LA Times that week convinced them. Rachel states there's been a lot said about her relationship with Alan and Jamie. She worked with them directly through the entire process. She worked very strongly with them during the writing process though Alan was not allowed to write the script due to his lack of script writing experience, though they did make a lot of notes on the script. The scriptwriter had TG riding a horse, though they stated that was too conventional and instead suggested the water buffalo. Jamie did hundreds of pieces of artwork for the film, and gave one to Rachel during production strongly praising her. Rachel states Alan and Jamie were "in sync" with her up until the point where the studio recut the film, which Rachel had no control over; she couldn't control what the final film was. What does TG mean to you: Rachel believed she could "break through the argument that female action movie didn't work." She felt like it was "her mission as a woman break through as a female director and to break through with a female action hero. She and Petty felt that this was the film that would get the box office to believe in female action heroes. They scared the studio so much that they pulled back so much on what the film was they they did not succeed. Creative Chaos: Designing the World of Tank Girl with Production Designer Catherine Hardwicke. Summary only. Catherine found out about TG when they were in pre-production looking for a production designer. Upon reading the script she thought it would be the must fun project ever. She drew a lot of designs and met Rachel at the first interview. Catherine wasn't able to work with Jamie in person much, but she was pleased with all the designs he gave her. To prepare for the film they had a traditional union art department, one or two art directors, a set decorator and her team, construction co-ordinator Lars Petersen; many of the production staff she had worked with before. Illustrator was Chris Gorak. At the abandoned copper mine they found a 3 acre room full of machines, they built a set in the middle of the room, and the construction co-ordinator decided to go to the mammoth task of getting all the surrounding machines to work. TG's house from the beginning of the film was built in White Sands New Mexico. It was extremely hot; the rangers thermometer stopped working after it reached 127 degrees fahrenheit. Adam Shankman choreographed the Liquid Silver dance number. Evertime they needed a new set they just looked around the abandoned mine. Outside the copper mine there was the Titan Missile Museum. They has permission to film the water pipe scene at the museum; an acrylic tube for the scene was built. The day before they were to film the scene permission to film there was withdrawn. After a last minute rush to find a new location, a mining tunnel back at the copper mine was instead used to film the scene. Catherine praises working with both Petty and Watts. She said she knew Watts would become a superstar in time. They could see jets flying over when filming in White Sands, which were apparently conducting bomb tests. They abandoned filming and evacuated the set one day due to a toxic smell that was coming out of the mine. A painter was trying to age a mobile-home for the film using a blow torch. The mobile home caught fire, but Catherine pitched to Rachel that they still use the burnt home in filming, and she agreed to. Commentary with Rachel and Lori. I've omitted things mentioned already in the other special features. The first battle Rachel had with the studio was the opening song; they didn't want the song to have a female singer - Rachel won. Lori's double rode the water buffalo; Lori only sat on it once, though she did many of her own other stunts. Lori comments on the number of military planes that flew overhead in White Sands. Rachel states it was at least 104 degrees every day. Lori states she had 40 different hair pieces for the film. Rachel praises McDowell; states a lot of inspiration came from A Clockwork Orange - Lori wears a bowler hat in one scene in homage to the film. Malcolm loved his wardrobe so much he kept it all. Filming lasted 92 days; only one of those days at Liquid silver wasn't unbearably hot. Both state that 3 of the Spice Girls were standing in line for the open casting, got tired of waiting and decided to start a band instead. Apparently the Spice Girls have stated this several times. Both state the film received an R rating purely because it featured female innuendo, which made people feel uncomfortable; there is nothing in the film that would get an R rating today. Speculation that people were paying money to see Tommy Boy and then sneaking into Tank Girl because they couldn't get a ticket due to the R rating. The studio cut out a pre-credits scene explaining the comet. A bedroom set was cut out because TG's bedroom had been decorated with dildos. It was one guys job to go to a sex shop and buy 40 dildos; he needed two shopping carts to move them all. They used the music from Shaft when TG discovers the tank. Budget was around $25 million. The studio heavily cut the scene where TG is in the cold room; scenes of TG being deliberately infected with cholera were cut because TG appeared "too ugly". Lori almost had a panic attack in the pipe, as she is claustrophobic. When the Rippers first appear, Rachel wanted them to appear mainly on the computer monitors so as to not give to much away, however, the studio disagreed with her and showed a lot more of them than she would have liked. Ice-T was supposed to dance in the circle with the other Rippers, though he refused and it ended up working for his character anyway. Each Ripper had two people working on their animatronic movements - moving ears, tails and eyebrows. The first animated sequence was done due to budget constraints - they couldn't afford to do big action scenes, nor could the Tank go fast enough for the desired effects. The film premiered at the Mann Chinese Theatre The scene where they meet Sub Girl is Rachel's least favoured - she admits in her failure that it was poorly shot. Second animated scene (where the Tank is redesigned) was done purely because it was more interesting that watching Lori modify the tank herself. The scenes when the finished Tank are revealed are intercut with images of Lori in a white T-shirt. Those shots were not done by Talalay - they were done by a un-named man and it was supposed to be promotional footage only, though the studio cut it into the final film which Rachel is bitter about. Sharon Stone visited the Liquid Silver set as she was dating a crew member. Dawn Robinson is the model in the instruction video. Rachel states there was no justification to do the dance number, she just wanted to do one. Lori cut her finger really badly during the initial scene where she cuts the Madam's hair with a razor blade, and had to go to hospital. They made up new lyrics to the Cole Porter song but nobody seemed to notice. The studio tried to heavily cut the dance number, but the music supervisors convinced them not to. When TG attacks the semi trailer she ad-libbed putting a condom on a banana and throwing it at the soldiers; the studio cut the scene out as it was "offensive". The stunt girl who stood on the tank barrel and leaped to the semi did so without any safety equipment. Stan winston built a completely naked Booga suit complete with a penis for a post sex scene between him and TG. Rachel didn't actually want to keep the full naked shot of the penis, but the studio wouldn't let them keep the scene in at all. Keslee's head was supposed to be made out of television screens (one screen showing an eye etc, kind of picasso looking), but they couldn't afford it, so they chose a hologram that looked just like his original head to save money. Rachel was happy with the soundtrack, though wished there could have been more original punk music in it. They were however aiming for a contemporary look, and had originally lined up Green Day to appear on the album, though Green Day ended up becoming famous before it was finished and they could not longer afford them. They wrote a "really funny" ending that finished with it raining and TG burping, but the studio cut it. Rachel does like the animated ending, though thinks they could have easily had both.

