Talk:Rocky IV

Please go to

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.

The article lists one of the bands contributing to this soundtrack as Europe, but it is not mentioned at all in the Rocky 4 Soundtrack article. What gives? Swampfox1942 (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BetacommandBot 10:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am watching Rocky IV on DVD right now. At the start of the press conference, after Apollo's funeral (about 33min 52sec into the movie) is when this is discussed. At 33:58, a reporter asks "Is this the first time the Champion has given up his crown?". Then, at 34.01 a newspaper is shown with the headline "ROCKY vs RUSSIAN - Rocky gives up title to avenge Apollo's death". I do not know why he had to give it up, perhaps unsanctioned fighting is against the rules of the Boxing Commission, but either way I hope this clears things up once and for all. --User:Hayden5650 (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is one of the catagories- is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.184.81 (talk • contribs) 08:42, September 25, 2009

I don't think it should be, and I'm dubious about other entries at

wt:film) 13:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm against propaganda movies in generel, but propaganda against such unhuman system as communism is smth positive — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrom1234 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

During the working out scene in the film, with the soundtrack "Hearts on fire" I am curious of the weight that Ivan Drago is lifting. The barbell he pushes above his head has three iron plates on either side, so if anyone has the information on that it would be most appreciated. The-do-right-man 15:26, 03 May —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-do-right-man (talk • contribs) 14:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually four plates on each side. Three larger ones and a fourth smaller one. As you may know, in weightlifting plates are usually in 5, 10, 25, 35 and 45 lbs formats. Judging by the plates' diameters in the movie, I would guess that the largest ones were supposed to represent 45 lbs each, and the slightly smaller ones, 35 lbs each. You must also consider the weight of the bar, which for an olympic one, is 45 lbs. This gives a clean and press totalling 385 lbs, performed with better-than-perfect form. 76.10.155.231 (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the film specify that Drago was Russian? Keep in mind that Soviet and Russian aren't the same thing. His nickname suggests that he was from Siberia, but Siberia was partially in Kazakhstan at the time. It's been some time since I've seen the film, so I can't remember whether or not his place of birth is mentioned more specifically than Soviet Union. I'm sure American characters in the film call him Russian, but this is a subject people are willingly ignorant about. He could have been Latvian, Kazakh or Belorussian and been no less Soviet. Unless it can be verified that he was in fact born in the Russian SFSR, he should only be referred to as Soviet and not Russian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.172.148 (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gee.. he is "only" called "THE RUSSIAN" throughout the whole movie. Its a Rocky movie, no need to get so intellectual into his background story, if Ivan Drago THE RUSSIAN happens to be not from Russia... Then no one wants to know, and no one will ever agree that "THE RUSSIAN" is from another country... thats stupid :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.97.130 (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor keeps adding details of a Facebook campaign to have the film added to the National Film Registry: [2]. Please note that it is against Wikipedia guidelines to add propaganda to articles. In keeping with

