Talk:Bloodsport (film)

There is a book with the same title by James B. Stewart, published in 1995, it seems. see Special:Whatlinkshere/Blood Sport - though I don't know enough about either of them to be able to do anything. Tomos 07:51, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Based on real-life events" Frank Dux was a total fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.171.217.235 (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I received this via e-mail, but I'd like to take the discussion back to Wikipedia:

Tom,

I realize that you believe you're doing a service by supposedly
moderating the Bloodsport entry on Wikipedia, but it's extremely
frustrating to all us true fans who have to re-submit the entry every
time you take it down. I have absolutely no problem with staying
within Wikipedia guidelines (whatever those are), but instead of
removing our entry with a ridiculous claim like "vandalism", make a
helpful comment and change little details that you believe to be
wrong. The entry that you've submitted is simply terrible. Here is an
excerpt from your synopsis of the movie:

"Frank, who is in the army, enters and the army sends out some men to
get him. He resists them."

What does that mean? That poor grammar and complete lack of any
knowledge of the movie is simply unexcusable. I am going to warn you
now. If you continue to remove our post in a blatant abuse of the
Wikipedia system, I will report you to the proper authorities. You are
the true vandal, and I have an army of 50 fans waiting to replace our
entry when you delete it. You are going to lose...

The reason for my reversions is very simple: Wikipedia cannot under any circumstances use copyrighted text in articles without permission. See Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ. In this case, the summary that you keep pasting is from the back of the DVD, and we simply cannot use it, whether it is better or worse than the existing summary.

To respond to your other comments: (1) I didn't write the summary that's there, and I agree it could be improved. (2) My only revert marked "vandalism" is this one, which was clearly vandalism. My other reverts did indeed have comments explaining them, and I even placed an explanation on the talk page of the user that first posted it. (3) If you'd like to "report me" to the "authorities", the right place to do that is at WP:RFC, but I understand the Wikipedia policies well, and can guarantee that they will agree with me, because the legal copyright issues are not negotiable.

Anyway, I like this movie too, and I appreciate your dedication to improving the article. I'd like to observe that, instead of organizing your army of 50 fans to continue this dispute, you could better spend your time improving the article (without copying text) to the point that it becomes a great Wikipedia article. Getting started would certainly take less time than you've already spent sending this e-mail and reading my response. — brighterorange (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It is likely that such material is available to us under the fair use doctrine. However, it is unlikely that we can simply dump the whole of the back of the DVD case into an article; we must only use the minimum required for our purposes. Since we could easily (and have previously) written our own version, we probably cannot simply keep a carbon-copy of the DVD case which the article presently is. It needs to be edited up or down from either this version or the previous. The previous was quite poor, the current probably not legal usage. So, I'm going to leave the article as it is, and give, say 24 hours for the editing to take place. After that time, I'm going to revert to the non-copyrighted version.

Those using unpleasant edit-summaries and blindly reverting should stop doing so, and discuss.

So can someone present a draft on this talk page, and see if others agree/object? -Splash^talk 17:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Further to the above, note also that Wikipedia does not like the use of promotional material, since it must inherently violate our core neutral point-of-view principles. The encyclopedia reports on things, rather than evaluating or promotion them. That alone is a good reason to seriously edit the current form of the article. -Splash^talk 17:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• I reverted it anyway. The puffery from the DVD label is embarassing. "Takes you where few have ever gone" -- spare me. (I very much like the film, for what it's worth; I've seen it a half dozen times.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Eh, please forgive me, but after looking through the history, I've decided to protect the article for a while. The repeated copyvio insertion is just silly, and the blanking doesn't look like it's abating any, (and such charming edit summaries: "Brighterorange is a poopoo head", not at all childish). Func( t, c, @, ) 02:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Salt clearly isn't used to blind Dux in the last scene. It's some form of pill which his opponent crushes up and throws at him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.87.229.75 (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

And I doubt its cocaine... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.81.94 (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

