Talk:The Warriors (film)/Archive 1

"Boppers" a catchall?

I was under the impression that the term "boppers" used by the DJ was really just a phrase to describe/address the gang bangers in general, rather than referencing a specific gang named "boppers". she does say "to all you boppers out there". she's broadcasting on open frequency, so it's not like it has a specific audience other than gang bangers. so i dont see the point of including it in the list of gangs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.206.25 (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The woman is refering to gangsters as boppers but there is also a gang called "The Boppers" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armanalp (talk • contribs) 08:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Was Mercy really a prostitute?

At first I thought she was a prostitute when she is introduced in the movie, but Fox calls her a whore and she snaps back "I'm not a whore!". The movie has been pretty direct in telling the viewers certain things about the characters, and I thought this was perhaps one of those moments to 'set the record straight'. Of course she was a little slutty around Swan all the time, though, but I figured woman were just that way around him...

untitled comments

The link to Brian Tyler in the cast list is wrong. It links to someone else with the same name. I'm not really sure how to change the link because there is no page on him

Can someone confirm if the Warriors really fought the Furies in Riverside Park? I know the scene was FILMED there, but I always thought it was set in Central Park. I just can't think of any reason why anyone trying to get from Van Cortland Park to Coney Island would end up in Riverside Park...if they were forced off the IRT, why would they suddenly start heading west, unless they were planning on swimming across the river to New Jersey?

I believe they were chased from the IRT station at 96th and Broadway. They probably thought Riverside Park would be a good place to lose the Baseball Furies. You wouldn't go to Central Park from there; it's further, and it's uphill. Note: I changed the first paragraph, which had said that the film is set in New York City, except for a final scene in Coney Island. Coney Island is in New York City, so I found this misleading.

This page could do with some work.

Yeah. "Too many cooks" comes to mind. I might take a stab at a cleanup if the article can go a couple days without more stuff thrown into the mix. -R. fiend 17:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I cleaned it up a couple of months ago, but it's become a mess again since then. I don't really want to rework it right now, but the two things that caught my eye are:

1. Do the gangs that don't appear in the film really need to be listed here? Most of them are only here because of their presence in the video game.
2. The paragraph about being pulled from theaters really needs to be sourced. I've heard different versions of what happened, and this seems no more or less plausible than any other right now. It might also be either expanded or merged with the main text rather than given a seperate one-paragraph section.

--Misterwindupbird 18:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed most of the gangs mentioned; the ones which said nothing about them. I left the rest, unsure if the information was from the oft-neglected book (one should remember that it was a book before a it was a movie). From their descriptions, I think many did appear in the film, getting on the subway and whatnot, but were not mentioned by name. I wouldn't be too sad to see them go too (I'm referring more to the second list than the first). As for the pulled from theatres bit, I guess it would be best to find out who added it an ask for a source. I know nothing about it, I'll admit. I started this article after watching the movie a while back and was surprised to find it wasn't here already. -R. fiend 18:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I did a bit of revising and rewriting in the introduction and plotline, with some cleaning up in the "Pulled from theaters" section (which I know needs to be verified and sourced, but I cleaned it up anyway) as well as the "Gangs" section. At first I just intended to correct some spelling and grammar errors, but I didn't like the way the article flowed when I read it back, so I started the rewrites. Of course, there's much more that could be elaborated on, as well as some additions like the filming of, reception, etc. but I don't have the time for that now, and I'm sure someone else can work on that. What's there now should provide a good base. Paulcleveland 06:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I added the link to the Union Square pictures taken November 2005 and have now been replaced with other advertising. I found it interesting since Union Square was a major station in the movie.jbutera 05:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I find the comparison to "Anabasis" interesting. I know nothing about that story, but I always thought The Warriors came from the Odyssey, and I swear that in the book one character read a comic-book version of it. At any rate, a comparison to that story as well as Anabasis might be useful. paustin

I deleted a bunch from the Spinoffs section. Do we really need to know which program was used to edit an amatuer bike messenger movie that was influenced by The Warriors? One paragraph is plenty. py 13:09 11 February 2006

I wanted you to know that you are an fucking moron. If you knew anything about this movie, you twit, you would know that some of the gangs in the movie are real gangs and were put in the movie so that they would not destroy the set and that they even hired a gang to protect them. In the TV version, the undeleted version, the graffiti tag THE WARRIORS on the hideout was over a real gang tag so they crew had to pay $500 an hour to have the tag there.