Cast list

I disagree of having the cast list unlisted. It should be listed just like other film articles. 174.192.3.46 (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

For what purpose do you disagree? Just because most other film articles have a cast section? There are plenty of film articles that do not have cast sections, and unlike most film articles, this article had been promoted to featured status, having been accepted as one of Wikipedia's best articles. When this article was submitted to WP:FAC, none of the experienced reviewers complained that it lacked a cast section. I see absolutely no benefit to the reader to list the cast sections a seperate time since they are already linked in the plot, and I think removing the cast from the plot section (like you did here) just unnecessary complicates the article. Why have two sections when we can just combine them into one? If people want to see a list of the cast that badly, they can go to the IMDb link at the bottom of the article. I will continue to restore this article to the format that was accepted at FAC, unless a consensus is reached here that it should be changed. Freikorp (talk) 04:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

While I understand some people do not think a cast list is necessary, removing the cast list doesn't improves the article either. I appreciate a separate cast list, I often want to know more about who is in a film before knowing the plot (and the plot section contains inevitable spoilers). Cast lists often include information that isn't included elsewhere. Sometimes brief introductory character descriptions that the severe word count requirements of the plot section doesn't allow, for example (and I'd prefer if the plot section wasn't so terse and included more Plot). Nowhere else does the article mention Doug Jones, who has a long career playing many amazing creatures and characters. Richard Schiff is not mentioned anywhere either, and although these could potentially be mentioned in Casting they are not at this time. The unhelpful suggestion that readers should just go read another website only reinforces the idea that this article is incomplete. The discussion/consensus seems to have only been a between a reviewer and Freikorp who requested the review, that's hardly a definitive. Things change, the article is not exactly as it was, there seems to be no shortage of people trying to add the cast section back to the article, and there's always the possibility of a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS so I add my vote to restore the cast list. It might make a difference but I've stated my case, and I suggest others add more comments. -- 109.79.182.126 (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the fact that this article has past through the multiple levels of peer review, and has been accepted as one of Wikipedia's best pieces of content. None of the highly experienced reviewers who examined it during this time thought it needed a cast section. An IP editor said they wanted a cast section, and I might add didn't even bother to say why they wanted one, and you seem to be complaining that I didn't just ignore the implied consent of all my experienced reviewers and change the article to suit the world view of said IP editor. Oh and just so it's not confusing I am Freikorp; I changed my name, and incidentally I don't understand what you mean when you claim I 'requested a review'; I did no such thing. I just pointed out why I think a cast section is a bad idea. The IP editor never bothered to respond. You're right that isn't definitive, but it didn't need to be. They never even bothered to respond, so there was no need for me to take any further action.

