Talk:The Manchurian Candidate (2004 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Adjectives?

Is it really necessary for the adjectives to be highlighted as links? Do people really not understand what "manipulated" means? --Charles 21:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

implants

Complex electronic implants play at least as large a role as psychological manipulation by MG. This should be brought into the article. Kdammers 10:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Plot Summary, language usage

Does anyone know a better way to express this statement without losing the basic point and adding needless wordage? I had edited it to remove a context "disagreement", but the sentence structure is the same.

While on the podium at the election night celebration party, the newly elected Shaw and Major Marco, with a rifle aimed at the stage, realize what must be done.

Angelsy1 08:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

UIP using the UN flag

It doesn't seem very appropriate for UIP to be using the United Nations flag - they might be a multinational organisation, but they certainly aren't anything to do with the UN 86.138.33.42 17:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed vanalism

There were a number of un-sourced flagrant POV edits and comments that made no sense made by 71.40.88.199. I reverted to September 19 version. SlowJog 01:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There were some edits that made the tag line and awards appear garbled. I don't know if they were vandalism or poor editing. I undid them. SlowJog 22:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the last scene?

It looked quite ominous and seemed to point to a deeper conspiracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.150.130 (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Medal of Honor

you people seemed to have missed the significance of the last scene, and left out the meaning of the medal of honor in the movie. Shaw is "given" the medal of honor only because he was brainwashed in the beginning, then in one of the last scenes he gives the medal to Marco, because he says he doesnt deserve it. However, when he is assassinated he is voluntarily, and in the last scene Marco buries the medal with his picture, showing that in the end, he did earn it by giving his life for his country. I'll put this down, and to the person who mentioned the last scene, Ill also put down the non closure of the conspiracy at the end. --Steinfeld7 (talk) 06:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

story

CONTENT REMOVED BY -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email --Danaide (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT WP:FORUM WP:SPAM. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

about the ending

I couldn't really understand the connection between Marco being shot in the chest and then wearing a plaster on his arm at the end of the film. I read the explanation in the article and found it plausible, but still it's hard for me to believe that it's a so obvious mistake. If someone is holding a gun in his right hand, do you have to shoot his left side (from a meters distance) to disarm him? And how did Rosie (the agent) know that Marco is about to commit suicide? Or else, why did she take out her gun and start running only after she got aware of the shot being fired (when she found out the location of Marco before that, based on Shaw's look). Maybe it's not pivotal to the film but as I said, it confused me into not fully understanding the ending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.120.168.168 (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Manchurian Global

Manchurian Global is mentioned in the film as some sort of private equity fund! It´s not just an ordinary manufacturer, they are controlling companies through investing billions in weapons, military equipment and all kinds of service and support for the military forces - maintaining even some sort of private army to support US-forces - and benefits in this way from fear, war and chaos (Similarities to Halliburton and their connection to former Vice President Dick Cheney aren´t accidentally). So the description in the latest version of the plot is not correct. --93.135.107.241 (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Plot Summary

The plot summary is confusing and convoluted, overly referencing the original movie to the point of obfuscation. Could somebody streamling/clarify it? Perhaps give the references to the original movie its own section?--72.200.118.52 04:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree I couldn't follow the plot summary at all. --Rodzilla (talk) 04:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree Very hard to follow. Such comments should be reserved for a new section, possibly. Tpoore1 02:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"The motives behind the brainwashed assassination plot in the 2004 version are more straightforward than the collusive politics of the original version" I think the motive in the original version is quite clear: get the Iselins into the White House where their Communist plant (Mrs. Iselin) has control over the Presidency of the U.S.

The summary needs a lot of revision. --Limxzero (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)