JimmyNikaidoh123

I have heard the Immortal Homocides controlled Coney Island at the time of the filming of the movie, and were very upset when they tagged "Warriors" over top of their mark; therefore, they demanded to get a scene in the movie. Supposely the Immortal Homocides are in the Conclave Bronx scene.141.153.133.238 05:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Is Luther the leader of the Rogues? I remember a scene where he's talking to someone on the phone, and I always assumed it was the leader of the Rogues. Can someone confirm this? mixmastermind

There are no "Immortal Homicides"; it was the "Crazy Homicides" that were there, and yes, they did get angry at the filmmakers for tagging over their stuff. 207.210.23.159 22:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a "Filming locations" section. The film takes quite a few interesting liberties with NYC/subway geography and I wanted to note some of them here. I'll add more to it when I get a chance. Also, this article is quite long. Maybe the list of characters and gangs can be placed on their own page, Characters in The Warriors, or something? --SHODAN 04:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Too much talk about the game?

Too many details of the game are put into this article, making it hard to read. Most of the games details were added to flesh out the story and do not actually show "insight" into the film. I think some of the mentions should be removed.

Far Too Much About The Game

Agreed. This entry is supposed to be a reference to the film version. The repeated references to the derivitave video game make this article confusing to read, not least because they are not relevant to the film - suggest that such comments should be removed and included in the separate video game entry.

Solution?

I would think that the discussion of the gangs that feature prominently in the game (Turnbull ACs, Harlem Boppers, etc) would be discussed in the pages about the game. As this pertains to the movie, though the Boppers were there, they had no say in the outcome of the Warriors. So I think that either there should be a different section to move the gangs to or move the gang discussion sections to the video game section.

Plethora of poor content and spelling errors

I don't mean to be too much of a negativist, but I swear that parts of this article look like they've been written by someone who suffered genuine brain damage at one point in his or her life. Could anyone so inclined do a big check on this article for spelling and grammar errors, and also improve the overall quality of the content a little while at it? I've always loved this movie, and its article deserves way better than this current state of affairs. 80.201.106.158 08:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to Improve

It really is a tough call about separating the movie and the game. For starters, Rockstar Games got all the rights to produce additional content and even got as many of the original voice actors that they could. Ask virtually any game critic and they can tell you that The Warriors game is pretty much the greatest movie-to-game franchise produced to date. I'm sure whoever originally created the article had only the movie in mind, but there's so much media coming out about The Warriors that the original subject is probably changing to reflect it.

If you want to reduce your work load, it would probably be better NOT to separate it into two articles, but rather to create a single entity about The Warriors universe. This idea is compounded by the possibility of The Warriors remake scheduled for 2008, which may or may not come to fruition. But in doing so, you leave the possibility of expansion, and reduce not only your current work load, but any additional articles for the Wiki. --MrDopple 19:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Almost forgot. If there has to be a single entity which holds this article, the book came long before the movie to begin with (14 years before the movie release mind you) , and should probably be the main article, NOT the movie. [2] Oh... R.I.P. Marcelino Sanchez aka "Rembrandt", who died today 20 years ago. [3]

characters from anabasis

will somebody please add that thing which has the characters from this film with the characters from the work that this was based on?

Seperate character articles

Just an idea, to make articles on all of the main 9 Warriors, Cleon, Ajax, Snow, Rembrandt, Vermin, Cowboy, Cochise, Swan and Fox 220.239.198.106

nope. Pages would get deleted by WP:FICT. People would also argue that the articles were just a re-statement of the plot and the characters only appeared in one movie (no sequel). Cbrown1023 21:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Slang?