No shortage of people trying to add a cast section? I think that's stretching it, though I will note the only calls seem to be coming from IP editors and vandals. That diff you linked to showing a registered user adding a cast section? That user has since been blocked for vandalism, and they never explained why they wanted one in the first place or contested my objection anyway. Fly-by IP editors are constantly changing lots of things all over the place, such as the genre of the film, and all without consensus or any regard for what was agreed at all the various peer reviews. Extremely limited credence should be given to these actions.

My vote is no. My reasons for this have already been explained. Damien Linnane (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Also the characters played by Doug Jones and Richard Schiff didn't even have names, and Jones's character didn't even have a speaking role. Even if we did get a cast section we'd be violating the guidelines of WP:FILMCAST if we included characters that un-notable. Damien Linnane (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tank Girl (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/20150625044151/http://pro.boxoffice.com/statistics/movies/tank-girl-1995 to http://pro.boxoffice.com/statistics/movies/tank-girl-1995

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Featured article in need of review

Hate to put another wonderful oddity of a film on FA review (we seriously need more female hero films to be successful, plus trans hero films, plus non-binar– yeah, you get the idea), but I have to do it. Although there are only minor quibbles with citation formatting, prose (mainly some long paragraphs that could be split), and reliable sources (I don't know how good Nightmare on Elm Street Companion and the Doorpost Project is), I'm putting the hammer down mostly for its comprehensiveness

• The themes section only represents the opinions of three books, yet there is much more scholarly literature about the themes. All it took for me to find them was a simple Google Scholar search.
• There are massive making-of features from SFX magazine, Sci Fi Entertainment (as well as an essential bit in another article from the magazine), Starlog Magazine, Machete Girl, Science Fiction Age, Cinefantastique, Entertainment Weekly, Deadline, People (which also covers a fan Q&A with the director which indicates its legacy), LAMag, Detroit Metro Times, and more I've probably didn't encounter in my limited searches on Internet Archive and Google.
• The making-of book is cited with page numbers, yet there are no timestamps from the DVD commentary for verification. What?
• Plus, I don't think there is only five cites worth of material from a DVD commentary that lasts 104 minutes.
• It is missing retrospective analysis and opinions from NBC News, San Francisco Chronicle, Dread Central, Gizmodo, Vice's Noisey, and more. Took me only a Google News search to find them.
• There's also a story about how the film formed the Spice Girls, one of the biggest girl groups in history, yet I don't see this anywhere in the article.
• The reception is a quotefarm of a very small portion of the critical reception.
• What is the non-free image in the pre-production section suppose to illustrate, and what does it add that the text doesn't?

If I can find essential sources with only Google yet there not cited in the article, that's a sign the article is not the most complete resource on the topic. HumanxAnthro (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@HumanxAnthro: I believe this was only my third attempt at a featured article when I started overhauling it six years ago. Incidentally here's what it looked like one edit before I decided to make a concerted effort turning it into an FA: [1]. I've no doubt if I started working on it today now that I'm more experienced at editing it would be more comprehensive. That being said I will note that neither the GA process, the FAC, or the PR I did in anticipation of the FAC picked up any of the things you've mentioned. This shouldn't be too surprising, however, as many of the sources you say are missing weren't written until after the article was promoted.

I'll look into how much there is of value in the sources you've mentioned when time permits, probably tomorrow. In the meantime here's answers to some of your other points.

