Talk:Rocky Balboa (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Deleted Sound Track Chart

I deleted the sound track chart for a couple reasons:

1. I think it is more appropriate in the Sound Track's main article (where it already is). Since the soundtrack is not the focus of this article (the movie is) its not really appropriate to put secondary information about it.

2. It's completely uncited and it begins on a date several weeks after the soundtrack was released which makes its accuracy questionable. User:71.108.177.157 08:52 Mar. 09

67.81.160.94: Please Explain

You have twice deleted a reference citation in the Critical Response section and placed a citation needed tag in its place. Why are you doing this? User:131.161.82.76 16:25 Feb. 2

I put a warning message in the IP's talk page; not much more can be done about it unless the IP tries to do something like that again, somewhere else. Then we can go to the admins with it. Theirishpianist 05:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Restored Sounddtrack to Sub Category

I made Soundtrack a subcategory of Music again. The only reason I did that is because, on the Wikipedia quality scale, JAWS is listed as an example of the highest quality and the JAWS article lists soundtrack as a sub category. User:71.108.177.157 07:42 Jan. 25

I changed this. the more I looked at it the more it seemed that the music section was out of place outside the "filming and production" section and that the Soundtrack was peripheral to the film and should be treated separately (like the Video Game). It does contradict the JAWS format but the JAWS article didn't have such an extensive production section so I think this is ok. User:71.108.177.157 10:29 Jan. 26

Box Office Wording

First, to User 75.13.43.148, it is nice to see you are not full on deleting the section anymore but if you are going to make edits you should heed Luna Santin's advice and justify them in the Talk section lest this IP gets banned like your other one did.

That said, the edits:

The first sentance is introductory and makes the paragraph read better. Just as a lead does in a news story, descriptive text needs to have some kind of introductory sentence that sums up the content and leads the reader into justification for that content. Saying that the movie has "done well" is not expressing an opinion when the statement is justified in the very next sentence (where it says the film did triple its expected opening weekend box office)

Edit: I put in what I think is a good compromise sentence on the above item

On removing the references to other movies it isn't relevant what other movies beat Rocky Balboa unless the movies had some special significance (like Titanic which was #1 for a year). That information is readily available through the link so adding the names of the two movies doesn't service a purpose and takes away from the readibility of the section as a whole

As for removing the "Outperformed Rocky V" part of the one sentence, later in the very same sentences it says that the movie ranks 6 for boxing movies under Rocky I through IV and Million dollar baby so the fact that it outperformed Rocky V (and every other boxing movie) is implied.

As far as "Its continued success has made it Sylvester Stallone's most successful starring role since..." I don't like that sentence either (using the word success twice in the first part of a sentence isn't great writing) but someone else keeps changing that back so I relented. User:71.108.177.157 07:42 Jan. 25

To Bignole: On Plot Message

Do me a favor and just leave the plot thing on the top. In the message is specifically says:

"This article or section contains a plot summary that may be overly long, confusing, or ambiguous"

In other words, its clear that it references the plot section so there's no reason it has to be IN the plot section.

More to the point, not everyone is as tech savy as you and putting the plot message in the plot section screws up the formatting. I sent a friend to this article only to have him tell me that the article had been deleted. The reason he thought that is because putting that message in the plot section shifts the whole article down making users who aren't as computer savy think no article exists.

So please, just leave it at the top (or at very least have an intellegent discussion about it here rather than leaving snide comments in your edits)

Common practice is to place them in their appropriate sections, not at the top of the page (unless the entire page needs the work). If only 1 section of a page does not conform to NPOV, you wouldn't place the tag at the top, you'd place it on that section. This is because the entire page doesn't have the problem. Also, sometimes you don't always notice what is at the top, but you do notice a tag that is right next to the "edit" buttom of a section. This is also to keep from cluttering the top with tags. Bignole 17:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well look, you aren't the Wikipedia police and after looking around I've noticed you go around putting these tags on a lot of articles that no one else seems to have a problem with. So, before adding the tag again, could you please explain exactly what you think needs to be fixed here? The size of the entire article is still well below the established limit (17kb vs the suggested 32kb or less). The language is clear and I don't see any problem with the content (I did not write the plot summary by the way). You even said it looked good below. So rather than stirring up trouble why don't you give something constructive.