Do we really need the section for slang in this article? There are a few, such as "going faggot," "colors," and "cripple" that seem either self-evident or already widely known. Amp 16:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The entire article is shit, actually. It should probably be reverted to where it was sometime last year, before too many cooks added everything they could possibly think of to the article, making it an utter mess of drivel. One of the few encyclopedic and interesting things, the comparison between the Warriors and Anabasis, was removed. -R. fiend 18:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

cochise

should it be added how he was supposedto be killed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.164.225.201 (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Vermin was to be killed and it should be put under some sort of trivia section. Johnnycash316 (talk · contribs)

Fair use rationale for Image:Comeouttoplay.JPG

Image:Comeouttoplay.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TheWarriors 1979 Movie Poster.jpg

Image:TheWarriors 1979 Movie Poster.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture references

These references are largely unsourced and need to be converted to prose form instead of the current list. I've placed them here until this happens.--J.D. (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In the 2008 film Lost Boys: The Tribe, in the scene where Chris and the vampires provoke the police outside the sheriff department, one vampire bangs on the door saying "Warriors, come out to play-ay" in a similar way as Luther in The Warriors.

In the Sega Dreamcast video game; Jet Set Radio, the similar motifs of battling games and the DJ who narrates the action is a fairly obvious reference to the Warriors.

In the Wu-Tang Clan song "Shame on a Nigga", in the fourth verse Ol' Dirty Bastard says "Crews be actin like they gangs, anyway Be like, "Warriors! Come out and playiyay!" This is also heard on System of a Down's cover of the song.

The hardcore punk band, The Warriors, take their name from the film.

Rou Reynolds side project, Routron 5000, also samples parts of the film in a song called "The Chicks Are Packed" .

In one episode of Catdog, catdogs starts a gang with the local rejects and try to take on the neighborhood bullies the greasers. When they approach the greaser's house Cat attempts to lure them out by calling, "Greasers, come out and play". A reference to Luther's line in the movie

Gang Page Deletions and Redirects

Martijn Hoekstra keeps marking these articles for deletion without discussion and R. fiend keeps trying to arbitrarily redirect them. If you want to delete these gang pages I believe a full AfD proposal needs to be written, and if you want to redirect it then discuss it first. -PatPeter 17:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I prodded the subarticles on the individual gangs, mistakenly, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Turnbull AC's (gang). We can reasonably understand that the status for the other gangs is no different. A redirect is the correct outcome. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I signed your name for you... you gave me an edit conflict. But you and R. fiend want to redirect a large number of pages, which requires a newer discussion, especially with that discussion almost a year old. -PatPeter 17:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The gangs are barely notable within the film, not notable outside of it, and the Turnbull AFD established a consensus for redirection. What's the big issue? -R. fiend (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

edit conflict with next message Because you want to redirect a large number of pages at once, based off of a discussion a year old. Start a new AfD or AfM (I don't think we have an articles for merge... just go deletion and suggest merge) before continuing. -PatPeter 17:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Are there any independent, reliable sources at all, that provide significant coverage about the individual gangs at all? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I could watch the movie, play the game, and read the book adding citations as to what page, time, and event the information about the gang presents, seeing that the pages already have references to the movie and the game and whatnot. The point is moreso that you want to redirect a large number of pages at once without consensus, based off an old discussion, you should start a new discussion. -PatPeter 17:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This sort of looks like a discussion to me, so we're on the right track. I still question the existence of independent secondary sources though. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but as long as only we three exist in this discussion you two will continue to say "redirect" and I will say "no redirect" so that without more people we cannot come to a conclusion. Link to the policy that says the page needs independant secondary sources. -PatPeter 18:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no such policy. There is a longstanding tradition though (WP:N) that there should be. If it was a policy issue, no discussion would be required. I just don't think, without any secondary sources, therefor failing WP:N, these articles don't stand a snowballs chance in hell to reach any other outcome. It would probably just be a waste of energy, and wikilawering to insist an article goes trough a specific process if the outcome is pretty easy to predict. Still, I would really like to hear your arguments for keeping the seperate articles. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping you are open to discussing this further. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh! Yes, but your edit gave me an edit conflict, it takes a couple minutes to create a good message, I was also editing when I decided to check this.