(I believe it's crushed limestone) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.198.105 (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This is largely directed to the editor who keeps re-adding a deleted category. A sub-cat has been created for Bloodsport films to collect the whole series in one place. As with other series, they do not appear in their own genre individually, they appear collectively (for an example, check out The Empire Strikes Back, it's not in Science fiction films as Star Wars episodes is a sub-cat). If you look at Category:Bloodsport films you will see at the bottom that it is part of Category:Martial arts films. If you look at the Martial arts category, at the top it shows that Bloodport is a sub-cat within Martial arts. Please do not re-add the removed cat to this article, it is in effect double listing it. Mallanox 08:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the mentality presented here, and subsequently also the reasoning behind your continued removals of a relevant category, can be objected to for the following reasons; 1) It does not befit an encyclopedia, which - being a source of information - seeks to collect all details which are directly relevant to the subject being covered, and in a manner that is both brief and to the point. The adding of the "Martial arts" category next to the "Bloodsport" category is thus warranted, as it enriches the sum of information the article presents to its readers. 2) The argument that it is supposedly double listing is dubious. Bloodsport movies may be martial arts movies, yet not all martial arts movies are Bloodsport movies - thus there is a proper distinction to be made. Correctly pointing out that the Bloodsport movie is part both of a series of movies with a similar theme of their own, as well as a part of the martial arts category at large is not double listing at all, but in fact the addition of relevant information on the subject being covered. In the future, please refrain from ommiting such relevant information from the article. 80.200.6.222 11:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:CG. Articles in sub-cats do not belong in higher level cats. I realise not all martial arts films are Bloodsport films, that is why Bloodsport is a sub-cat of martial arts. As for comments about mentality, please read WP:AGF. Mallanox 17:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

A bit of personal interpretation and common sense is warranted here as well I think. There being a policy to prevent the category section from becoming cluttered is both understandable and warranted even for an encyclopedic work. However the situation here calls for a case-by-case evaluation in my opinion. If a rigid adherence to this policy is causing you to seek to reduce the overwhelming number of three (3) categories in an article to two (2) solely on the basis that you seek to prevent 'cluttering', then now is perhaps a good moment to pour some additional thought into your interpretation on the meaning and purpose of that rule. 81.240.56.159 08:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the question of being both in a category and a subcategory of that category is mentioned here: Categories#Some_general_guidelines. If it helps your case the policy is that the article should just be in the subcategory. This doesn't appear to be among either of the two exceptions(cases where people wouldn't expect to be required to check a subcat, nor a case where it defines a category of its own). Cheers, i kan reed 11:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is rather sad that as a direct result of Mallanox his apparent inability to make a due case-by-case evaluation, this encyclopedic article is effectively rendered less complete and less accurate because of his actions. I'm not going to make an edit war out of this, as such is beneath me, but the truth remains that the loser of this debate ultimately is the informative quality of this article. And not I. Cheers. 80.200.10.20 17:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This list is speculative at best. If Jackson was a vale tudo fighter, by the definition that it's anything goes, every drunken bar guest who starts a fight is a vale tudo fighter. What Suan Paredes did certainly didn't look much like capoeira, simply moving your arms a lot does not make it become capoeira and it didn't look like he was trying to pretend that it was either.. I realize that with the growing popularity of MMA, everyone and their mother wants to proclaim themselves an expert on martial arts but unless claims made on this list can be backed up by sources I think it should be removed or at least trimmed. Debolaz 04:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

ITs no longer a collector's item! its been sold again since 2006. here are two buyable links for instance: http://music.barnesandnoble.com/Bloodsport/Paul-Hertzog/e/827034002028/?itm=4 http://www.amazon.com/Bloodsport/dp/B000PFU816/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1226854529&sr=8-2

on top of that amazon has it available on their mp3 downloads section of their website also the entire soundtrack is avaible on itunes 67.167.180.64 (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to delete the Overview section?

