Talk:I Am Number Four (film)

Infobox and External links Edited

Hello, per the External Links policy, I have added the films official Facebook and Twitter page to the External links section. After looking through them I believe they provide unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. I have removed Steven Spielberg from the Producers and Touchstone Pictures from the Distributors in the infobox to better reflect the films credits, as well as added the pseudonym name to the authors of the novel. If anyone would like to discuss these changes, I'd be happy to do so. HipJorge (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just following up on this, I looked on IMDb and Steven Speilberg is not listed as a Producer, so I have removed his name from the infobox. If there is any confusion about the edit, I'd be happy to discuss. Thanks! HipJorge (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

As this is a film based on a novel that was released first, shouldn't I Am Number Four (novel) be moved to just I Am Number Four? Then this could be I Am Number Four (film). Anyone else agree? Glimmer721 ^talk 01:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Totally. We should give the original the honour of not having anything tacked onto the title, as well as to keep it standardised. Look at Jurassic Park, Jurassic Park (film), and Jurassic Park (franchise). First come, first served. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of the move, just the links need to be updated. Glimmer721 ^talk 16:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plot contains content from novel?

I think this section in the plot contains content from the plot of the novel.

"However, John tells him he can’t because he’s in love with Sarah. When a Lorian falls in love, it only happens once, and the two lovers become connected forever."

I saw this movie today and at the part where Henri confronts John about his relationship with Sarah I don't remember any references to this fact about Lorian culture. I haven't read the novel but i think this may be explained in the novel. Maybe someone who has seen the film and read the novel can tell me for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.148.118 (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back from the movie. It's not said that they're "connected forever", and John doesn't explicitly say he wants to stay because of her. However, Henri does explain that Loriens love forever, at great length, and at the end of the movie John says to Sarah that he can only love once. It seems the rest of the plot is also coming from the book, I haven't read it and so things don't appear to be in good order, and there are details that are only hinted at in the movie. In fact the first paragraph and a half is "background information", not at all what the beginning of the movie looks like. Aesma (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a key diff is in Sarah. If the book says they are 'connected forever' this seems to imply it has some effect on Sarah. But from the movie, I would say it's fair to say John is going to love Sarah forever. But as Sarah is not a Lorian the movie to me didn't seem to say this would mean she would (of course as a teen movie it's clear they would be but that's a diff matter). Nil Einne (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its says that Loreins fall in love with another Lorein, they can only love them. When they fall in love with a human it doesn't count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.72.49 (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Home Media

I want to bring the home media section up to speed, so I drafted a new version. The draft can be found here. Any and all feedback would be greatly appreciated. --TravisBernard (talk) 15:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any resistance to this change over the last 5 days, so a went ahead and made the edit. If you have any additional suggestions, I am open to discuss them. --TravisBernard (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any Rumours of a Sequel?

I just watched the film today on DVD (haven't read the book or know anything about it at all). Does anyone know if there's talk of a sequel? It was certainly setup in the film at the end like there could be one, they laid the groundwork of a quest they were going on. Looking at the box office business on IMDB, which I guess doesn't include DVD sales, it looks like it only just broke even. So not the kind of thing that makes the studios be in a great hurry to sequelize it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.155.180.171 (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a sequel is currently being filmed. See https://when-release.com/movies/I-am-number-four-2-release-date-2016 Nzoomed (talk) 11:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cast listing in the lede

A relatively new editor has reordered the cast listing, adding

1 2, the latter edit introducing some uncited information about "Pittacus Lore". I of course reverted it out, as we do not typically add every single actor's name to the article's lede. The new editor reverted his/her changed right back in, and I've reverted them again, pointing out that BRD means that after one's bold edit has been reverted, one is to head on over to discussion and sort matters out. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I plainly said in my edit summary, my source is the film's credits, which are also on the film's poster. Not hard to double check, as the poster is in the infobox. If you click on the author's name Jobie Hughes, his page explains the pseudonym. And as I said, if you think too many actors are listed, you don't remove the 2nd and 3rd billed. I put them in the correct order, then you removed the 2nd & 3rd, leaving the 4th, 5th, etc. Gothicfilm (talk) 10:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not questioning your source, Gothicfilm; I am stating that your observation of the cast order as presented by your observations isn't usable. Look at some FA quality articles They typically state the top three or four actors in the Lede, not the entire craft table assembly. If you wish to add the first three billed, then let's do that. It makes the Lede less cumbersome.

As for the John Hughes , you need to cite where a reliable source - speaking about this particular film - explains the pseudonym. We cannot use your deductions. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction Factory?

I read an AVClub article which discusses the fact that: "'I Am Number Four'... was the first property sold by Full Fathom Five, the 'fiction factory' of disgraced 'A Million Little Pieces' author James Frey; as chronicled in a scathing New York article, Frey offers young writers a few hundred dollars plus a profit share to ghost-write market-minded books he can shop around as multimedia properties." http://www.avclub.com/articles/i-am-number-four,52022/ Why is none of this discussed in the Wikipedia article?64.203.10.167 (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantic Grammar correction

The sentence "He is able to defeat the monster, but ends up injuring it's leg in the process." is grammatically incorrect, it should be "He is able to defeat the monster, but ends up injuring its leg in the process." 92.17.168.208 (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I started working on the plot summary, but I gave up quickly. It was easier to replace it with an older one from the article's history, back before it was massively bloated beyond what our guidelines recommend. I performed a few copy edits on it to make sure its comprehensible, but I haven't seen this film. If there are errors, feel free to fix them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on I Am Number Four (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/20110717002845/http://www.thehour.com/story/492272 to http://www.thehour.com/story/492272

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) 15:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]