“ If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article ”

but

“ If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable ”

So these articles do not necessarily fail under WP:N. These articles do indeed stand a snowball's chance in hell, which means

“ If an issue doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process ”

but I believe that some editors would vote to keep these articles and some would vote to delete it (not impling Wikipedia's identity as a bureaucracy, but rather because I cannot think of a better word than "vote"), though we cannot know if these articles don't stand a snowball's chance in hell unless we put it though the process. -PatPeter 18:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that the outcome wouldn't be any different because there are no such sources in the article as it presently stands, but the issue is that I don't think any such sources exist, which is why I asked you if you know any such sources where with "such sources" I mean "secondary reliable sources, independent of the subject, that provide significant coverage on the subject", in case it wasn't clear. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What are common secondary sources for movie articles, or rather aspects of movie articles? As I quoted, the articles do not need secondary sources. I have to go eat lunch and go to class, be back later. -PatPeter 19:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Usualy very hard to find. In very few cases they actually exist. If any books were written on The Warriors, they may have some sources. They sometimes turn up if there is a significant response outside of the fictional world, for example Rick's Café Casablanca (an article that is not specificly about the fictional Rick's Cafe). The Godfather is an example where books have been written on. Some of it's themes might have sufficient coverage. It is more common in literary works (there are several books on Tolkiens works, for example the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia). I can't quickly think of more examples, though there are sure to be some. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you found anything that looks like a promising sources yet? If not, do you still expect to find any, or is deletion a better option? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't found anything yet, it might be time to see what content should be merged back and redirected, and what should be deleted. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What's with the reverse merge? Why are the gangs being removed from this article? This makes no sense. It's pretty clear there are no third party sources on the individual gangs, so separate articles seem uncalled for. -R. fiend (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Because, why do we have the same information in two places? If we end up merging all the gang articles back then we can easily merge them back. But if we have the information in two spots we would have eventually had to do what I did. -PatPeter 20:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Usually the way these things work is that they receive some basic coverage in the parent article, and are expanded in their individual articles (when they have them). Sure there is some overlap, but that's not a bad thing; there is plenty of overlapping of information on various articles throughout Wikipedia. Right now most of the gangs aren't mentioned in the article at all (just the template at the bottom), which doesn't make sense. No one is even likely to find these articles if they're not covered here in some capacity. And I still see no reason for separate articles. -R. fiend (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the version before I edited it did not have all the gangs on it, and therefore did not work as a good synopsis (though I know what you mean). I placed a link to the template... instead of listing off every main article, so that should work fine until we come to a conclusion. -PatPeter 20:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If the gangs aren't important enough to the film to even deserve mention by name in the plot summary then I hardly see how they can be important enough to warrant their own articles. -R. fiend (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

They are important to put in the plot summary, just no one has, I will do that now. If you mean the "Other notable gangs" section, I suppose I could overcome my laziness and list all the gang articles. -PatPeter 22:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yurick's reaction?

I'm just curious here, but what was Sol Yurick's reaction to this film? I think that I've read somehwere that he didn't like it, but I'm not quite sure. if anyone knows what his thoughts on the film were, or knows of a place where I can find out, please respond. thanks.67.189.162.43 (talk) 08:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Look closer. His reaction is in the Reception section: "Yurick expressed his disappointment in the film version and speculated that it scared some people because "it appeals to the fear of a demonic uprising by lumpen youth", and appealed to many teenagers because it "hits a series of collective fantasies"."--J.D. (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Lesbian Lizzies?

The article currently refers to the Lizzies as an all female and possibly lesbian gang. I'm more than a little confused by this. The gang is certainly all female but there is almost nothing in the film to imply that the members are homosexual. Two members of the Lizzies dance together in one scene but that hardly counts as a statement of sexual orientation. Moreover, there's no mention their sexual orientation in the DVD special features, which included a long discussion of the scenes featuring the Lizzies. One would think that if that was meant to be implied, either the writer or the director would have mentioned that during the discussion. If anyone disagrees or if I missed something, please say so. Otherwise, I think that line should be removed. Nsfreeman (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Merging with The Warriors (gang)

It has been suggested that The Warriors (gang) is merged with this page. I disagree as it is simply too large. If anything it should be merged with List of gangs in The Warriors. WölffReik (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a moot point, as the merge suggestion was made a month ago, and the editor who did so never started a discussion of the issue. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Location of the Conclave

