Talk:Screamers (1995 film)

VHS source

I added the VHS source some time ago. Per policy, I sourced the release date to the only source I can find: on amazon. I don't like commercial sources as much as the next guy but sourcing and attribution are far more important to me than a source to amazon. Both WP:EL and WP:SPAM are guidelines and are obviously superseded by citing sources.

So: find another source to satisfy policy if you don't like the amazon link. It's pretty simple, yes? Cburnett 19:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, linking to amazon (the source of the date) leads to anyone determining region, NTSC vs. PAL, etc. on their own. THIS IS WHY WE SOURCE! Cburnett 19:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I see how much discourse JzG intends to enter when he still edits the page after it has been protected for the very reason of his edit. Which is worse: admin privilege abuse or a link to amazon? I gotta go with the former. Cburnett 13:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The link to Amazon is fine for now as a reference for the VHS release date, seems silly to remove it unless we have an alternative source. Catchpole 13:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:One Night In Hackney suggested two links on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Amazon here and here that say July 23, 1997. As I have said all along, I have zero problems replacing the amazon link with an alternative link such as those suggested. I move for unprotection and references changed accordingly. End of issue (as far as I'm concerned). Cburnett 14:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The provided new references are good for me, barring that the Amazon link was perfectly fine for me as well.. I'd support unprotection and the addition of those/one of those sources. --Matthew

• Actually that's July 1996, whereas Amazon "reliably" said 1997. And for completeness Gray Areas magazine reviewed the VHS version in the November 1996 edition. So the date is clearly problematic: we proabbly don't really know at this stage. Anyway, I have remove protection as (a) being irrelevant (both involved parties were admins anyway) and (b) redundant since there are now other, and conflicting sources. I rmeoved the date for now as the last source actually contradicts the others, but I really have nothing further to say here as there isd a good discussion going on about reesolving the underlying problem, which is much larger than a single fact(oid) in a single article. Thanks to those who were helpful, though, especially Hackney, who shamed us both. Guy (Help!) 14:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

How is that a contradiction? Theatrical was January 1996 and the review was November 1996. I don't see anything asserted in the 11/96 review that it's specifically VHS. And, frankly, I find your unprotected and deletion of the whole bit inappropriate. Cburnett 14:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if you go on a limb and assume "Columbia Tristar Home Video" means VHS, then that doesn't mean there is a contradiction. The film was out and the review could easily have been of the theatrical release and foretelling a home video release. I find no contradiction. Cburnett 14:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that's a really shaky assumption, as you say. Three reviews from 1996 which might be for the laser disc or Betamax, and one date a year later which might be a typo or might be unshakably correct and the others were writing about something they had not yet seen on video despite saying they had. Or something. Alternative hypothesis: we don't have a reliable source for the date. And it's not actually that important anyway. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is not an important piece of information, I agree we do not have a reliable source for it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Cburnett, I think the fact that we can't say Amazon was right underscores the risk of citing unreliable sources just because no other source is available. For what it's worth, Amazon says 1997, but WorldCat says 1996. Are you seriously arguing that the encyclopedia should contain a date when we can't say which one is right? How is that an improvement over not containing a date? Thanks, TheronJ 14:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that given the contradiction, that Amazon may not be the best source of information. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

1996 is the copyright date: the date it was released in theaters. Look up other movies and you'll find the same thing happening when theatrical and video releases are in different years. Cburnett 15:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. See Gray Areas magazine: Columbia Tristar Home Video (my emphasis), review dated November 1996. That supports the WorldCat data for publication by Columbia Tristar Home Video in 1996. Also fits in with normal practice of release to video 6-12 months after general release, which if memory serves is about 3 months after it goes on distribution. On the other hand, we have a UK release date in IMDB of June 96, and a US general release of Jan '96, which is a fair gap after the premiere. There is a story to tell with this one, it does not seem to follow the usual pattern. I don't know the source for release dates in IMDB, I'm guessing it's user edited with peer-review, like most of their content. Guy (Help!) 15:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I did check WorldCat's dating system before offering it as a source, Cburnett. Specifically, here is WorldCat's entry for the DVD release, dated 1998. Can you point me to a WorldCat entry that shows the opposite?

Criminy. As far as I can tell:

1. You agree that Amazon is not a reliable source under the relevant policy, "Attribution".
2. You have been shown several sources, including WorldCat, a reliable source, that call Amazon into question in this specific instance.
3. Instead of saying "Amazon might be right, or it might be wrong," you are insisting that every site that contradicts Amazon is wrong, and Amazon is right.

