This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
Senn, Bryan (2006). "The Sport of Violence: Death Race 2000 and Rollerball". In Hogan, David J (ed.). Science Fiction America: Essays on SF Cinema. McFarland. pp. 207–216. ISBN0786421495.
The comment about the rich women being intelligence agents is ridiculous.
Even if they were all employed as spies on their mates, the likelihood that they would need weapons training is non-sensical. Remember, their domestic partners are pampered business executives, not James Bond nor Red Grant. Plenty of corporate espionage can happen without any physical violence.
If they were all spies with such training, why would multiple agents blow their cover at the party?
Much simpler explanations of the scene:
a bored and perverse society that needs violence and destruction to stay entertained (already stated in the article).
pleasure unit women venting out their sublimated anger over their imposed roles in this heartless society.
For either reason, the scene would have been much less effective if all of the pistol shots hit the ground. Dyl01:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was a long part removed about the end of the last game. It was removed for no reference citing. Would this particular thing HAVE to be cited? How could opinions be cited?
Jimmylogan091604:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that opinions are not desired in a encyclopedic article. See WP:NOT, the section on "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought". If you can cite (i.e. verifiable) claims to the opinion, that may be worthy of inclusion.
Fair use rationale for Image:Rollerball-poster02.jpg
Image:Rollerball-poster02.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 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.BetacommandBot07:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
( Overlooking that I appear to be answering this question over a year after it was asked. )
The fictional sport was Spinball and it initially appeared in 1976 in the story "Death Game 1999" in the British comic "ACTION Comic". ( No connection to the US comic "Action Comics" which introduced - and still features - Superman. )
Certain sections of the popular media created a furore over allegations of excessive violence and... come to think of it, it would make more sense to give links rather than relate the controversies here :)
The last link - "Science Fiction Radio Theater - Rollerball Murder Rollerball Murder Audio Drama" - is broken. Can anyone remove it? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 06:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked but couldn't find a listing of small parts in Rollerball. Look at the first game's referee. I am pretty sure that is John Travolta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.213.224.36 (talk) 06:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen this (rather lousy) picture, which thow is somekind of a story unlike the new version by John Mc Tierman - my subjective point of view. But this is discussion, not article. To the probably young man who wants mor verifications on this film - how should it be possible to verify even more then the article wrighters already have done ? It's an unknowm shit movie 35 years old ! But the article is OK thow. There is no more things to verify but watching the shit. Please do remove the
"suggestion" to add more verifications. The film is described as it is, and from an objective point of view. (By the way I saw it in a cinema with 800 seats - and 20 people watching. But I do remember my first x-rated movies very well. (i'm 46 today)
I've rarely read a paragraph in a Wikipedia Talk page more concisely, more unintentionally or more sadly revealing of its author than is the unsigned comment above. Rt3368 (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To begin with, the IP(s) adding the link were blocked for a few months back in 2012, and haven't stopped editing, so the block is still in effect. I'm not sure that [[Corporatocracy|corporate-run society]] is a appropriate link, as opposed to an WP:EGG. If appropriate, it should be up in the lead, probably instead of in the body. — Arthur Rubin(talk)08:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Microid's game Killerball (1989) is also based on Rollerball.
Cinematronics, Inc's Arcade game Mayhem 2002 is based around rollerball, but is played between 2 teams with 1 player per team and played on a smaller circular track
In the British weekly comic magazine Action, the series Death Game 1999 was inspired by the films Rollerball and Death Race 2000.
MAD magazine #181 (March 1976) presented a satire of the movie, entitled “Rollerbrawl”. Like the movie, the satire ends with all of Johnathan’s teammates and friends being killed. On the bright side, Bartholomew tells Johnathan that he’s a shoo-in for “Most Valuable Player”.
The box office section is contradictory and makes no sense. It uses the bizarre phrase "theatrical rentals", it should either be home media rentals, or theatrical release. Also the claimed figure of $6.2 million contradicts the Infobox which which lists $30 million as the box office.
It seems more likely that the film made $30 million at the box office, and a further $6.2 million in home media rentals.
FYI, "theatrical rental" is a term used with older films. Per The Numbers, " When a movie is shown in theaters, the studio/distributor and the exhibitor (movie theater) will share revenue from ticket sales. The studio’s share (usually around 50%) is called the 'rental'. This should not be confused with video rentals (e.g., through Blockbuster, RedBox etc.)." Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)18:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That explains the jargon, it does not explain why it is a good idea for this encyclopedia article to choose to use that old jargon. Also it does not explain the two very different figures. (FWIW i looked on the Variety website but couldn't find an online copy of the reference.) -- 109.79.76.49 (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Erik thanks for getting in touch. I would always try to use Variety over Box Office Mojo or the Numbers. I have no faith in Box Office Mojo or the Numbers, particularly for older movies. I don't know where they get their figures - their information is unsourced. "$30 million" could come from anywhere. I used the terminology "theatrical rentals" because that's what Variety used. I wanted to have a more accurate figure in the listing for the film. I believe there is a greater chance of accuracy from Variety than Box Office Mojo. I didn't want to put it in the box though because the figure I had was a very specific figure - to do with its initial theatrical release. The best source for this information is always studio accounts. But "Variety" I believe is the next best level. Hope this clarifies.Dutchy85 (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've learned not to trust Box Office Mojo either but Wikipedia isn't about our opinions, it is about what the sources say. We shouldn't be second guessing the sources, we should present what they say as clearly and objectively as possible. (Variety not only uses industry jargon but plenty of jargon all their own[1], which an encyclopedia should of course avoid.) As it stands the article is confusing and contradictory, readers shouldn't need to figure out what is going on, we should explain it more clearly. We cannot simply choose to ignore one source or the other, I think this is a case where we need to name the sources in the article text, specify that the figure of $6.2 million was "According to Variety magazine" but that "The Numbers" put the domestic gross at $30 million.[2] For some films I've been able to find corroborating information at latimes.com or nytimes.com but in this case no luck so far.
I can't seem to find a Box Office Mojo page for Rollerball 1975, searches only return a page for the 2002 version.
Unrelated but if anyone is interested in developing the article further they might find the AFI Catalog entry for Rollerball a useful source.[3] -- 109.78.215.215 (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The link to the article "The Evolution of Rollerball" is broken, but attempts to relink it from my end have failed. The game site where the article originally appeared folded, so it was republished elsewhere. Feel free to update it or not.
