Talk:Cliffhanger (film)

Untitled

I have noticed that most Wikipedia entries for movies contain an analysis of the movie's realism, and a discussion of any factual errors made by the movie-makers. This article for Cliffhanger is a good example. Perhaps the 'bolt-gun' sounds far-fetched, but after all it is a movie. It's purpose is to entertain, not to teach us about the mechanics of rock climbing. Thoughts?

My objection is that the plot depends on things that are simply illogical or impossible. For instance, Stallone free-solos up an ultra-difficult route to reach his friend and novice girlfriend, who had to have gotten up there by some much easier route. (Novices don't do overhangs.) Why didn't he go that easier way, which would be much faster? Second, why couldn't the friend lower the novice and then rappel down? Rappelling, even multiple rappels, is all arms, no feet needed. And so on, and so on. Climbing is plenty exciting all by itself (witness the real-life story of the guy in Peru that had to crawl down by himself - everybody in the theater was wincing at his pain), it doesn't need to be pumped up with ridiculous scenarios. Stan 13:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Its a movie! Pure entertainment, its not supposed to be realistic. ToJPhantom 12:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely that it is a movie and not a documentary of film claiming to teach you about rock climbing. One thing which i was unsure about, why did Sarah's clip break? was it a manufacturing fault, or was the equipmnt not used appropriately? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.73.139 (talk) 13:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cliffhanger1.jpg

Image:Cliffhanger1.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 04:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cliffhanger2.jpg

Image:Cliffhanger2.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 04:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Video Game

Wasn't there a Sega CD-based video game based on this movie? Hrhadam (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Super Ninetendo, actually as well.63.168.68.102 (talk) 07:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cliffhanger Poster.jpg

Image:Cliffhanger 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 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) 21:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Re-make

"Cliffhanger appears to be a rip-off of "The Looters" with Rory Calhoun (1955). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.202.81.2 (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

False. MWBarretto24 (talk) 09:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cliffhanger (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/20140116093930/http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/c2fb077ba3f9b33980256b4f002da32c/02e2d8f9d51c19e48025745d003d75ab?OpenDocument to http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/c2fb077ba3f9b33980256b4f002da32c/02e2d8f9d51c19e48025745d003d75ab?OpenDocument

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 03:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

About this film.

Cliffhanger is the only Carolco film that was only film not to be released home video by Lionsgate in United States since Tri-Star Pictures had still the rights of Cliffhanger in North America, besides the overseas. Stephenfisher2001 (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Production financing of Cliffhanger / error

The Wiki artricle contains a factual error, but I am not (so far) proficient enough to make the edit. The text that concerns me is "Half of the film's budget was provided by TriStar Pictures in exchange for complete distribution rights in North America, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, and France. Other funding was provided by Rizzoli-Corriere della Sera, Le Studio Canal+, and Pioneer Electric Corporation."

The 3 companies cited as sources for "other funding" were shareholders of Carolco Pictures, and distributors of Carolco films, but they did not fund the production of Cliffhanger. The largest portion of the financing was provided by a Project Loan Facility arranged and managed by Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland ("CLBN") in the amount of $ 46,553,000. The collateral for this loan consisted primarily of distribution agreements that would pay out once the film was delivered to distributors, of which there were over 20 world-wide including the 3 shareholder/distributors cited above : RCF, Canal+ and Pioneer.

It is important to distinguish between, on the one hand, the entity (CLBN) that actually provides the funds and takes the risk of non-delivery, and on the other hand the entities that provide the collateral to the bank, but do not provide cash or take non-delivery risk. In essence, Calolco pre-sold the movie and those pre-sales were discounted by the bank, who in turn put up the money to finance the film. (Thus the bank also took the risk of a distributor defaulting on their pre-sale agreement, or going bankrupt before delivery).

I cannot provide an outside source or reference to prove this, other than my own personal records. I was the loan officer at CLBN who structured, arranged and syndicated the loan. My name (Michel Lebrun) figures in the end-credits of the film, near the end, under the 'special thanks' heading.

Unless anyone reading this post has an objection, I will proceed with an edit... once I figure out how to do that, in a couple of weeks. Thanks in advance.

P Michel Lebrun (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Pinging DisneyMetalhead and Dwanyewest since it appears these have edited this article the most. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Yikes. This is a difficult situation, seeing as Wikipedia requires citing sources (see: Wikipedia:Citing sources #When and why to cite sources... particularly the line: "y citing sources for Wikipedia content you enable users to verify that the cited information is supported by reliable sources – improving the credibility of Wikipedia while showing that the content is not original research.") -- I am not familiar with another way to verify your claim, though it would seemingly need to be sourced properly.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both for your replies, which prompted me to do some snooping around. I'll address the sourcing issue in two steps :

(A) The Carolco Pictures Inc. 10-K report for 1993, as filed with the SEC, states on page 59 "In June 1990, the Company, through a nominee of CINV, and Canal+ formed a partnership (the Carolco/Canal+ Partnership").  After its formation, Canal+, Pioneer and RCS entered into a series of co-production agreements with respect to the production of CLIFFHANGER. Pursuant to these co-production  agreements, Canal+, Pioneer and RCS made equity contributions in the aggregate amount of $16,726,000 ... and Canal+, Pioneer and an unrelated third party made bridge loans totaling $3,192,000 for the production costs of CLIFFHANGER... As of December 31, 1993, the bridge loans and accrued interest thereon had been repaid in full, and $4,547,000 of the equity contributions ... had been repaid. As of December 31, 1993 and March 31, 1994, the Company had advanced a total of $5,740,000 toward the production costs of CLIFFHANGER. The balance of the production costs of CLIFFHANGER were  obtained through a production loan provided by a syndicate of banks led by CLBN. The CLBN production loan earned interest at 3-month LIBOR plus 2% per annum and was repaid in full including accrued and unpaid interest on May 25, 1993."

Source : https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/801441/000091205794001368/0000912057-94-001368.txt

This confirms the reality of the CLBN Loan, but does not inform as to the amount. Simple maths would give a ballpark figure. The budget was 70 million. The equity + loans from the strategic investors were 16.7 + 3.2 million. Carolco itself invested 5.7 million. That would leave a funding shortfall of roughly 70.0 - 16.7 - 3.2 - 5.7 = 44.4 million.

(B) It was customary in the 1980's and 90's for banks to memorialise a successful loan syndication by creating "tombstones" that were gifted to the participating banks, the client(s), the lawyers and others who had worked on the deal. Tombstones are printed cardboard plaques embedded in plexiglass (the print containing summary information about the loan, with logos etc.), and much like a trophy they were destined to adorn the office shelves of assorted bigwigs and wannabe hotshots. I have dug out and dusted off my Cliffhanger tombstone, and it does say US$ 46,553,000 Project Loan Facility. I don't know if that constitutes a 'printed source' but I could upload it to a DropBox file made publicly available. Or there might be a more anonymous way to do it? Would that cut it?

Preview : https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/e2be8rsz6on5gqpc43i1o/Cliffhanger-Tombstone.jpg?rlkey=jq3k3o2awu0nv9npnocghnldo&st=3y2zaizv&dl=0

Thanks again for your help, looking forward to your comments. 2A02:A03F:6574:3700:2D5D:24AE:43EB:D036 (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to log in when I posted on 16:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC). Confirming the post is from me (P Michel Lebrun) apologies am still getting the hang of this wiki thing... P Michel Lebrun (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)