Believe it or not, it was only late last year at my sixth FA nomination for a film article that I was first asked to add timestamps for DVD commentary. As I pointed out during that nomination, even other film articles being promoted at the time did not have timestamps, and when you go through the list of featured film articles on Wikipedia, most of them don't have timestamps. When I brought this up, the response I got was literally words to the effect of 'well they should have added them'. I'm not saying timestamps (I was actually asked to just add chapters at my last film FA) aren't a good idea, though I am surprised you seem amazed this article doesn't have them, considering that most featured film articles don't either. What?

I've always followed the same process in gathering sources when writing a film FA. In this process I get the DVD commentary last. Don't ask me why, that's just how I do things. Accordingly, when I listen to the DVD commentary, I only make notes when I hear new information that isn't previously cited in the article. If the DVD commentary is only cited five times, that's because that's all the new information there was that I could get out of it. I'm not a fan of superfluous citations if we already have a reliable one. I don't think there's more new information in there. If you doubt that, feel free to order a copy and check yourself.

Four of the five retroactive reviews you noted are missing were written in the last year, five years after the article was promoted. Same issue for the Spice Girls article. I guess you'll have to accept my apologies for not getting a Google alert on my phone for news about an article I wrote six years ago. If it was so easy for you to find this information, instead of criticising the fact there isn't a dedicated team actively searching for new sources about a 26-year-old film every month, why not just improve the article by adding the sources yourself?

The non-free image is there, quite frankly, because I found it in my searches for sources and I thought it was interesting. If you have a personal problem with it, just delete it. I'm not interested in arguing about it. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses, and I appreciate your work on the article. I don't mean to sound snobbish when making the comments, and you're right that a lot of the sources I found weren't published at the time of FA promotion. The fact that another Tank Girl adaptation is being done by Margot Robbie may have explained the sudden surge of sources about this movie in recent years. I won't doubt you about all the necessary info in the DVD commentary being here if the other sources cite the rest of the info, and I'll admit the timestamp thing may be just me. The reason we do FARs is to question its status of still being a FA many years later, and I only bring up how the article has updated to the times because completeness of literature (including that published years after its promotion) is part of the process. Remember, Wikipedia is never finished.

With that said, I'll be happy to read the making-of features and research contemporaneous reviews on Newspapers.com and Internet Archive. You may also want to read WP:RECEPTION for work on making the Reception section better. HumanxAnthro (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh timestamps is definitely a good idea, it's not just you, it just clearly wasn't a hard requirement for FA at the time, and still doesn't appear to be today (even though it probably should be). I no longer own any DVDs, or even a DVD player, so I'm not going to be adding them in now though. Also let's be realistic; in the unlikely event that someone is interested in the film enough to go to the trouble of listening to the director's commentary to verify something, they're going to listen to the whole thing anyway to see what else there is to learn about the film. We're not saving anyone any time by adding them in.

I agree if there's new sources they should be used, and giving how many new sources there are (I'm surprised to be honest) we can definitely update it. Also my previously quote-heavy reception sections have been criticised in the past. I'd like to think I'm much better at writing them now, I just never went through and retroactively applied changes to artices that had already been promoted. I'll give it a go as time permits. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@HumanxAnthro: I've removed the two sources you questioned, and I added the information about the Spice Girls. The evidence they met there is only accordingly to Talalay, who told one interviewer that "two or three" of them met in line, and another interviewer that is was three, though she never specifies which members it was. I note nothing about this is mentioned at any Spice Girls-related articles. My point being I don't see how the lack of this information could have be considered a major point for the article to be de-listed from its featured status. I'll look into more of the sources you provided later. Damien Linnane (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Damien Linnane, bitrot happens, articles require updating now and again so you shouldn't take HumanxAnthro's nitpicks as criticism of all the hard work it must have taken to get the article up to FA in the first place. Internet Archive magazine rack is a great place to find sources but it is only relatively recently that I've learned about it, and finding good sources through archive.org can be very time consuming. Retrospective reviews and analysis could be an interesting improvement but it could just as easily be a waste of time. HumanxAnthro has only pointed out that there are retrospective reviews, not that they are necessarily saying anything really new or notable, that wasn't already said by the contemporary reviews. It is a lot easier to criticize than to do the work to improve an article and I'll take a quotefarm over an empty critical response sections seen in too many other articles (and I don't think a few well chose quotes deserve to be so rudely dismissed that way).