It is poorly written-- the tone suggests that they were written by a hardcore Frank Dux fan, or perhaps Frank Dux himself.

The references are useless. Reference 1 links to a three-paragraph abstract of an L.A. Times article. Reference 2 links to an unsourced article from a movie site. The unnumbered link to the LA County Superior Court leads to a page offering the opportunity to purchase PDF files of the court documents.

The third paragraph, about the moral philosophy, is backed up by nothing.

Rasher11 (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've probably seen Bloodsport about 30 times. It's one of those movies that's so bad it's good. This article is written oddly and has some questionable and downright wrong information. First off, it states that there were 512 fighters in the tournament. Whoever added that probably made the graph, which I'll get to in a second, because he has 9 "first round" matchups. It's not stated or implied in the movie the number of fighters, rounds, or even if it's a single elimination tournament. If anything, it's implied that it's a round robin that becomes an elimination tournament at the end, because we see several of the same fighters fighting multiple people.

Now, to that graph... there are people given generic names, and in other cases the names are wrong. Like there's Geese Howard. I wonder why the graph creator thinks a Fatal Fury character was in this movie. I was so confused I googled a bit and apparently some people think the "Aussie" looks like Geese Howard, but he's never called that in the movie or the credits. Also, there's a "* RIP" in the lower right of the graphic, indicating that a character died in that fight. Isn't that an odd way to write it? Why not just put "* Died in this fight" instead of an informal term.

72.177.54.190 (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Badr Hari can't be Paco; he would have been 4 at the time of filming. [IMDB] goes with Paulo Tocha. 93.66.216.71 (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Also Donald Gibb is still alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.151.104.195 (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

How can one review be described in the article as having the film being met "mostly" with critical derision? It's one movie reviewer's opinion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.55.214.98 (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Two years later, I've fixed it. Sort of. I'll be back in 2014. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I recall there being a controversy section here specifically dealing with the claim that the movie is based on a true story. There's a small section in the article on Frank Dux, but as I recall, there used to be a section dealing with the claims in the movie (e.g. Dux's record for fastest knock out, fastest punch thrown, the plot of the movie itself, etc.). To me, that section seems both relevant and interesting, provided it's properly sourced. Is there a reason it was deleted? 76.167.253.199 (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

We start running into [WP:BLP]] problems real quickly, because it all devolves into aspersions against Frank Dux, and none of the mess is reliably sourced one way or another. The material hasn't been in this article for a couple years, at any rate. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added a simple and sourced two words to the lead. If anyone wants to know the details, they can follow the link. No harm done. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

"Producer Mark Di Salle said he was looking for "a new martial arts star who was a ladies man", but Van Damme appeals to both genders." <- WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.44.97 (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I know what it means, but it seems unencyclopaedic. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The script was rewritten by the Cannon crook production when a friend of Cizia dropped the idea in their office in Paris, Champ Elysées in the 80's They had no news following this synopsis let by Thierry Poncet but once the movie was released on VHS, Zyke laughed hard in front of his VCR in Indonesia.

Bunch of crooks posse.

http://blog.thierryponcet.net/2016/09/zyke-laventure-30-sexe-pur-balinais.html#comment-1423 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.30.197 (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Note that for once it's not an English man who discovered, found, invented, created the script, unbelievable... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.30.197 (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Death touch is the accurate term per https://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/bloodsport.php. Donner60 (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

NekoKatsun Did you watch the film? Because he definitely did defeat the agents, wounding two police officers and taking their guns. Banedon (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The section even currently says he "agrees to return with Helmer and Rawlins after the tournament". How did Dux do that if he's running away? Banedon (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the claim about films shot there. The archived source claims only 2 films were shot inside the city. However, lists exist showing upwards of 35 movies and documentaries shot in or on the city. ~2025-36229-94 (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

But are they American films? (Granted, if the lists you reference include all films, there were probably 35 shot each year by Shaw Brothers from 1970–1975.) Carguychris (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)