That much contradiction would give me pause if Amazon were reliable -- since Amazon is not, it stops me cold. TheronJ 15:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to further muddy (or possibly clear) the waters, [http://www.amazon.com/Screamers/dp/B00005YJ8I Amazon] has a 23 July 1996 release as well, but it's mysteriously listed as Sony rather than Columbia for some reason. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh! Perhaps not as authoritative as all that, then :o) Guy (Help!) 15:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A few comments on Amazon and release dates:

• First, Sony bought Columbia (long before Screamers), so it is quite possible to see "Sony" instead of "Columbia" depending on the data source, etc.

• For release dates, I have seen instances with DVDs where Amazon reset the release date (on the same ASIN/UPC product) when the studio dropped the price from new release levels to backlist levels. I don't know how widespread this is (or if it happened on old VHS items), but it is something to be aware of.

• Some Amazon item pages are created by third party sellers, so the information may be less reliable than something Amazon has sourced itself.

• User:One Night In Hackney points out the Amazon.com listing for ASIN B00005YJ8I ([http://www.amazon.com/Screamers/dp/B00005YJ8I here], no cover art), which is a VHS tape showing a release date of July 23, 1996. Cburnett's link seems to be ASIN 6304080891 ([http://amazon.com/gp/product/6304080891 here], with cover art). Could this be a price reduction or other release type of case? While a bogus 1996 date is always possible, I would assume that a VHS tape was released in 1996 for something with a January 1996 theatrical release.

• The IMDB UK release date of June 1996 may come (directly or indirectly) from UK VHS release listings such as this one ([http://www.amazon.co.uk/Screamers-Peter-Weller/dp/B00004RSV8/ here at Amazon.co.uk]), although this appears to be the German edition. Note that you have to be careful - another VHS version showing at Amazon.co.uk ([http://www.amazon.co.uk/Screamers-Peter-Weller/dp/B00004CTEE/ here]), which displays a "ReleaseDate" in 2002. However, Amazon's database has a second field called "OriginalReleaseDate" on this item (not displayed, but available through the programming interface) showing the same June 28/96 date. This one appears to be a British release, but whether is was a reissue of the tape in 2002, or another supplier isn't clear. But someone just seeing the second link might get a problematic "VHS release date" in 2002. There is even a third Amazon.co.uk entry, with no dates at all (probably a third party) entry. However, the British tape has a "TheatricalReleaseDate" field showing the Jan 26/96 US theatrical release date. So the question is whether the movie was released theatrically in the UK at all, or on the US January date, or on June 28 (which makes the VHS date either wrong or a very unlikely simultaneous release), or an unstated date between the two.

• Be careful on using Amazon for NTSC/PAL and DVD regions for used or third-party items. I've seen numerous instances of people selling imported DVDs on Amazon.com/.ca which display as NTSC or Region 1 (presumably the defaults) when it is easily shown (via UPC/EAN codes, etc) that these are PAL and/or non R1 editions.

Is there a compelling reason to have a bunch of format release dates for movies? Aside from issues in tracking down reliable sources for historical formats like VHS, there is also the question of differing release dates in different markets, and something showing as "VHS release date" quite often is really just "North American VHS release date", or even "United States", since Canada occasionally has different rights/distributors and sometimes dates. The theatrical releases by country seems to be duplicated from IMDB - my view would be to link to IMDB in cases like this instead of trying to keep the information synchronized in two separate places. Notable dates like first showing (at TIFF or first commercial release (US, in this case) could of course be incorporated. - David Oberst 17:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware the UK release date is the UK theatrical release date, it definitely isn't the UK VHS release date. While it doesn't give exact dates for either of those, the BBFC site is reliable, and the film wasn't classified for UK viewing until 30 April 1996, and the video release wasn't classified until 4 October 1996. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall this movie having a theatrical release at all in the UK, thought it went "straight to video". Also note that the video rental release date is usually earlier than retail release date. Catchpole 08:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

I would encourage interested editors to dig up sources better than IMDB, which is generally problematic enough to get its own listing on the reliable source examples page. Like Wikis, IMDB contains unchecked user content and is therefore generally not reliable. Thanks, TheronJ 14:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Type 4 screamer

Is the screamer that kills Ace Jefferson really a type 2 screamer? They mention the type 2 is a soldier that lies on the ground begging for help to draw in it's victims, but they don't say whether or not it can walk, possibly only crawl, and he was able to walk. Maybe we need another screamer type.