The Spice Girls stuff seems a little offtopic to me, especially since the director admits it was all a publicity stunt. (It also doesn't seem notable to me, the same wannabees are going to cross paths at all the open auditions, but I'm not going digging for sources where Geri Halliwell talked about all the times the girls crossed paths at various times before they were finally cast in something.) I am surprised you added it yourself, and didn't leave it up to HumanxAnthro to add it themselves. -- 109.79.80.28 (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I do tend to take it more personally than I should when people point out flaws but don't explicitly acknowledge work done, you're right that I shouldn't though. Oh when the claims about the Spice Girls were made, alongside the insinuation the article was somehow deficient for not mentioning that, I decided to put a reasonable amount of time into researching it. By the time I figured out the claim is dubious, I felt like it would have been lazy for me to not add a summary of what I had found. I certainly won't protest if someone else completely removes the information though. Personally I do find it somewhat interesting that two of the Spice Girls did audition, in the same sense that I found the printed advertisement regarding the audition interesting (though I note that's very recently been deleted.) Damien Linnane (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I've completely replaced two of the quotes in the reception section with summaries, and I've shortened a third quote. I've also added a summary of the retrospective reviews. So out of the initial list of concerns that just leaves potential updates to the themes and production elements outstanding. I might leave it up to you to update those HumanxAnthro, if you're still interested. Up to you. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane and HumanxAnthro: I'm following up on this notice. Does this article meet the FA criteria? If so, can you mark it as "Satisfactory" at WP:URFA/2020B? If not, are you willing to continue working on this to bring it to FA standards, or should we prepare an FAR? Z1720 (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: I think it meets the FA criteria. HumanxAnthro mentioned elsewhere [2] that he never thought this article was in the 'red zone' and didn't make replying to my pinging him back here a priority partially as he figured his concerns were easily addressed. Considering this, can you or I mark it as satisfactory, or can only the original person who raised the concerns do that? I haven't been in this position before. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Satisfactory for now. I could just add more reviews that have not been cited here, plus a lot of the sources not here were ones published after 2015, which was when the FA occurred. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 22:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane: anyone who thinks an article meets the FA criteria can mark it as satisfactory. I haven't read through the article, so I won't comment on whether it meets the criteria. Instructions are available at WP:URFA/2020. @HumanxAnthro: can also mark it as satisfactory if they think it meets the standards, and can you also remove it from WP:FARGIVEN? Z1720 (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I've marked it as satisfactory and also removed it from WP:FARGIVEN. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

TANK/KANT or TANK/KNAT

Not having read the original comics, is the fact that one "license plate" says TANK, and the other, despite not being an exact mirror, says KANT, instead of KNAT which would be TANK spelled backwards an error, or is that the same in the original comic? And if it is an adjustment for the film, is it noteworthy enough to be in the article? 32.212.102.239 (talk) 07:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

You know I never actually noticed that before, but given the humour typical of the film I very much doubt it was an error. It's been a long time since I read the comics so I don't recall if it was in the original. Nothing will be included in the article though unless there are reliable sources commenting on them. I very much doubt a reliable source ever commented on the number plate, and even if they did that alone may not be enough to warrant it's inclusion in the article as even then I'd say it might be too trivial. But it's a moot point until someone finds a source in any case. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

"Cult" film

There’s something really off about this whole article - a sort of partisan feeling, that it’s been cultivated to make the films reception seem better than it actually was.

The film is surely far from being a “cult” film - in fact many in the UK have an antipathy towards it because it didn’t do justice to the comics, as it was so compromised.

Even the comic authors say this. Actually Emily Lloyd might’ve saved the film... Charliepenandink (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

There's something really off about your comment. The film's poor reception is made very clear, as is the comic's authors feelings towards it. The fact it has been regarded as having a cult status is very well referenced. You are welcome to disagree with all the references, but your personal opinion does not override reliable sources, and your original research about what might have 'saved' the film will not be included either. We use reliable sources to write Wikipedia, not unreferenced opinions on talk pages. For example, if you have a reliable source of someone stating Tank Girl is not a cult film, we can indeed add that to the article, but even that won't override other opinions that is is a cult film. We will simply mention that opinions on the matter are divided, not present one opinion as hard fact and ignore other opinions because someone disagrees with them. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Many films poorly adapt their source material yet have "cult" status, so that's not really a basis to immediately dismiss the statement that it is one.

