Talk:Reign of Fire (film)

This article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on July 8, 2015.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Film: British / Canadian / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

North East England Low‑importance

	North East England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North East England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North East England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North East EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject North East EnglandTemplate:WikiProject North East EnglandNorth East England articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Horror Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dragon's Nest location

The Wikipedia article states that a dragon's nest was discovered in Pakistan, but the movie shows a newspaper clipping of the nest being in Tibet - though the final T is obscured, a map showing the South of China is shown. Discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteCrane (talk • contribs) 20:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot hole?

If the first dragon was either a male or female, how was there more? Were they originally asexual? It plainly stated that females needed a male to fertilize the eggs.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.114.5 (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My answer to that would be that there are eggs lying with the dormant female dragons in their underground caverns, and the male is able to seek and fertilise them, and then the newly hatched females lay eggs of their own which are then fertilised by the lone males. Dubious, I know, as when the male dies, the entire species risks extinction. Plot holes aren't the fault of Wikipedia though.

WhiteCrane (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beowulf

I've read that this movie is meant as an allegory for the ancient story Beowulf, any official information? (there are a large number of similarities) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.176.85.30 (talk • contribs) 12:25, August 24, 2006 (UTC).

What exactly are the similarities? Beowulf has a troll, it's mother and only one dragon, which is a classic fantasy dragon rather than the non-magical, non-treasure hoarding, sci-fi animals in this movie. The protagonist, beowulf, is the most powerful warrior in the story whereas in Reign of Fire the most powerful warrior is an Achilles-like madman. Where did you read this? The presence of a source would be the most important factor for a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.204.39 (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

I don't think the plot summary for this is entirely correct. From what I remember about the movie there wasn't suppost to only be one male dragon in the world. Van Sant even mentions that they had a run in with another male dragon. Is this correct or am I wrong?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.158.58.34 (talk • contribs) 05:54, September 8, 2006 (UTC).

It's been a while since I've last seen the movie, a real long while, but I'm pretty sure it was only a single male dragon. JBK405 01:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the intention of the movie as far as I can tell, silly as it is. Perhaps they refer instead to one male dragon in England, thus allowing the English dragon population to die out and humans in that area to recover. Darth Tanner —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.52.147 (talk • contribs) 12:02, October 29, 2006 (UTC).

emmm i dont know whether u want to put this in the trivia part but the opening scene at the construction site was actually filmed in Dublin, Ireland and the castle was actually down in Wicklow, Ireland so that technically doesnt make it an entireally British film —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.100.66.95 (talk • contribs) 02:37, November 11, 2006 (UTC).

No, Van Zandt (I really think that's how his name is supposed to be spelled) says that this is the only male left. Van Zandt says that they traced the epidemeology (spelling?) of all the dragons that they had encountered back to the British Isles. That's why they flew a plane, as dangerous as it is, all the way there. It's implied that this male dragon has managed to kill all the rival males and any young that are born male. This is why no new males have popped up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.100.206 (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia/Coincidence

In the trivia section it claims that this film "coincidentally" premiered on Sept. 11th 2002 in another country. This is not really a noteworthy coincidence (nor interesting trivia). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.14.100.36 (talk) 08:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

It's noteworthy due to ABC's pulling the film from broadcast due to sensitivites over terrorism, since that gives the statement background and context. If that had not have occurred, then yes, I would agree that it is not noteworthy. MalikCarr 08:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

possible timeline error

I don't think the main part of the movie is set 12 years after the first part. Quinn says his adopted son was 3 years old when he found him and he's now a teenager so Quinn would've been a kid himself when he found him. Either the first part of the movie is takes place before 2008 or the main part tkaes place after 2020.218.215.135.195 11:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main part of the movie seems to be set in 2020, as stated by the movie (I just rewatched it). I updated the trivia section accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aluroon (talk • contribs) 05:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was always under the impression that the opening took place in present day, i.e. 2002. In one scene Quinn says "nothing has flown in twenty years" (as in aerial vehicles), putting the opening around 2000. However, I still think the opening is in 2002, and "20" is just a rounding of "18" (which sounds less dramatic). Quinn did find his adopted son 12 years ago (i.e. in 2008), but that doesn't mean the opening took place in 2008. Jerkov (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to kill?

The movie plot hand-waves away why the dragons were not more easily killed in the initial phases. A 20mm autocannon mounted on a truck would make short work of several dragons at once, let alone a pair of 30mm autocannons with radar guidance. And that doesn't touch what would be done by tanks hardened to nuclear standard, or attack helicopters or any of several support-attack aircraft and warships. Even if the effective range of the dragons' fire-breath was 1000 metres (unlikely), even third-world army units with a couple of BMGs could hold them off. That said, not a bad flick really. --Ossipewsk (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems like the males have impenetrable hide. The people had to shoot it in its mouth to kill it. And when Van Zandt kills that one dragon behind Quinn he shot it through its head. In the movie, too, the world powers used nuclear weapons, but the dragons either survived or fled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.100.206 (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I liked the movie, that said, I've watched an AC-130 gunship remove the top floor of a concrete building in a single pass and seen Hellfire missles destroy tanks. I find it difficult to believe that any hide is tougher than tank armor or steel reinforced concrete. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be easier to believe if you first manage to believe in huge flying lizards that shoot fire out of their mouths. Muad (talk) 13:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dragons would likely be highly resistant to the two chief effects of nuclear bombings, that is, heat (well...it breathes fire) and it seems pretty likely that they would be immune to radiation as well (Fantasy!) world leaders probably panicked and ended up doing more damage to humanity than the dragons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broken Pharoah (talk • contribs) 00:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Reign of Fire movie.jpg

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

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

If there is other 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) 04:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctica

Why do they discover bones in Antarctica due to Arctic melting? Antarctic and Arctic are two separate things, on opposite points of the planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stacecom (talk • contribs) 01:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Year

According to the trailer for this movie, this all takes place in 2084, not 2020. Any references for the 2020 date? Villy (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The trailer seems to use a date from an early version of the story, since the film does definitively state on screen that the bulk of the story is set in "Northumberland, England 2020 A.D.". What is not stated for certain is what year the opening was set. The Docklands Extension Line Project sign has a "Taking London Into a New Millennium" slogan. Then during the voice over we get a number of separate clippings, including:

"Young Boy Survives Inferno"
"October 19, 2008"
"August 7, 2010: Nest Discovered in Tibet, U.N. Calls Emergency Session"

The use of nuclear weapons is dated on screen to 19 December 2010

It seems that people assume that "Young Boy Survives Inferno" is equal to the "October 19, 2008" shown afterwards, but they are not the same clipping.

So, the opening being set when the film was made/released (2001/2002) is not contradicted by the film, and fits later details better than 2008. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 19:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the trailer again, another possibility is that 2084 was a typo from 2004. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 02:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

The Onions AVClub reviewed Reign of Fire in 2014, in their "worth a watch" section. Interesting to see the film is getting a better response in retrospect, although there isn't enough to claim anything like a cult following. -- 109.76.23.182 (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]