Jump to content

Talk:Wanted (2008 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleWanted (2008 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 25, 2009Good article nomineeListed
July 11, 2014Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Mark Millar

[edit]
  • Mark Millar (2007-02-15). "Millar sees 30 mins of 'Wanted' previs, Holy God!". MillarWorld.tv. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Citation for possible use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for use

[edit]
Citation for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technical detail
See Red Digital Cinema Camera Company as well. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jolie's activities
Uses a "source", so not sure if this is reliable. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Official synopsis
Synopsis from the studio, I think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Production detail
Some information to include. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Millar's perspective
Compare and contrast to the comic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing detailed, just his opinion about how the project looks. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"primarily for a Russian viewer"

[edit]

Bekmambetov states that the movie is made "primarily for a Russian viewer" and that the original (American) version has "music with a Russian spirit and American actors playing like ours [i.e. Russians - VZakharov] would do" in his interview to Vedomosti newspaper, see http://www.vedomosti.ru/newspaper/article.shtml?2008/03/26/144316 (in Russian)

I'm not too good in wikipediing, but I think this information is worth mentioning in the article.

VZakharov (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I also think it's worth mentioning, but on a side note: the movie is also great for a czech viewer, as it was shot in Czech Republic, mainly, and there are lots of details that made most people in the cinema literally roll on the floor laughing. Like the train scene - the type of the train itself makes most czech people laugh, of reasons too hard to describe and how Fox chases the train in that car (I don't know what it's called) - the car is legendary as the slowest and most crappy car ever to ride any czech road. Just great, I think I enjoyed this already awesome movie even more thanks to stuff like that.

One more thing: I think the article should mention the movie is great. And I know about NPOV. Oh, sorry, forgot to sign myself: 85.70.174.197 (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poster

[edit]

Poster available here. http://www.collider.com/entertainment/news/article.asp/aid/7667/tcid/1 76.241.67.207 (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've added it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers on her forearm that can also be partially seen in the poster are ASCII letters which can be transcribed as "BPZMPTMCSN". Since the numbers used are not random it can be assumed that the letters are using some kind of cipher. 63.241.31.130 (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superhero Movie?

[edit]

I don't believe this belongs in the sub-category of Superhero Movies, should it be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.134.188 (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wesley's ability to act so fast as if time was slowed down is fairly super-natural. I wouldn't have put the movie in the Superhero category because it lacks other thematic properties of Superheros, most notably being a hero. But all things considered, I think it's best left in this category. 217.132.83.25 (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the above, plus the history of the film as a superhero comic book, I restored the film's status as a Superhero film. 217.132.83.25 (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's based on a comic book with Super-powered people in it. Also I don't know of non-Super people that can do the things te Fraternity members did. I say keep. 68.5.185.76 (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Things like that aren't inherited. The movie does not portray them as superheros, rather people with slightly abnormal body physiology. Q T C 02:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loom of Fate

[edit]

A lot of reviews make fun of the 'Loom of Fate', which I actually thought was a clever reference to Parcae, the mythological 'weavers' who determined when the person's life would end. Was it in fact a reference? Should this be in the article as trivia?Knyazhna (talk) 04:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia is frowned upon unless it can be worked into the article, and of course cited. As now, the connection is just speculation. Q T C 09:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most important factor that I noticed in this movie, Cross (Wesley's actual father) could have easily conveyed it to Wesley about Fraternity. He could keep a check on him all his life but couldn't convey such a simple thing. And then he comes up with it in the end. When he's about to die and that too in this manner. It seems illogical.

