Talk:Fall (2022 film)

Improvements undone

My improvements made on 8/13/2020 to the plot description should not have been undone by 2600:4040:12A9:5000:80F2:7B0:B01D:94FC, the original author, on that same date:

1. A communications dish is NOT a "satellite". To call it that is FALSE. When false information is found in an article and corrected to true information, that correction should not be undone.

2. The original author clearly does not have the best writing skills, particularly in regard to punctuation. That's fine, as this is not expected of all authors. What IS expected, however, is that the original author allow those with better writing skills to make needed improvements.

3. Explaining that the phone was stuffed into a shoe before placing it inside Hunter's stomach is clearly WAY too much detail. Removing this detail should not have been corrected.

The fact that all these improvements were summarily undone without any attempt whatsoever to improve upon the improvements clearly shows that the original author is of the attitude that their contribution must stand as is, and must not be improved upon by others, even when it includes false information. If that attitude continues, action will need to be taken against that author.

Since further edits have been done since, this undoing cannot be simply undone, forcing me to redo my improvements manually.

This undoing by the original author should be considered an act of vandalism, and appropriate steps taken against them. Dr.bobbs (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your pain, dude—but it's an imperfect world. Don't know if it helps, but I've learned to be philosophical about accuracy here. Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose—but the intellectual stimulation we gain from trying to help is never wasted. In the long run, we'll probably last longer, and thus benefit more people, if we avoid taking these sorts of things personally. Just saying. Cheers! – AndyFielding (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Budget

The budget listed in the Infobox was not properly sourced. The Infobox previously listed the budget as $3 million. An editor changed it to claim the budget was $3-4 million but did not provide any reliable sources to support either of those figures.[1] The start of production section said the budget was $3 million but it was not clear where this came from. The Variety reference at very the end of the Production section seems to have been the source of the $3 million budget figure.[2] I reused the reference to make the source clearer, please see WP:NAMEDREFS.

The Release section of the article says that Lionsgate spent $4 million to release and promote the film. Perhaps this is where the $4 million figure came from but release and promotional costs (P&A) are not the same thing as the budget.
Please do not add budget figures to the Infobox without reliable sources. -- 109.76.131.151 (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear the production budget was $3 million. Lionsgate "$4M P&A spend" was in addition to that, so it would see as if we're looking at $3 plus $4 million for total costs of at least $7 million spent, before ordinary people sat in cinemas and watched it. With Hollywood accounting we cannot assume that simple calculations are as simple as they seem. Be very careful not to make any assumptions or claims about the film being profitable either, studios have to share the box office gross with theaters (so only about half of the total domestic gross will go back to Lionsgate). -- 109.79.175.184 (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does it say about a film, and about the film business, when they spend more promoting a film than making the film itself? It makes me wish I'd watched the promotion instead. 😄 – AndyFielding (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

The plot section doesn't make a lot of sense right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.188.75 (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. It looks like a vandal added the last part here, and I reverted it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel? Really?

Following the popularity of the film's Netflix release, a sequel was announced in March 2023.
Will they be having people fall off of the same tower? Or will it be a different tower? Or maybe they'll be rising instead of falling? I'm just wondering how one could make a sequel for such a thing. Theories are welcome. – AndyFielding (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes

I noticed 2 mistakes. At 35:39 the ladder is already gone. Becky was wearing her ring on her necklace at the beginning of the climb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.149.18 (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eating Wildlife

Eating wildlife, especially raw, is extremely risky and should only be considered in truly extreme situations such as this. That said, vultures are not edible. The microbiome in their digestive system is poisonous to humans and their contact with rotting flesh makes all of their meat off limits. You would rather die of starvation up on that tower, or jumping off, than die of the poisoning while up on that tower. Also, vultures do not dive bomb their prey, as the prey is already dead there would be no reason. 68.162.69.176 (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]