I think it's supposed to be fairly explicit that the Type 2 is Becker - Hendricksson realizes he's a screamer because Johnson mentions that Becker is wounded, and they'd discussed Type 2's being "Wounded Soldiers" before (Yes, it's a bit of a leap to assume that Becker's a screamer just because he's wounded, but that's how it happens in the film. It's also implied later on that the screamer that attacks Hendricksson on the crane (a scene missing from the plot summary, it appears) was a Type 2 as well, as it says it "preferred the other face". So that would mean you have: Type 1 (Original) Type 1 revised (Reptile) Type 2 (Humanoid, takes faces from it's victims) Type 3 (David) and Type 4 (Jessica) - this would, however, mean that the type 2's were just as advanced, if not moreso, than the Type 4s. (Alternatively, Becker could be a type 4, and Jessica a Type 5, because Becker's chip is of a different design to the Type 1-3's. Yes, it's more than a little confusing. --Charax (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

In the movie I don't think they actually said that a type 2 was an injured soldier for sure, they only said that there was a type that played an injured soldier and that could possibly be the "type 2". The teddy bear seems more like a type 2 to me. Akadewboy (talk) 08:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is pretty obvious as it follows the logical course of development. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

" It's also implied later on that the screamer that attacks Hendricksson on the crane (a scene missing from the plot summary, it appears) was a Type 2 as well, as it says it "preferred the other face". " >> Actually, the Screamer attacking Hendricksson (wearing the face of his buddy Chuck) IS Becker. He sounds like him, recites Shakespeare, has his *neck cracking* mannerism and wears a N.E.B. uniform. When he says he "liked the old face better", he also tells Henricksson it was Marshal Cooper's (the N.E.B. bunker's commander). It would mean Becker looked like the N.E.B. Commander all along. Strange, considering Ross or Jessica don't recognise him. Also he appears a bit young compared to his Alliance counterpart (but maybe that's just me...)

" So that would mean you have: Type 1 (Original) Type 1 revised (Reptile) " >> I understood there was "Type 1" (Original), "Type 1 evolved" (which attacked Ace in the plane, and Henricksson never saw one like it before) and "Type 1 revised" (reptile, hacker, moving on hard soil instead of only sand) -Mr. Shadow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.113.102.137 (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Becker was almost certainly not a Type 2, the wounded soldier foreshadowing was deliberate obviously, but it's not evidence of Becker being a Type 2 - not to mention it was him that told the anecdote about the Type 2's in the first place, and since his behavior is erratic and nihilistic, there's no knowing what his motivation behind that was and how honest/accurate it was either (he partially used that information as justification for killing Ross, since Ross would constantly repeat similar phrases, as the Type 2 purportedly did). And if we're assuming subsequent versions are more advanced, then it's fairly obvious Becker was more complex than the Davids.

I think you need to scrap the list of Types as is in the article currently, and just try to reflect the information given by the movie as best as possible. But for disclosure my personal theory is: Type 1 = original/slightly modified, Type 2 = A simple wounded soldier, Type 3 = David, Type 4 = Becker (who happens to use the wounded soldier technique), the first versions that grasp with more than just basic programming, and have to deal with concepts like individualism, and as such basically turn out mentally ill due to being not quite sufficiently able to deal with it and Type 5 = Jessica, first model able to function normally with human-like cognition abilities. --88.105.230.228 (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Difference to story: anti-screamer weapon?

It's been some time since I read the story, but wasn't the main feature of type 2 screamers that they had a weapon designed specifically against other screamers? That should be mentioned, I think.

Yeah, one of the big themes in the original story was that the claws were evolving to kill each other, just like humans had. It's really pretty bleak. 146.146.7.1 (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Type 2 - Becker - Shakespeare

Not sure on that, but I think it's noteworthy that Becker recited Shakespeare - and likely understanding it, showing he's more than just a mindless machine. --80.121.29.165 (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Berynium

It's definitely berynium, not beryllium. See for example this. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed "berynium", spelled out on the plaque appearing at 1:30:45. At the time of this writing, however, the word "berynium" does not appear in this article. It should probably be added (back) since it's the main subject of the whole movie. I've added an entry to List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and subatomic particles about it. Bryan (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Block or Bloc?

I thought I saw "Bloc" on the introductory text. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Screamers (1995 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/20081215173057/http://www.timeout.com/film/newyork/reviews/74161/Screamers.html to http://www.timeout.com/film/newyork/reviews/74161/Screamers.html

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) 17:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Screamers (1995 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/20090422225141/http://www.joebobbriggs.com/drivein/1996/screamers.htm to http://www.joebobbriggs.com/drivein/1996/screamers.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100515001453/http://www.moria.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3257&Itemid=0 to http://www.moria.co.nz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3257&Itemid=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101126162314/http://www.popcornpictures.co.uk/sfilms/screamers.shtml to http://www.popcornpictures.co.uk/sfilms/screamers.shtml

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) 08:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)