It is illogical, but then so is the movie as a whole. The Loom itself is indeed embarassing, because it is the sole supernatural element of the whole plot, yet no attempt is made to explain it whatsoever, despite the weight it ends up having on the whole resolution. I haven't read the comics, do they include the Loom? Do they elaborate on it or does it remain in place as just a faulty Deux-ex-Machina? Luis Dantas (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's bizarre is that all the Fraternity people more or less immediately believe that Sloan has been faking the readings without bothering to translate the scrap of cloth that Wesley brings in, despite that fact that Wesley has every motivation to try to trick them. What's even MORE bizarre is that Fox decides to kill herself and all her friends just because Sloan claims that all their names came up, without bothering to check for herself, when Sloan ALSO has every motivation to be trying to trick them. So what has this film taught me? It has taught me that if I every find the Fraternity's secret hideout, I can casually mention that the Loom of Fate decided to make me king of the world, and all the assassins will probably go nuts and kill everybody and delivery the riches of the globe to my doorstep without doubting my word for a moment. --129.81.157.176 (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, it would have been terrible for them to examine it. And Sloan had no reason to trick them. He was going to try to use them to shape the world as he saw fit. I do agree that the Loom was really weird. But I also didn't want Fox to die; Gibson is now all alone with no buddies to kill people with. --74.78.123.248 (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

differences bet. the film and the comic

[edit]

shouldn't there be a section that goves the difference between the film and the orginal comic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.241.153 (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only similarity is the main character's name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.240.15 (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get your meaning, but that is a vast oversimplification. The two stories are very similar in the beginning, then diverge wildly as the details of the Fraternity are revealed. -Armaced (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Budget change

[edit]

I am changing the budget accordingly. The films budget was 75 million according to the IMDB and numerous other sites. Check it for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.208.214 (talk) 07:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Visual effects

[edit]
[edit]

I added this link: http://www.tracksounds.com/reviews/wanted_danny_elfman.htm, but it was removed as spam or something of that nature.

I'm looking for further explanation as to what "rule" this link breaks. A full review of the musical score is clearly as relevant as links to movie review aggregator sites like rottentomatoes, metacritic and the like.

I believe this link adhere to the External Links guidelines and is very much relevant to the topic. Would certainly like to come to some understanding here.

Thanks

Ccoleman tracksounds (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need a scene by scene account of the film?

[edit]

Surely anyone watching coming to this page has either:

A) Watched the film and wants a little more detail surrounding it.

B) Hasn't watched the film and doesn't want to be given the entire shot by shot story.

Your thoughts please?Alexsapples (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you - though I'm not going to edit it, I see that the article reads more like a fan page, including lines of script, etc. It would be more encyclopedic and look better with just a synopsis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.74.183 (talk) 11:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The "Plot" section of an article like this should be called "Plot summary", IMO. A summary within a reference work like an encyclopedia or Wikipedia should be short and only cover the major plot points, without too much detail and without exposition. What is written in the "Plot" section of this article at the moment is too detailed.
Can you imagine such a detailed "plot summary" of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged or Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace?* Would that be acceptable for an article on Wikipedia? I guess the "logical" next step in detailed articles would be to paraphrase those books in their entirety. Heck, why not just copy everything word for word?
As to whether the outcomes of the climaxes of films and novels and such should be summarized as well, I'm not sure.
Anyhoo...
beautypersoni (talk) 05:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"loosely" based on?

[edit]

This film was most definitely based on Wanted, there was nothing lose about it. In fact it was an official basing, it is not a coincidence that it has the same name and concepts. JayKeaton (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is, however the term loosely is used because so much was changed. Their are major changes to the characters, themes and world. The powers are different, the history is different and in the movie the characters "kill 1 to save 1000". The comics involve even the main character killing for fun, and going as far as to rape people. The film is very much a tone downed version of the comic with the comic book/superhero references removed....which really does take a lot away. I still enjoyed the film, but this isn't exactly a Sin City or 300 level adaptation. Rekija (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel Mention??

[edit]

News have been popping up over last few months about the green light to go ahead with a sequel... shouldn't this be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.14.70.8 (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Is Wikipedia getting away from using the IMDB links? Most movies that I read about here seem to have that IMDB link listed either in the little info box, or at least in an External Links section. I didn't see it here, but the link for it is at " http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493464/ " if anyone thinks it should be added. Not that I mind being bold, but I've seen a ton of edit wars here between the "add it all folks" vs. the "it's not noteable folks" and feel too new to start anything like that. For now I'll stick to a few typo fixes and such on main page, and put my 2-cents in on the talk page. My best to all .. ched - Ched Davis (talk) 08:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, it's absolutely ok for IMDb links to be included! I would say that All Movies, Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb are essential external links for film articles, there's no case to answer if anyone claims IMDb is non-notable. I've added it to this article, but there's nothing wrong with adding it yourself if you see future articles that lack it! Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. Am getting bolder by the day here. Noticed someone added the 3 links to info box too. Thx again. Used to read articles, then the talk, then move on. First I ever really followed any particular article. Think I'll go create something at Stargate maybe ... lol Ched Davis (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear that! Wikipedia is the website anyone can edit, so that includes you! It can be quite addictive actually, watching your favourite articles grown and develop, and seeing your efforts live on the net!Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretations

[edit]

Would it be appropriate to include a possible interpretation, like this:

The body of Wanted can be interpreted as occurring only in Wesley Gibson's imagination, an escape from his dull, mundane, depressing life. Think Fight Club. The clues are:

  • Before his new life takes over, he's on the verge of a nervous breakdown. The ATM is talking to him; clearly not everything we are seeing is real.
  • His new life takes place in the same locations as his old, mundane one: The room over the railroad tracks from his apartment, the train he takes to work, even, near the end, in his office.
  • His new life still includes the same people as his old one: His boss, girlfriend, and best friend, keep re-appearing. He re-visits his apartment (to collect a gun), he sees his girlfriend with shopping bags from the room over the tracks, and in the final shot the bullet goes past those three people.
  • Much of the action is not realistic, it's fantasy action.
  • On his first assignment, he rides past the office where his target is, on the roof of the train. In the very next scene he rides past the same office, this time in the train, in a seat on his own. The first scene could be the fantasy, the second reality.
  • By the end of the film he is broke and back in his office at work. Then the fantasy kicks in again.
  • In the closing scene the fourth wall is broken, and the fantasy Wesley Gibson addresses the audience directly.

Graham king 3 (talk) 07:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Everything in the film happened. You can't apply the It Was All A Dream theory to everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.153.118.223 (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like this interpretation, as it is loosely based on a comic and it is fantasy violence. I kept thinking this is a parody of the Terminator franchise. Unfortunately, Wikipedians will concider it "real" until the writers or directors say it isnt. HOWEVER: I'm applying the Bladerunner ruling whereas the Bladerunner wikipedia entry deliberately has a non-encyclopedic entry simply because the fans insist Deckard is and is not a Replicant simultaneously. Therefore this film is BOTH true within the context of the film, and a fantasy as the result of the mental breakdown of the main character. I further refer readers to Number of the Beast, itself a parody of bad fiction writing told through the viewpoints of 4 main characters who die in the opening scene and then proceed to travel through six dimensions of time and into other books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.49.126 (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think rather tha Wikipedians will consider you theory not encyclopaedic unless you get it published in a book, or you get a journalist to write a story about it, or you are a film critic and include it in a published article, etc. --86.162.171.226 (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMS B-class assessment

[edit]

Per a request at WP:FILMS Assessment department, I have reviewed this article to determine if it meets the B-class criteria. Looking over the article, the article is very close to B-class. The plot needs to be reduced a bit to address the tag and the soundtrack image should be removed since it is basically a copy of the movie poster (based on a past discussion at WP:FILMS). Once these two issues are fixed, feel free to change it to B-class or let me know and I'll change it. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

[edit]

When Sloan walks up to the decoy Wesly Gibson at the end of the film, the decoy's name plate clearly reads J.G. Millar. Sloan walks by the name plate and it goes unnoticed. Another point of interest is the name "J.G. Millar," which is obviously a combination of the names of the Wanted comic book creators, Mark Millar and J.G. Jones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.218.224 (talk)

Attempted split of soundtrack

[edit]

I don't see the reasoning behind it. The soundtrack is much better placed here, as there are no qualms about the notability of it when it is part of the larger topic, and it makes the film article overall a stronger topic. Additionally, WP:SPLIT isn't of particular concern due to the small size difference. --Izno (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Matrix

[edit]

Shouldn't there be some mention of the Matrix in this article. Wanted is at least heavily influenced by it, and at some points just lifts bits from the matrix series. Should this be but in some sort of "influences" section? Schizocarp (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wanted (2008 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:

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) 21:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Wanted (2008 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:

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) 01:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wanted_(2008_film)&oldid=1207664338"