A recent AFD for Ivan Drago was closed as keep but with merge options on the table. The issue with Drago's article is that 90% of it duplicates the plot of Rocky IV and otherwise trying to portray the fictional character as a real-world boxer (even with athlete boxes), and the rest - the influence of the character, is universally tied with the impression of the USSR at the time of this film smack in the middle of the Cold War - Drago himself is not so much notable as it is how the USSR was portrayed and Drago represented as a symbol of that. This content should be merged into here. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merge. I already stated my reason why in the AFD, and no requirement to explain why I'm against it in a merge discussion. Dream Focus 19:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Since this is the exact same discussion we just finished with, I went and contacted everyone who participated in the AFD. Dream Focus 19:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose merge. Ivan Drago is documented as an American cultural icon of the USSR - in fact, I have heard the phrase "Rocky vs. Drago" as a euphemism for the Cold War. To delete or even merge this article would be absurd. -- Another n00b (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The whole movie is like that. Pretty much everything about it warrants discussion, and the character is only a part of that. Anything placed into this article is just going to be copying the main article without anything unique on the topic. TTN (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: There is absolutely nothing unique that can go into the Drago article that wouldn't fit succinctly into a section discussing the entire topic in this article. Just because there are sources that can apply to a subtopic does not mean the subtopic needs to be split from the parent without overly sufficient weight being placed onto the subtopic. TTN (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Merge - Let it stand as a freestanding article; sufficient cultural import of this fictional character to justify such. Carrite (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no sources to support this. Being a target of popular culture references is not the same as cultural import. --MASEM (t) 19:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, yes, it is. That's how you know how important something was, by how many references it gets in notable places. Dream Focus 20:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a measure of popularity, and explicitly not a metric for notability that we use. --MASEM (t) 20:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge Whether to cover a fictional character in a stand alone article or as part of the parent article is always a judgment call. I believe that a stand alone article is justified in this case because of detailed discussion of the character in reliable sources; Masem disagrees. I saw relatively little enthusiasm for merging in the AfD debate just concluded, so I believe that consensus supports the status quo. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no secondary sourcing in the article at the present time (specifically about the character) and while there are some sources that were identified in the AFD, they are sources that reflect on the image of the USSR at the time of the movie's run, with Drago just a part of that. If I were to enact cleanup of that article right now, it would be left with one or two paragraphs (and one would be duplicating the plot summary here). Hence the merge makes sense. --MASEM (t) 19:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You didn't get your way in the AFD, so you started the same discussion here the day it closed, and are arguing with everyone. Please don't "enact cleanup" of an article you failed to eliminate by other means, after this ends with no consensus to merge. It seems to me this is just gaming the system, doing the same discussion over again if you don't get your way. Deletion an article by 100% or just 99% with a token sentence of two "merged" elsewhere, its the same thing. Dream Focus 20:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge is not deletion, and you'll note I didn't say "delete" in the AFD. We have a topic that is barely notable for a standalone article and currently is heavily into too many primary/plot summary details. But it is a topic that should be discussed, but a much more comprehensive coverage - beyond the plot aspects - is when it is discussed as part of the reception and impact of Rocky IV, not as a separate character article. We are not required to write a separate article on a notable topic if that topic is better discussed elsewhere and that's exactly the case here - everything about Drago is a facet of the larger image of the Cold War USSR that Rocky IV presented and thus a merge makes sense. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this suggestion. --MASEM (t) 20:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • You didn't say delete, you said redirect, which is basically the same thing, since it results in no one seeing the article anymore. Merge is deletion in many cases, this one of them. You don't honestly believe any reasonable amount of information from this article would actually be preserved at its new location do you? Dream Focus 20:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Neither merge or redirect is deletion, and that is a fallacy to think it is (the attribution history is retains if anything is not copie into the target article at any time if something was left, something that can't be done with deletion). Having that attitude that merging/redirecting is the same as deletion prevents rationale discussion about improving articles by using only one article for comprehensive coverage of multiple related topics, as the case here. --MASEM (t) 21:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If anyone would like to improve the article with sources that demonstrate cultural impact and remove excessive in-universe details, as I have recently started, that might be more helpful than just saying he is or isn't a cultural icon. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Merge for now as I suspect enough sourcing exists to make it stand alone. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

suspecting sources exist is not the same as actually providing them.