P.S. I am not the one who removed this tag before so there are at least two people who disagree with your opinion of the article

Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is a policy, and policies cannot be circumvented. The plot is overly long and needs to be trimmed down. There should be no massive quotes from the film. I cannot go through and trim it because I haven't seen the film yet, and I would rather not spoil it for myself. You cannot remove tags just because you don't like them, especially when they clearly identify something wrong. If you do not like Wiki policies then I suggest IMDb.com, they don't have rules like Wikipedia. As for your "size" argument, you do not "fluff" article sizes with overly long plots. Wikipedia is not a substitution for watching the film. If you do not like the tag, ignore it, but if you continue to remove it you will be reported for disruptive behavior. If you think that tag was placed in error, then consult and Admin about it, and see if they also think the plot is too long. Why is it too long? When you have a plot that is over 1500 words, that's overly long. It's a boxing movie, there isn't some vast scientific element in this film that might need some explaining, it's a sequel to 5 previous films about the same topic. See Rocky as to what a plot should look like; or you could try Halloween or Jaws...they are both featured articles. FA status means it meets all the requirements set forth by Wikipedia for an article about a film. Bignole 20:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I once again have done major re-work on the plot, which as you can see, is now a -synopsis-. People, please do not let it get much larger than this. We're not trying to re-tell the movie in an article.Theirishpianist 02:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Box office section

I was adding a chart to the box office section when I noticed this line...

"The film had completely recouped its production costs in just under a week"

Now, I hate taking editing someone else's wikipedia work, but in this case I deleted the line because it just isn't true. The studio only sees about 1/2 of the box office money so for this movie to have recouped its production costs the box office total will have to reach double what the production costs are domestically.

Anyway, I apologize and mean no offense but I didn't think the line should be there given the reasoning above.

Synopsis Correct?

I've not heard anymore about the "youth center" plot line since I heard MGM rejected that and it was a few years ago. Since the illustrated teaser script Sly put in his magazine, I've just heard that he had a restraunt and there was a computer match between him and Mason Dixon that inspires the real fight. I don't think the youth center plot device made it into this version of the script... unless someone's read the whole thing.

Agree, the youth center story was included in the first script but was later removed. The current script deals more with Rocky's desire to fight, and stay true to his nature. Synopsis has been updated to better reflect the current story.

Also, any references to Mason "The Line" Dixon should be updated to Mason "The Lion" Dixon. Saw the film on opening day, and the latter is correct.

The Internet Movie Database and the official MGM Rocky Balboa website credit the character as Mason "The Line" Dixon. As noted on the character page, it is a reference to the Mason-dixon line. Misterkillboy 11:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Found this under the synopsis : " In a shocking surprise, Adrian returns from her home planet, to give support and tell Rocky that she had to go, it was her time." I am new here, but this is obviously not correct, if someone wants to change it go ahead.

This article should be moved

This article should be moved to Rocky Balboa since this is the official title of the film, not Rocky VI. In addition the Rocky films template needs to be adjusted accordingly. 23skidoo 14:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure that is the official title, I was aware that it was the working title while stallone is filming the scenes, but I could be wrong. Mark272 13:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The image on this pages that listed as being a promotional image is no such thing, it's just a fan made poster done in photoshop, it's not the least bit official, that's why I deleted it, let's keep it that way.

The rumor about Burgess Meredith is clearly ficticious, and should be left out. Please do not put it there again.

Yes, I removed it once already only to see it reverted, the rumour is too outrageous and should not be included. Mark272 13:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Watch this article for vandalism

The article has been vandalized more that once. I ask other users to watch this page for further vandalism and help keep it clean. DethFromAbove 00:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm keeping a close eye on this page. Some of the "facts" debunked so far include:

The movie being called "Ivan Drago" and staring Dolph Lundgren.

Ivan Drago will making an appearance and Rocky will not standing over his bed saying, "If he dies, he dies" or "I must break you" and pull his plug for life support.

Gary Coleman will playing the role of Mason 'The Line' Dixon

Rocky does going to Afghanistan to train with Al Qaeda. However, it turns out he's working undercover as a CIA operative. His final fight is will be with Mohammed Al-Jafar in a cave outside of Tora Bora.

