 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Rnstew2.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I removed the reference to Andy Fitzsimon, as googling revealed nobody of encyclopedic interest by that name. If he is encyclopedic, feel free to add the name back and establish context. Tuf-Kat 07:28, Sep 10, 2003 (UTC)
Removed the statement that Curtis Mayfield also composed the Soundtrack for Shaft. This is just plain wrong. Shaft was scored by Isaac Hayes. [Anonymous]
This was removed from the article as it sounds like it came directly from an academic paper and provides very little information:
The beginning of the movie is filmed in a manner that uses long takes and wide camera angles. This creates many powerful effects throughout the movie. In one of the opening shots of the movie, the audience sees the street corner as if they were looking down on it from a rooftop; it is fully in color, very lifelike, and rapidly moving with people and cars. As the camera shifts its focus from the street scene and zooms in on the meeting between the two men, a more direct narrative is created. It is from this point on that “a classic linear narrative develops from one long take to another, the camera voyeuristically documenting the journey of the two men in the crowd.” [1] To further add to the unique narrative, the films editing is rhythmically motivated by the main song in the soundtrack sung by Curtis Mayfield. [1] "His voice makes you feel like a warrior, or just makes you feel invulnerable" states Diawara. The soundtrack album gives a realistic portrait of urban life and drug dealing without ever resorting to knee-jerk moralizing or clear anti-drug messages. This is what primarily what gives the album its appeal. It's just a more intelligent and down to earth record than most of those released as Soul during the era. Musically, it also leaps and bounds among the competition which influenced much more of the gangster rap. [1]
References
Why is this article titled Superfly when the film's title is Super Fly? That is even how it is spelled on the poster, two separate words. Gr8white 04:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
It should be one word. The poster is just like that for looks. Go do a search at Amazon. Every single version of the DVD and CD are listed with the one-word title, and on the soundtrack itself, the spine (which is in plain text), track listing and liner notes all use single word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.118.211 ( talk) 03:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The title should be explained. According to a suggestion on http://www.collinsdictionary.com/submission/7107/Superfly, it means a stylish person. 211.225.33.104 ( talk) 00:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm working from memory on this (I saw the movie 30-odd years ago), but I believe the reference to "Pusherman" is actually "The Pusher", a song composed by Hoyt Axton and most famously performed by Steppenwolf. If this my memory is not playing tricks on me, then the link should be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pusher. Marstinson 02:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
NO SONG TITLE ERROR ! The song IS "Pusherman" not "The Pusher". "Pusherman" was also released as a single from the movie's soundtrack. It was written and recorded by Curtis Mayfield. - rjshore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.115.16 ( talk) 14:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The anecdote about the pimpmobile is hilarious but undocumented. I an reluctant to draw attention to it for fear it will disappear due to overzealous camp followers. Any body have a reference for it ?--— Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 18:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Reardon claims that Priest doesn't have any money for something like that as they open his briefcase. Who is Reardon?-- Blaua ( talk) 08:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
It seems the article has been vandalized. I don't really have the time to fix it, though someone needs to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.43.79 ( talk) 21:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Doesn't appear to be vandalized. A very large, out of place, original research segment that didn't belong was removed. This is not vandalism. KiTA ( talk) 03:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
What do reliable sources say the film's budget was?
- The New York Times obituary for producer Sig Shore (2006) says "Superfly, which cost less than $100,000 and grossed more than $30 million".
- Black Film/White Money (1996) says "Superfly, with a $500,000 budget and $5 million gross in less than one year 'sets the tone for the black criminal as antihero.'"
- This biography of Curtis Mayfield by his son (2016) says "There's one other thing that the critics of Super Fly seem to miss. For the budget of less than $300,000, there isn’t that much you can do."
- The African American Lives biography of director Gordon Parks Jr. (2004) describes the film as having a "shoestring budget of $500,000".
Can anybody find other reliable sources? — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 05:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- I just did looked in VARIETY and found two pieces from 4 October 1972 ('"Super Fly' Sequel," and "'Super Fly' A Blackbuster Phenom," both on pg. 3). Both indicate that the original film's budget was "under $500,000." It also says that Warner Bros. paid $800,000 for distribution rights. There is absolutely no way that the film cost only $58,000, and the Sig Shore obit is a clear outlier among the various sources. (The obit is also likely wrong about the film grossing over $30 million, given that it grossed $5 million in its first year.)
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 17:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Super Fly (film) → Super Fly (1972 film) – Requesting move because this film has a remake currently filming: SuperFly (2018 film). In reviewing the sources about both films, there are several variations of the title. Both films have been called Superfly, Super Fly, and SuperFly. These distinctions are far too small to qualify for WP:SMALLDETAILS, so it seems best to make sure that both films, since there is no primary topic for the term, are properly disambiguated from each other. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 17:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support The names are too easily confused. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 20:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support as above In ictu oculi ( talk) 23:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- Qualified support. If I had a dollar for every time somebody in Hollywood said he was remaking Superfly or Shaft, I could have retired years ago. If reliable sources establish that there's a better than 50-50 chance that the latest talk of a remake will actually produce a new film, then both articles should include the years in their titles. So long as we're disambiguating in the title by adding "film", I think we should add the years. On the other hand, if the remake is another instance of empty but loud talk, with a big budget attached to it this time, the "article" about the "remake" should be deleted and (maybe) relegated to a single-sentence mention in this article, which doesn't need a year in its title. —
Malik Shabazz
Talk/
Stalk 04:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- Malik Shabazz, hah, I agree with that sentiment. FYI, though, the 2018 film is already filming. In the industry, a film that has started filming will almost definitely be released. It is before the start of filming that a film may never actually come together. That's why we use that as our threshold for WP:NFF. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 12:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support per nomination. Since SuperFly (2018 film) already has an entry, it stands to reason. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- Support WP:SMALLDETAILS only comes into play when the two are unambiguous apart from the minor difference, but when, as here, sources conflate them, then we must disambiguate further. -- Netoholic @ 09:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
"...and gives the briefcase carrying the money to a disguised Georgia in exchange for one full of rags."