Talk:Captain Eager and the Mark of Voth

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article needs an appropriate infobox template.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Must Try Harder[edit]

If you're going to bother having an article about a movie this obscure, perhaps you should at least get the facts right. For starters, the director's name is Simon Davison, sometimes spelled "DaVison". It is not "DaVision".

More importantly, the very brief plot summary given here directly quotes the film's own publicity material, which doesn't accurately describe the thing it's trying to promote, probably because a truthful description of the movie would sell anything up to two DVDs, depending on how many of Simon Davison's parents are still alive. Of the people mentioned, several are major characters, but Scamp the Rocket Dog, a real dog with its head and legs sticking out of a cardboard box covered with tinfoil, has nothing to do with the plot or anything else, and appears on screen for only a few seconds. I suppose the publicists thought the words "Scamp the Rocket Dog" were the funniest thing in the movie. If so, they were right. As for Nurse Boobalicious, as far as I could tell she isn't in the film at all. And, unlike the author of this article, I've actually seen it. You certainly won't find any mention of that character in the credits, whatever the official website may claim.

The "Reception" section was clearly written with the intention of making the film sound far more popular than it is. It did not "polarize" critics; several of them liked it, but the vast majority thought it was an abysmally unfunny so-bad-it's-just-plain-lousy piece of crap, as reflected by its Rotten Tomatoes score of 10% (audiences certainly weren't polarized, since the Rotten Tomatoes audience rating is zero). If "polarized" means "not every single critic in the whole world hated it", you probably could say the same about every film ever made.

As for its "surreal" qualities and "knowing satire", what it actually is is a direct parody of Captain Video and his Video Rangers. This is made clear by the inclusion on the DVD of one of the surviving episodes of that ancient serial so that viewers who aren't old enough remember a children's programme that was last broadcast in 1955 will understand why they're supposed to laugh.

Perhaps it's worth mentioning that its worldwide gross was, according to IMDb, $1,056. I think that figure speaks for itself. Though I supppose it's an achievement of sorts for a film as cheaps as this one obviously was to somehow manage to make a loss. 86.130.233.241 (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]