The Balboas did not convert to Hinduism, and Adrian will not return as Rocky's cat in the film.

Hey, I like humor as much as the next man. I'm glad you guys are taking an interest in this film. However, let's post the facts on this page and keep the humor on forums and the water cooler. I'll see you all President's Day, 2007!Rockules318 03:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

And ROCKY VI isn't the fifth sequel!!!! its the sixth!!!! there was a rocky 5 in 1990!!!

• Try taking a math class. 1 original film + 5 SEQUELS = Rock VI. 81.76.41.139 17:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

ROCKY VI is indeed the fifth sequel! The first sequel was ROCKY II (and so on). --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I see this text near the end of the plot... "In a shocking surprise, Adrian returns from her home planet, to give support and tell Rocky that she had to go, it was her time." - What the heck? I try to edit the article, but the text doesn't show in the editing. It's vandalism of course, and would be helpful if someone can explain how they hide the text like that (as well as revert it). 68.205.65.52 20:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Someone likely edited it out in between you seeing the vandalism and proceeding to edit it.

Under the PLOT section some users have been indicating that Balboa is the ultimate winner of the exhibition fight. He is not. The movie clearly ends with Dixon being declared the winner in a split decision. Does the re-inclusion of false information count as vandalism? I cannot see any other reason to intentionally include something that is patently untrue. Perhaps the posters who change the winner of the fight from Mason to Rocky saw a pre-release of the movie with that ending? If that is why I wish they would go see the movie as it stands now: Rocky loses, Mason wins... it is a nice mirror of the original film... Balboa loses in the points but walked away a winner because he went the distance. Kerstan 06:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Kerstan

Unwaranted inclusion of trailer quote

I've removed the section entitled "Quote from the trailer Rocky Balboa (Rocky VI)." The section just seems completely unnecessary and doesn't contribute to the informative nature of the article (i.e. does not give plot details, release dates, etc.). I'm still not completely sure it should be 86'd, though. I'm tempted to cite this, but again, I'm not sure. I'd appreciate a little feedback from fellow users.--DethFromAbove 02:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, I see your point. I just thought somebody came along and saw the list of quotes and thought they were just a collection of random, unrelated phrases. I hope you don't take "a fence" to my "funny" answer. Love, Wavy G 02:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The quote is very relevant to this article, because it illustrates the underlying concept of the movie, which is being stated in the synopsis. This movie is not about boxing, but about overcoming one's own fear and going after what one desires, and this is the reason why Stallone chose this monologue in the first teaser.

I think the fact that Stallone released plot details such as Adrian's death and Rocky being really old (for a boxer) - which are both already under Known Facts - is enough to illustrate the theme of despair and overcoming fear that's present in the movie. I'll refrain from removing the section until your response.--DethFromAbove 20:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Although it is true that the Known Facts state the theme of the movie, they do not emotionally illustrate Balboa's determination. The quote actually tells the theme in the fictional character's own voice. Thus, to not include the quote, but only the facts, is like reading a description of Beethoven's 9th, withouth listening to it. 71.247.225.110 23:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've always found Wiki articles to be a bit detached from their subjects; informative, yet lacking that human touch. While the inclusion of the teaser quote certainly illustrates the theme of determination that has become so fundemental to the Rocky series, it delves into that gray area between biased and objective. The section devotes itself exclusively to the quote; there's no analysis of it, nor does it complement or bolster the synopsis in the article, which I think better illustrates the movie's theme. Consequently, the section comes off as a promotion for the movie, and a promotion for anything is a no-no. Aside from this, no other expected movie articles include the a teaser's entire text. Other movies have themes too, you know, so why don't they include teaser text?

Interestingly, I looked up Beethoven's 9th, and it includes a very thorough analysis of the symphony, as well as audio samples. Perhaps you could include a link to the trailer under External Links?--DethFromAbove 23:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Talia Shire out?