The assertion that the conclave happened at Pelham Bay Park is incorrect. Not only is this never mentioned in the film, but it simply doesn't make sense geographically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.126.103 (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed this also. The wiki page for the novel The Warriors asserts that the park is actually the Van Cortlandt Park. This makes much more sense because when the Warriors flee the park they go directly to Woodlawn Cemetery, which borders Van Cortlandt Park, and is nowhere near Pelham Bay Park. They leave the cemetery and get past the Turnbull ACs and get on a subway train, but then a fire halts them and they get off the train in a neighborhood called Tremont (where they encounter the Orphans). The only trains that go through Tremont are the B,D, & maybe the #2/#5 trains which go through east Tremont. None of these lines are near Pelham Bay Park, which is served by the #6 (made famous in the movie The Taking of Pelham 123). It's a safe assumption that the train the Warriors get on is the #2. Without question the speech by Cyrus takes place in Van Cortlandt Park. So I'm going to change this to the correct location. Walterego (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact I'm certain it's the #2 train that the Warriors ride out of the Bronx, because after dealing with the Orphans the Warriors get back on the subway and ride it to the station at 96th and Broadway, which is a station on the #2 line. The Pelham #6 travels on the other side of Central park, so that would be completely wrong. The 2005 video game adaptation features levels called Pelham, Tremont, and "Gunhill", which are all stops that the #2 makes in the Bronx.Walterego (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Remake

I removed the following from the article and bring it here for discussion:

A modern-day remake of the film is set to be directed by Tony Scott, with a tentative release date of 2011.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://news.scotsman.com/movies/DVD--Mean-and-lean.4435403.jp | title=DVD - Mean and lean | publisher=The Scotsman | accessdate=03-05-2009 | dateformat=dd-mm-yyyy}}</ref>

This is an example of crystalballism at its finest. The ref. provided is a review of a Walter Hill boxset, with one, brief, sentence at the end mentioning the possibility of a remake in 2010. Recently, the year has been changed back and forth from 2010 to 2011 to 2012, with no explanation or source provided to support the change. Simply put, without a real reference saying this movie has been greenlighted, is in pre-production, etc., this should remain out. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Television Version

The DVD Version is different from the original TV version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonikku-Driver (talk • contribs) 06:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

See Alsos and the Hoe Avenue peace meeting

The link to the Hoe Avenue peace meeting article was removed by MSJapan. Now, the way I understand it, the purpose of linking to the Hoe Avenue peace meeting was not to say "The Warriors was based off of this". Instead, it was to point out that this historical event is similar to this fictional event. This is entirely inline with the purpose of the See Also section, as the link is relevant and related to the topic of this article. I think it should be re-added and will do so if no one has any objections. 74.76.129.132 (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed remake

I decided to be bold and remove the remake section. This speculation about a remake, and the source that goes with it, is now 6 years old, and Tony Scott is dead. It seems unlikely this film will be made. If other sources are found that show the project is going to happen, a new section can be written. All that section described was a possible project, which is not encyclopedic. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Production

"The entire film was shot on the streets in New York City with some interior scenes done at Astoria Studios."

Now that's clearly contradictory and incorrect...—Mmathu (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

References/Quotes

Not sure if it's important enough, but 'Can you dig it?' and 'Would you come out and play?' became iconic quotes from the movie. Can you dig it was used in a number of Shaft episodes and as a title to the final track of Iron Man 3 music score. 185.31.48.30 (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Release

It appears someone has tampered with the "Release" section of the article, as it is currently displayed. I don't know the facts necessary to correct it, but it claims the movie was released on 12/20/2012, which is only last night. The movie was released in 1979. The current edit also claims it had an opening weekend take of USD 300+ Million, which is a preposterously large amount for that time. That's even phenomenal for nowadays, and this was NOT a blockbuster.