Also the FA status probably is what gives it the "positive" and "partisan" angle you speak of. No FA article is going to simply be "this movie sucks, next" 71.207.16.121 (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Off topic

You're right in that one couldn't find "a reliable source of someone stating Tank Girl is not a cult film"... It's a cult film, unfortunately. It's just second-rate, and arguably a lot of the "glory" it apparently gets is vicarious (it was latent in the comics already). I still think that the article generally paints a better picture than the reality, but I can't deny there's a bunch of people that like it. Cheers Charliepenandink (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC) Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Talk pages are "not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject". Damien Linnane (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC) Well aware of that. The article has issues - it's obviously partisan, and possibly partly put together by people who are fans of the film. You said that "The film's poor reception is made very clear", though the section after has gathered (cherry-picked) more recent positive comments - one could just as easily have gathered some recent negative comments. Somebody who wasn't there when the film came out could, after reading the article, walk away with the impression that the film is some kind of cool, underrated classic film. Actually the film is seen by those in the know as a corporate bastardisation of a cult comic, and a lesson in how not to adapt a cult comic - ironically, people that think it's "cool" today are arguably uncool. There's a specifically English, indie / original rebel aesthetic & feeling in the comics that the Hollywood Americans involved in the production clearly didn't see or get. This doesn't come across in the article at all, regardless of my opinion. It's ironic that you imply we should have some kind of cold hard objectivity (which of course one agrees with), when your positive opinion on the film is possibly quite evident. Dull conversation anyway. Cheers! Charliepenandink (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC) We can definitely agree you created a dull conversation. The only thing ironic here is that you complain about sources in the article, yet provide none to support your own opinions. You opened this conversation by claiming it was "surely far from being a 'cult' film", when there are numerous reliable sources in the article clearly supporting that it is. That alone tells us everything we need to know about your obvious partisan feelings. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC) What? All was fair until your bland response was to start gatekeeping Wikipedia. Read it again - after looking at your points, I had already magnanimously (possibly grumpily) conceded that, yep, it was a cult film. My remaining point, that still stands, is that the article is prejudiced and there is a clear sense that whoever was involved in it is very fond of the film and want to somehow “rescue” it (within the pages of Wikipedia) from the actual reality - the reality being that it’s a uncool, second-rate, corporate compromise - as even the original authors have also pointed out. If you need "sources" for this fact, I sugest that you step away from Wikipedia and go outside for a walk, without demanding that nature provide a "source" for the grass under your feet. I’m just right about the film and this parti pris aspect of the article - this is presumably why you keep going back to the now-straw-man “cult film” idea, which has already been acknowledged. Read what I said again. Thanks for playing though. Cheers! Charliepenandink (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC) Better luck next time pushing your unsourced opinions on everyone else. Feel free to give yourself a participation trophy for trying. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC) Anyway, if you enjoy the film, arguably that's all that matters. You do you! Cheers! Charliepenandink (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC) Thank you for deleting the childish personal attacks you made in your initial response here: [3] Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which clarifies comments like this will lead to blocks from editing. Have a nice day and try to stay calm in the future. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC) Excellent - entente. An unsurprising, but wonderful final conclusion, with consensus. This now turns one's last entry into the penultimate one. It's good to see accord in these discussions. We are in agreement - for example, suggesting people should be awarded a trophy associated with entitlement, making assumptions regarding other user's private, intimate levels of calm or otherwise, or simply calling people childish in these pages could easily be seen as personal attacks, so please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which clarifies comments like this will lead to blocks from editing. Have a nice day and try to be correct in the future. Lovely stuff! Cheers! Charliepenandink (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC) Observing that resorting to insults is not calm behavior is not a personal attack, nor is describing insults like "14-year-old edgelord" childish. If you disagree, I strongly encourage you to take this discussion to WP:AIN and see which one of us ends up with a block. You said "I'm busy & I'll not participate in this clearly fruitless discussion any more" [4]. If nothing else, thanks for proving that wasn't correct and you aren't actually too busy after all. I won't reply to you again, but feel free to have the last word. Consider it your consolation prize for losing in your attempt to insert your personal bias into a peer-reviewed featured article. I won. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

"Tank Girl (2020 film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Tank Girl (2020 film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 18 § Tank Girl (2020 film) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)