The February 28th update here mentions Talia Shire is out. It gives the Access Hollywood link to cite its source, but it seems to have expired/moved. If anyone could find the page/video mentioning Shire's exclusion from the movie, I'd like to remove her from the cast list.--DethFromAbove 23:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

In 'Rocky Balboa' , Adrian is dead and it is confirmed at the NBC website in the Stallone interviews, as well as in the script which is in Sly magazine. But, at IMDB, Talia Shire's 'Adrian' is listed under cast but as archive footage. Meaning she won't actually reprise her role but will be in the movie. We should put 'archive footage' in parenthesis beside Tally's name.By the way, sorry about not posting changes Iv made to this artical here. I didn't even know what a talk page was. :D --RBalboa 21:52, 26 May 2006 (Central Standard time)

Err...IMDb isn't really reliable. I was checking the cast listings for 24 once and saw that Carlos Bernard was listed to appear in every episode of season 5, but his character dies midway, and doesn't reappear. If you could maybe find another source confirming that she will appear, even in archive footage (which is not really starring in it), I'd be very happy.--DethFromAbove 20:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll go ahead and see where I can find that Adrian is confirmed for archive footage, if I don't see it, I'll take Tally off before the day is out. :)--RBalboa 17:51, 27 May 2006 (Central Standard time)

K, I found two other places where it states Talia Shire in Rocky Balboa: TotalRocky.com , and Slycenter.mfbiz.com If you want to we can take Talia's name off until we know for sure she's going to be in it. ☺ --RBalboa 19:05, 27 May 2006 (Central Standard time)

Poster

The fight poster that is up right now I put there. I should have came here first, but that poster isn't fan made. Its a real poster from the movie, no not the official movie poster that we're going to see outside the theater though. The reason I put it there is because I thought it looked cool and it is a real thing that was first seen at the filming in Las Vegas. In my opinion, I think we should keep it there until the official advertising poster is made. But its up to you guys, please post here before deleting it off the page. We could hold a little vote. Then we'd have a democracy going! Yay! :p RBalboa 22:17, 26 May 2006 (Central Standard time)

Agreed. This article is rather dull without it.--DethFromAbove 20:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Smart move, I didn't think about putting it in the sypnosis area.;)RBalboa 17:54, 27 May 2006 (Central Standard time)

Film Clip

The films blog actually has an exclusive clip of Balboa heading from the lockerroom to the entrance to the arena. Linkage?

I'v got it, I'll put it there now.---RBalboa 21:46 P.M., 30 May 2006 (Central Standard time)

Yo Deth, how come you took off the trailers, those were official straight from Sly's site. ---RBalboa

Because they were on your myspace.--DethFromAbove 02:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok, sorry I forgot about that, I changed it to my myspace because it was running smoother on there. My apologies. :D---RBalboa June 4

Also...

On Apollo's charachter sites, there are links to pics of Weathers dressed as Creed. Can someone put them up, please?

Just wondering

Won't this movie be pretty crappy considering it's been like 15 years since the last movie?--Killswitch Engage

I fail to see the logic in this.--DethFromAbove 22:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all, technology has been enhanced in these 15 years. And it's been awhile sine Sylvester Stallone was any good.--Killswitch Engage

Here I was thinking you were looking at this movie objectively.--DethFromAbove 17:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Recently? I guess "killjoy engaged", has not seen Shade, The Contender or any of his cameo work. He also stole the show in Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over (& Hello : Cop Land). It is kind of hard to remain on the Hollywood A list for 30+ and not be any good (or in anything "any good." Master Redyva ♠

16:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)| Go back to DVDVR hosers.--Donnie from the mean streets of Boston, KY 02:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Plot Summary = Trailer Recap

The entire plot synopsis seems like it has been pieced together (and largely guessed at) from the bits in the theatrical trailer. The long quotes by the characters come straight from the trailer and probably do nothing to provide a general plot summary.

Until a Wikipedian has actually seen the movie and can do a proper plot summary, I think the summary should be brief and not just consist of a trailer recap. KyuzoGator 15:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's overly long as is anyway. Bignole 15:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I sliced-n-diced quite a bit. The long dialogue quotes from the trailer were simply ridiculous. KyuzoGator 15:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks much better now. Heck, it looks good enough to be the plot even after people see the film. It pretty much sums up everything about the film without being "detail for detail". Good job. Bignole 15:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Movie's out!