If someone knows how to fix this stuff, please do.108.48.93.97 (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I took care of it. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The bit about President Ronald Reagan screening it. He was not President in 1979, when it was released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flea82 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you think presidents only screen films that are released during their term(s) in office? Hmmm? Yes, the film was released in 1979. Yes, Ronald Reagan was president 1981-1989. So? I'm screening it tomorrow in my home -- is that a contradiction, too? (2015 screening vs. 1979 release) Sorry for being so harsh, but one should apply a charitable reading to most passages -- without saying whether the content is true or false, it is clear that the sentence means that the President screened the film during his term(s) in office. He probably watched Gone With The Wind, The Wizard of Oz, and many other pre-1981 films as well. Plus, given 1979 vs. 1981, he may have seen the film for the first time during a screening at the White House years after release. Chesspride 66.19.84.2 (talk) 04:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Warriors (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061213174848/http://mezcotoyz.com:80/products.asp?pline=war to http://www.mezcotoyz.com/products.asp?pline=war

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Encyclopedic information?

Hi @The stuart:,

Could you elaborate why you think a long list of gangs is encyclopedic? And how do you know people come to Wikipedia for this kind of stuff? I see it as WP:TRIVIA: it does not add anything more to the article and the reader wouldn't gain any new relevant information. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It strikes me as trivia more suitable to a fan site. But if there were commentary in reliable secondary sources, we could summarize that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It's important to the movie to list all of the characters. It's very relevant to the plot and the world of the movie who all the gangs are and how you can identify them and where they are from. All of this is given in the movie, although not concisely as an encyclopedia should. Perhaps the information could be presented in a more encyclopedic way rather than a numbered list. Incorporated into the article. Either way I don't see why it should be completely removed. --The_stuart (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The characters are already listed and the plot describes the events of the film. Wikipedia is written for a general audience, not for people who want to know more about the gangs in The Warriors. The information listed isn't necessary in the first place, it mostly talks about the gangs' respective dresscode and area where they're from. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a movie about gangs, and how each gang dresses and where they are from is general information about how the world of this movie works, and this is an article about The Warriors it should be described in as much detail as necessary. It's like saying that the article on flag semaphore shouldn't include how each letter or the alphabet is formed because a general audience isn't going to grab flags and start sending signals. --The_stuart (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

That's comparing apples and oranges. Articles are supposed to explain the subject in general, not in excruciating detail. Gangs listed from 9 through 21 aren't mentioned in the plot, so what is the reader supposed to know about them? It's told from an inappropriate in-universe point-of-view: where they're from and what they wear. That is not general information and doesn't explain how the world of the movie works. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Warriors (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/20140103135431/http://www.v8tvshow.com/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=9768.0 to http://www.v8tvshow.com/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=9768.0

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) 06:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thomas Waites in cast section

The question of Waites being credited in the cast section was discussed over at the FilmProject, and the conclusion was that his role should be included in the production section. Waites had demanded his name be removed, which is why he is uncredited, so this is relevant to the production. I'll find the source and add it here. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This article at the Village Voice talks about his demand to have his name removed: https://www.villagevoice.com/2015/09/08/remember-the-warriors-behind-the-chaotic-drug-fueled-and-often-terrifying-making-of-a-cult-classic/ I will write up something tomorrow and make a request that an admin add it to the article. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

He was still a main cast member even if he did fall out with the production crew, its no reason to leave he out as wikipedia is not censored. No matter how you look at it he had a notable role in the film that need inclusion in the cast list, the rest of the gang are there even tough that had less lines then Fox did. 86.179.135.115 (talk) 08:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with censorship. Please try to be rational. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

I would like the following paragraphs added to the production section. This should solve the matter of Thomas Waites being uncredited for the film. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 20:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thomas G. Waites was cast as director Walter Hill's James Dean, and the director "invited the young actor to the Gulf and Western to watch movies like Rebel Without a Cause and East of Eden for inspiration." During the screening, Hill offered Waites a drink, which Waites refused, resulting in a rift between the two that grew worse during the grueling summer shoot. At one point, Waites threatened to report the working conditions to the Screen Actors Guild, forcing Paramount to provide a second trailer for the eight Warriors to share.

Finally, when the tension on set between Waites and Hill reached the breaking point, Hill demanded that stunt coordinator Craig Baxley improvise a stunt scene in which Waites' character would be killed. "Stunned, Baxley demurred. Such a critical scene would take careful planning. But Hill was insistent. 'I don’t give a shit how you kill him,' Baxley recalls the director saying. 'Kill him.'" Baxley found a crew member who resembled Waites and staged a scene in which the character is thrown off a subway platform in front of an approaching train. “It was like someone cut my soul out and left a shell,” Waites remembers. He would later demand that his name be removed from the cast altogether; he remains uncredited to this day.

