Talk:Push (2009 film)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Push (2009 film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Film: British / American

	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 is supported by the American cinema task force.

Science Fiction Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Magneto

Totally my fav character! He reminds me of my dead uncle :'-((. He was so funny ;-). Here you go, there you go, w'all lov'ya Magneto!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.191.193 (talk) 06:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precognition not Clairvoyance

Cassie and other Watchers, while on some occasions exhibiting a minor talent for Clairvoyance, are more commonly shown to be using Precognition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precognition Cassie even says it herself in the movie: "I see the future not the past." Clairvoyance is seeing remote things, Precognition is seeing the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.21.161 (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jumper

Any relation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.131.7 (talk) 08:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

none whatsoever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.128.81 (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick typo fix.

Changed "» Shadows - Can clock themselves in a shadow, almost as if they're invisible." Fixed CLOCK to CLOAK. Tophy (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, like we couldn't tell. You don't need to write a typo correction on the discussion page y'know, that's a minor edit. 207.164.158.194 (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Headlines

Edit Bay Visit: Paul McGuigan's Push, November 10, 2008

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two 2009 films Push

There are two listed at IMDB, and the other one is showing at the Sundance film festival: Olson, Jenni (2009-01-13). "2009 Sundance Q Preview". It looks like to avoid confusion it is being referred to as "PUSH: BASED ON A NOVEL BY SAPPHIRE" --Larrybob (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of Push?

Stephen King's novel Firestarter features a character who has the psychic ability to "push" thoughts and emotions into other people's minds, like hypnosis. He even refers to it as "pushing". --160.39.72.202 (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure your question is about etymology so much as whether this movie could be said to have stolen the concept of psychic "pushing", but interestingly etymology would shed light on your question. In this instance it may or may not have been inspired by Stephen King (I have no idea), but the concept of "pushing" one's thoughts on others is a far older one. In the definition of the verb "to push" is both the notion of physical force (such as "to shove"), but "push" also means "to coerce or persuade" or "to promote". In the context of psychic pushing you could almost say it contains a couple of the definitions simultaneously... both that thoughts are being metaphorically "shoved" into your head, but also that those thoughts are usually coercive (i.e. "put the gun in your mouth"). http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/push <-- for further reading if you actually do want to see the proper etymology. The fascination with the idea of forcing one's ideas onto someone else is older than Firestarter. 99.244.123.31 (talk) 06:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about 'etymology' but the film version of Firestarter (at least) was about a government agency after a pair of 'enhanced' young people... one who could adjust other people's thoughts, one who could start fires. Sounds familiar. Rapscallion (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This movie sounds remarkably similar to author Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn series. 67.151.81.122 (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Push (2009 action film) → Push (2009 film) — Per WP:NCF, since the other Push film is apparently going under the monicker of Push: Based on a Novel by Sapphire, this film article should only have "2009 film" in the title. The only time you put "action" in there is when you have two pages with the exact same title. Since the other film doesn't share the "exact" title, this should not be dabbed to "2009 action film". — BIGNOLE (Contact me) 08:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support since Push: Based on a Novel by Sapphire seems frequently used... seems like the media is disambiguating the films, so we don't have to. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. On the dab page for Push, the only other film of the exact title is titled Push (2006 film). It follows that this page should be named similarly. Bovineboy2008 (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as Erik and Bovineboy2008 said it better than I can. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 23:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Action is not relevant in this case.207.164.158.194 (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Premise Section

I added a new section, Premise, before the Plot section, and I moved most of the information from the Cast and characters section into it. As it was, the plot section was rather freely using the in-universe terms for the special abilities, which weren't explained until the following section. By explaining the abilities first, the terms can continue to be used in the plot summary. I took a lot of information out of the descriptions of the powers, because I don't remember any of that information being presented in the film; I simplified them to simply describe what was seen on screen, in terms of conventional paranormal abilities whenever possible. The plot summary needs a lot of work, as well, so I'll take a crack at that later if nobody else does first. --DavidK93 (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote Plot section

Whoever wrote that plot section should either be re-educated in the ways of synopsis writing, given decent English lessons, learn to spell-check or, failing all three, be shot. Please, editors, if you're not up to it, don't force your particularly unique and severely lacking version of the English language upon the world. Just don't. 207.164.158.194 (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coraline

I just notice that this film along with Coraline were opened at the box office on the same weekend. Their relation is that Dakota Fanning were born in these movies. I'm just asking that can we mention that Coraline received a higher number and more money than Push did at the box office. talk 22:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

watchers abilites

i am pretty sure that different watchers see the future in different way and that while the chinese girl could see the future with the intent of others i dont think that is the only way like i think that american girl can see it as snapshots or somthing(not relly sure) and that hers can be changed just by knowing and talking about it while the chinese girls can be change if the targets intetions change or if they have none at all.the article say watchers can only see it through intentions so i wanted to see if anyone else disagrees before i change it and mess it up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.162.25 (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

they can do the same thing, but Dakota's character was only a 2cd level watcher, and the chinese girl was a 5th or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.103.250 (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Visual effects