I did some updating of the page now that the movie is officially out in theatres. (I highly recommend seeing it, BTW.) I'm trying to recap what I remember from seeing it a couple hours prior. Theirishpianist 20:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Plot summary from the movie is up; I think I covered the important things. Whatever I missed, well, that's all your jobs. :) Theirishpianist 21:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Paulie fired why?

Was it for taking too many days off and messing around on the job or was it an issue of age or just for plot?

It never is explained; presumably it's because of his age, as he mentions that he's "retired". It's mainly a plot device used to open Paulie's eyes and get him in Rocky's corner (to coin a phrase). Theirishpianist 15:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

True, it's never explained, but I think it's pretty obvious that the film deals more with everyone's struggles (not just Rocky's) as we all grow older, and it's not just a plot "device" to open Paulie's eyes. Older workers are routinely fired to save the company money on benefits to hire younger and cheaper labor whom they don't have to pay benefits. It's called life, and its not just a plot "device", and Stallone has it right on the money. I felt this was the most honest and true-to-life script (as well as best acted) of all the "Rockys". Bomza 09:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Quote Wrong

The quote from the tenth round of the fight with Mason Dixon was wrong. It came from the IMDB but the quote from the IMDB is wrong too - the paragraph was what he said to his son. I imagine it's going to be changed back because no one's going to believe me because the almighty IMDB says that it's right, but as someone who's seen the movie twice (in South Philly no less) I thought I'd at least try and correct it.

4.239.114.45

Broken Hand

How is it possible if dixon broke his hand,he was still able to continue the match ???? ...By the way i finished the quote when rocky is hit hard and everyone thinks he is going to get knocked out, and I also added the main part of the inspiring speech he gives to his son.......--Pikpatsu 14:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing that for me (I was the one who fixed the quote yesterday - it used to be the long speech that Balboa gives his son earlier in the movie because the IMDB has it screwed up). I knew I had forgotten part of it. And I don't know much about boxing or medicine, but in the movie I believe the explanation given was that once Dixon's hand went numb he would be able to throw it again. In the meanwhile, Balboa was given a chance to beat him up a little bit since Dixon obviously couldn't defend or hit with his hand hurting. It's not unheard of for athletes to perform with broken bones - it's just probably not medically a good idea. 4.239.6.109 20:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Medically-speaking, boxing at all is not a good idea. The movie accurately describes what happens when a fighter breaks his hand. 134.29.6.7 (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Scoring of the fight

The score cards had the fight 95-94 94-95 95-94.

Assumming Dixon won 6 of the 10 rounds from the 2 judges that judged Dixon the winner, he would have 96 points (unless he had a point deducted from his score for penalty which would put him at 95, but that doesn't work either, because on the losing card he would then only have 93 points). The only way the scoring works would to have both fighters win a round 10-8. While Dixon may have won a round (most likely the first, where he knocked Rocky down 2 times), It was HIGHLY doubtful that Rocky won a round 10-8. Any opinions?

From what I know (and it's been a while since I followed real-life boxing), a point is deducted from a boxer's total for each knockout in a round. Since Rocky knocked Dixon down once in the round in which Rocky himself was knocked down twice, the round total might have been 10-8 or 9-7. I'm not sure. Theirishpianist 00:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is also possible for a judge to rule a round 10-10 if he thinks it is tied. Or 9-9, if one fighter gets a point deducted. Jjj222 17:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Rocky's son's jacket?

Anyone know where that hooded jacket his son (the guy from Heroes) wears is available or who makes it? --DannyBoy7783 10:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Similarities with another movie

When I first saw the advertisements for this movie, I thought it was shockingly similar to the Korean movie Crying Fist (the description in Crying Fist’s main article isn’t very good, so I’ll explain it). Then I watched the movie and it supported my assumption. The first main character is an aging former silver-metal Olympic boxer who wants to regain his place in the spot light despite the fact that he is past his prime. At one point in the movie, he even hangs a sign around his neck and becomes a “Human Punching-Bag” for money. Sound familiar? Remember when Paulie asked rocky if he wanted to hang a sign around his neck that said “punch me”? He begins to fight in local matches and works his way up the chain until he eventually wins a spot in the national championship. Anyway, the second main character is a young street punk who goes to jail for accidentally killing an old man during a robbery attempt. During his time in jail, he joins a boxing team and eventually wins a spot for the national fight after beating the current champion.