References

 Not done @TheOldJacobite: this page is no longer protected. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

also referenced in an episode of Community

one of the paintball episodes referenced the 'come out to play' line, should be added to "In popular culture" 74.79.202.66 (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

comparison to Anabasis

I have had to remove for the second time the addition of an uncited comparison between the movie and Anabasis. It should not need to be pointed out that the Lede is simply the shortest for of the article, summarized into extreme brevity. It should not need to be said that, if it not referenced within the body of the article, then it does not get mentioned in the Lede.
And yet, here we are.
I am going to remove it again, and this time, whoever keeps adding it in had best find explicit referencing noting the ancient Greek classic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary (and explicit) referencing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It's cited in the linked article, as the edit summary says. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, perhaps you could point that out to me where that link to the RS connecting the two appear in this article? I am not against inclusion; I am insisting that the connection be made explicitly via a RS. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, thank you for your inspirationally courteous and collaborative approach to editing: you are a veritable paragon of virtue, and a model of editorial conduct from whom we could all learn. On the issue in question, as I did mention in my edit summary, I added two relevant references to the article on the Yurick novel: I felt that as the movie was fairly self-evidently based on the novel (a fact explicitly sourced) it was unnecessary to add further references here. How dumbly naïve of me!!! To meet your meticulously perfectionist interpretation of WP:V, I have now copied those references across here, and added two more, all of which I trust you will find satisfactory. Of course, you could have done that yourself (Googling "The Warriors"+"Anabasis" gets 57,000+ hits, a significant proportion of which are relevant and citable): it would probably have taken less time than it might have taken, say, to compose a snarky passive-aggressive message for my talk page. But, then again, that might have involved contributing constructively to Wikipedia, rather than just deleting what you don't like the look of. Eric Pode lives (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you ever so much for your efforts, Eric Pode lives. I can't fathom the Very Important Tasks I distracted you away from to address the issue of citing and placement of your inclusions.

Alas, 'twould appear that your arrow of insight hath yet again missed its mark - the Lede is a summary of the article; ie. if it isn't in the body of the article, it should not be included in the Lede.

Mayhap you missed that whilst pondering Very Big Things elsewhere, like how to craft the most elegant insult or somesuch. Perhaps your laser-like focus could be trained on how to better integrate the material into the body of the article, which would remove entirely my reservations regarding its inclusion. Forgive me for saying, but doing such would appear to be a far better use of your time instead of crafting pointed barbs.

To that end, please feel free to find a place for your inclusions within the body of the article. You seem experienced enough to accomplish that. I'll remove them again until you can improve the article by better placement. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you once again, Jack Sebastian, for your kindly words of guidance to an inexperienced neophyte such as myself. I have now added the disputed content, including references, to the body of the article, and I trust that we can draw a line under the matter. I would just draw your attention to one of the core guidelines of Wikipedia, WP:BOLD. In a nutshell, this says that if you see something on Wikipedia that you think could be improved, hey, you should just go ahead and do it! You really should try it sometime: you'd find it so much more satisfying than just deleting content and whinging about the inadequate efforts of your intellectual inferiors. Eric Pode lives (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, I thank you for taking time out of your Very Busy Schedule, Eric Pode lives to labor at something so tedious as adding your text and sources to the appropriate area of the article.

As well, I appreciate your suggestion in how to conduct my affairs within Wikipedia articles; in truth I felt only the slightest twinge of concern that you might take exception to what you clearly thought of my folding, spindling, mutilating or otherwise altering the contribution which you had so graciously blessed us with by adding to the article. Out of consideration for your past responses to my edits, I felt it necessary to involve you in a matter that concerned your most delicate of egos; I would only hope you would feel honored by my humble request for your presence within this most pedestrian of articles.

And it is my most fervent hope that you do not concern yourself with my reaction to your editing offerings today; indeed, I do not consider your impact within this or any other articles whatsoever. Rest easy, gentle traveler - your lament can now be extended to another page and another, far more deserving contributor. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)