the proof of the puddins in the tasting? got a spoonful you can share? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oppose merge It seems most simple and straightforward to keep content about the character under the character's name. Warden (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not when the character is barely notable and what is notable is due to the direct tie with the only work that they appeared in and which is tied with the reception and legacy of that film, and where there are no pressing SIZE issues with the film article for inclusion. --MASEM (t) 21:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose merge There's some good sourcing on Drago's page--Noy's book is one pertinent example. I expect more will come. Moreover, Drago is more than a movie character, a boxer, he is a cult figure. He is expected to be references (heavily) in the upcoming movie Creed, and there's talk of a rematch between him and Balboa, taking place as they both come out of retirement.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, we're not talking about lack of sourcing, but the minimal amount of sourcing about Drago in a completely separate context from Rocky IV and its portrayal of the USSR , which is not really there. Both these articles would be more comprehensive with the discussion of the character in one article. The assumption that Drago will be in Creed is
    WP:CRYSTAL (and just being references with the fiction is not expanding on him out-of-universe which is what is desirable for a fictional character. --MASEM (t) 01:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Dear Sir, very good points. However, the character is indeed a cultural icon--perhaps surpassing the title role in this film--and as such I do think he merits a page. More sources? Yes, you are right. Let's all work on that.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The key is that these need to be sources that put Draco as a cultural icon separately from the representation of the USSR from the film, since everything else I've seen lists Drago as the figurehead of this USSR figure from Rocky IV. It is important that the cultural icon of how Soviet Russia was portrayed in the film on this page, and I suspect Drago will be throughout all those sources, but we don't want to have mass duplication between this article and Drago's. That's why the cultural icon nature of Drago needs to be almost its own unique topic and not at all tied in with the USSR factor, and that I think will be difficult. That's why the merge makes tons of sense here, because the USSR and Drago facets are so co-mingled that it makes no sense to talk about them separately. --MASEM (t) 00:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sir, indeed your arguments are sound. But please note the sources on Mr. Drago's page have both USSR-related references and about his impressive training regimen. Indeed, that is a fascinating, provocative, and controversial scene in the film, and I have run across many sources that could be included. I just don't know if they are what a consensus would note as reliable.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Sounds like a sensible idea. The reality is that it was a fairly limited character in a single movie. Everything about him will really be more or less in-universe. There won't be anything new developing with the character. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that I can agree that "There won't be anything new developing with the character". In addition to appearing in most of the Rocky fighting games released every few years, there have been several new Ivan Drago action figures and dolls released in the past few years, not to mention replica costumes and t-shirts. Someone even made a silly Ivan Drago video game, and while it's fanmade and doesn't "count", it does show enduring interest in the character 30 years later. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merchandise doesn't really mean much in regards to notability, else most characters could have articles based on that fact alone. The fact that the character is noted occasionally does not mean it is a larger topic than the movie, nor does it mean that it needs a separate article. The only way anything will develop is if that thing about him being in Creed actually turns out to be true. Any reception and discussion on how his character is used and developed compared to the previous portrayal would likely be enough to establish this article as more than just a single film appearance. TTN (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge not sure why Masem is so stuck on this idea, but I don't agree with it. The character is a cultural icon beyond merely existing in the film, and I'm sure a fair number of people rememer Drago but couldn't necessarily name which Rocky movie he was in without looking. To use an example, Oddjob and Jaws each have their own articles, and I'm sure not everyone who remembers them could easily name what villain's henchmen they were and which Bond movies they appeared in. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument even for merge discussions. As to Oddjob and Jaws - Oddjob has the same problem in that the current state of the article is poor and with details better suited in a larger article, but as we have separate articles on the novel and the film which he appears in both, there's no real good merge candidate since the character remains a searchable term. Same with Jaws and there because of being both in multiple books and films with separate pages. Remember, we're not talking about deleting the page - if a person wants to search on "Ivan Drago" and the merge was completed, they would land on Rocky IV and likely the section that best discusses the character, so not knowing what movie he was in is not a barrier here. And again, I stress that Drago's "cultural icon" is part and parcel of Rocky IV's USSR's representation, and separating the discussion makes for less comprehensive discussion or over duplication between two articles. --MASEM (t) 20:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Support Merge. Unless you're a diehard Rocky fan, I really can't see why this character is notable enough to have his own article. I would agree that merging the content to the movie might not make sense but maybe merge it to the actor's article might be more logical. I did originally vote to keep it, but something that's notabile only to a movie fanbase should be merged to either the Rocky article or the aformentioned actor's page. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 01:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• support merge there are no sources actually
  verifying the claimed "cultural icon" status. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose merge As the character clearly meets
  WP:GNG. If we're going to say that the GNG is the hallmark for whether something should have a standalone article on Wikipedia or not, then the expectations are perfectly clear: a separate article is expected by the GNG, given the level of coverage of this fictional character noting reception, influence, and cultural significance. Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

At the end of the "analysis" section it says that "On experiment showed after viewing the movie, some Russian subject lost self-esteem". However, on the source given the author says that the experiment was the reverse of what's described: Which is, a modified version of the movie was shown in which Rocky lost to the Russian (rather than defeated him). The source itself cites another source on this experiment, though, which is the European Journal of Social Psychology 24(6), (November–December 1994), pp. 641–657. Unfortunately I haven't been able to check the Journal myself, so instead of suggesting anything I'll just ask: Should this statement stays the way it is now or should it be changed to match the source given? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.119.132 (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be some mention of the film's training montage as a pop-culture touchstone? It, along with its accompanying music have been referenced in numerous subsequent productions as a kind of pinnacle of '80s montages, including Family Guy, linked here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXej_1-Mv38 — Preceding unsigned comment added by O0drogue0o (talk • contribs) 09:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We would need independent reliable sources making this observation. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Drago's trainer comments that American society has become "pathetic and weak" and "antagonistic and violent," a common fascist trope depicting an enemy both weak and strong at the same time"

Well, Apollo Creed literally says this: "It's us against them". If you think about this, this line alone makes the American side as much fascist as the Soviet side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.234.98.17 (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]