Push-ing Telekinesis Further with Peerless & Digiscope

Visual effects coverage. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This page is getting to be FanFic!" / Material from sources outside of the film need verification

Why is there stuff in here about the psychics, their history, and their abilities that in nowhere in the film?! The Po father was trained in the 1970s as an assassin? Movers really use "Kinetic signature control, where movers are near and identify atomic waves and alter the gravity around them"?! If you want to write FanFic, go write FanFic. Leave Wikipedia alone! - 22:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.226.149.113 (talk)

Presumably the facts are being taken from the comics. I agree though, that they don't belong on the article for the movie. 210.254.117.186 (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I changed the positive in "The film has received generally positive reviews by critics on its original release with critics claiming the film to be "visually flashy but hyperkinetic and convoluted"." to negative. On RT it has received roughly 80% rotten reviews. 64.72.40.119 (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think supplementary info from the comics is fine, but it needs to be sourced like everything else. This would follow with pages of other adaptations, where the mediums (comic/movie) might be contrasted. What's more disturbing to me is the wild extrapolation of info FROM the movie itself -- for instance, it suggests that Watchers' powers "ARE" increased by alcohol. Nowhere in the movie does it actually suggest this is true of all Watchers, in fact Cassie says her mother was famous for it (implying that many Watchers DON'T use alcohol to clarify their visions). Further, the other characters treat the suggestion of alcoholic-boosting with skepticism. Lastly, while I didn't want to delete the original heading of this talk section, I thought it could use a title that actually gave relevant info as to what the issue actually is. 99.244.123.31 (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Critics' Reviews

It says on the 1st section that the film got generally negative reviews. But on the Reception section, it got a positive review.

The article is contradicting with itself, need to clarify this and state some sources. Vekou (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack

Any information regarding the release of the movies soundtrack? Or if a soundtrack will be released at all? 58.106.108.146 (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Release Date

This movie has only recently been released in Australia. Surely this should be noted and the extra release date included in the article?

Crazybilby (talk) 07:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't shorten the plot section

I know it's more detailed than most, but this movie is incomprehensible for a lot of people. After watching it and not understanding more than 10 seconds of it, I was thrilled to find this synopsis. This is a complicated movie, and it needs a plot summary helps people understand it. Deane (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heist

This film is clearly a heist. It fulfills all the descriptions I've sen about heist films. Yeah, they have powers that use to perform the heist, but it isn't very different to abilities used in heist. They have to gather a troupe of people with unique abilities, each one with different reasons, some for the money, some for vengeance, etc... to fool the other parties and obtain their objective, and even if you are watching all the preparations, you don't see the real plan until the plot is unraveled at the end. It's a heist! 88.1.245.99 (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seven envelopes?

The article currently says "Nick devises a plan that involves seven envelopes in which he places instructions; each person in the group is entrusted with one red envelope, and none are to be opened until the right time" - is it just me, or were there only six envelopes? One for Nick, Cassie, Kira, Emily, Hook, and Pinky. Who else got an envelope? Aielyn (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wo Chiang. Nick gives him it before getting wiped. Presumably it says to make sure Nick wakes up with *his* envelope in his hands, then make himself scarce. (It's clearly not the same envelope, "Go Home" would not make sense as an instruction to Wo Chiang on his own house-boat! I suspect it doesn't mention going to save Cassie later, that was probably set up by her mother, even if it wasn't mentioned when Nick went to get wiped. I guess it could do though.) 86.9.109.71 (talk) 01:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Types of Superhumans

There seem to be a major addition to this section but there is no references to support it. I suggest either to revert back to the old revision or provide references to it. Right now, I am putting a accuracy dispute on this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daron82 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "Types of psychics"

TO my eye, that section was nothing more than the same type of fancruft that plagues articles for horror movies (where editors frequently try to add detailed lists of how every character was killed). THe references used for the opening paragraph were nothing more than a handful of reviews that didn't really pertain to the topic and the details under each type were interpretive at best. If there's ever any actual secondary sources discussing the types of psychics in real world terms somehow, such a section might be warranted. Millahnna (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Types of psychics, revisited

The links here for Pusher, Sniffer, etc. are not good, mostly linking to some general type of psychic ability that may or may not match the one here. This article needs a paragraph that simply defines these terms, using information and/or examples from the film. MikeR613 (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]