Towards the end, the older more “powerful” boxer faces the younger “faster” opponent. Sound familiar? At the conclusion of the fight, the older fighter looses to the younger one, but he doesn’t care because it brings him closer to his wife and daughter. Sound familiar (minus the wife)? Just a thought. (Ghostexorcist 06:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC))

GAC On Hold

Currently, there is no fair use rationale for the image. Cbrown1023 talk 21:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to see a cast section added (more than the "Casting" section or infobox, just a listing of the main characters and the actors that played them). Cbrown1023 talk 21:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Both points fixed. Anything else, perchance? Theirishpianist 06:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Passed. Cbrown1023 talk 22:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Like a fan page

This article is written like a Sylvester Stallone fan page, with praise throughout, bragging, excessive box office facts and comments, etc. It is not written from a neutral point of view. This article should be rewritten from a neutral standpoint and refer only to facts about the movie and it's success and shortcomings.

First, let me just say that I know you are the same user who was vandalizing the article under IP address 75.13.43.148 and who kept blanking the box office section so you don't have huge amounts of credibility. IP locators are real helpful in that regard. That is why I removed your tag you can't repeatedly vandalize an article and then come to the table and expect people to give you the benefit of the doubt.

That said, I would be happy to help address specific issues if you have them. The box office section is not excessive it has one chart and 3 sentances. As far an neutrality there is no claim in that section that is not factually based and in no place does it make a quality judgement one way or the other. Do you have anything else? I see no examples of bragging or praise (except in the critical response section where praise from critics was quite high)

Further, I'd point out that the article has already gone through a peer review and been certified as GA-Class. If your claims were true that would not have been possible.

User:ThomasC22 16:09 Apr. 16

P.S. Sadly, I see you are back to the vandalism.

User:ThomasC22 14:29 Apr. 17

Critics

Why did everybody love this movie? It was not what i expected. When i was a jung boy i loved Rocky. And all my friends loved him also. Rocky is very famous in Germany. But the last part of the serie was nothing. There where just some little boxing scene. no big training, nothing. just emotions. People did not love Rocky because of emotions. Sorry all my friends and i we did not like the movie. And your article writes nothing about bad critics. Come on, did realy everybody love this movie? where are the real rocky fans?!

The "real Rocky fans" consider this a more fitting ending than Rocky V. Everything is wrapped up. Personally, I thought Mason Dixon was a sub par character (with a horrible name) when compared to Apollo, Clubber and Drago. But compared to Tommy Gunn, he's not so bad. 134.29.6.7 (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Rockstar?

From the article:

"Also, a continuity error is produced as a result of the actual bout being filmed at a different time - during the entrances, the ring has a logo featuring the GoldenPalace.com website. During the actual fight, the ring canvas boasts a "Rockstar" Energy Drink logo."

On the DVD the ring canvas has the GoldenPalace.com logo all the time on the canvas and emblazened on the ring babes' cleavage. Did they digitally replace the canvas in all of the fight scenes just for the DVD? That seems expensive and unlikely, but if true probably warrants a mention in the article for a unique insertion of advertising in a DVD. BillMcGonigle (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

woman cancer?

There are so many kinds of cancers that a woman can get, Breast,Cervical, Ovarian; is it every stated what kind of cancer she died of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.31.45.49 (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Scaled rbmp.jpg

Image:Scaled rbmp.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 ensure 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) 05:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Punchy" Comment in Rocky III

It wan't a nickname given by the boxers in Apollo's gym. They were in Apollo's gym, and after Paulie said something stupid (can't remember, exactly), Rocky turns to his wife and remarks, "And they [meaning people in general] call me punchy." Ifnkovhg (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ivan Drago appears in Rocky VI

After the fight, and after the announcer gives the second judge's score "95-94, Balboa" and after the screen focused on Little Marie, it will go to the audience for a brief second, and behind the audience member directly in front of the screen Ivan Drago can be seen with his head bowed down. If others concur with me then good, I already put a mention of this in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.8.203 (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Without a source, it doesn't satisfy WP:V. Nightscream (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1