Talk:Flightplan

Tagline

I heard an alternate tagline for the movie. Anyone heard something like: "She built the plane, now she'll have to tear it apart"?

Are you positive about that tagline? It sounds rather amusing to me. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)\

I Believe that was from one of the TV commercials for Flightplan. Anyone else have thoughts about this? Technically, she DID build the plane (she was the lead engineer or something) Spyco 23:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall hearing this tagline... maybe it was used early on and replaced by the current one? IMDb also only lists the one tagline in their section. Tigermave 01:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Tigermave

This is indeed a tagline for it. Well kind of. It's actually "She designed the plane from top to bottom. Now she'll have to tear it apart." I just added it. See this (at the bottom of the picture). - ^R_H^e_o^d_t 16:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Plot

I just saw the movie and I must say it was well written but there is a major plot hole (spoiler). Everything was logically explained except her seeing the two arab men in the window at her home and then in the plane. Everyone else ackowledged them being on the plane so what does it mean? Did the director change his mind or forget to edit this out? Did I miss something? I think this is one of those p.c. changes to a movie but I could be wrong.

I think they never cleared that up, it seems pretty poorly done. --72.136.188.23 04:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

i am a huge fan of the film...its ny favorite...the arab men are just a coincedince i think...though they shuold have cleared it up a little...

Actually, I think the Arab men are there to make the story a little more intresting by adding additional suspects into the picture. They made it so that it looks like the Arab men were the kidnappers. Spyco 04:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Almost definitely, they were red herrings. - ^Рэд_хот 15:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Even as a decoy to the plot, they still should've cleared up the storyline as to why the Arab men were watching her apartment. They could've maybe said they were actually Private Investigator's watching her over her husbands death. I would've bought that. Orichalcon 17:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I was expecting them to be interpol agents or something. The way they left it was odd, were they the exact same 2 arab men from across the apartment, or did the just resemble them? HpK1029 05:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The big plot hole was the lunacy that this huge plan hinged on 1.They just knew she'd have to bury her husband in America. and 2.They knew no one on the flight would notice her daughter. That's crazy I don't care how carefully they arranged the seating, the family in front of her could've easily noticed her, not to mention all of those flight attendants.

Let's see. "they knew no one on the flight would notice her daughter". I don't remember anyone sitting behind them aside from the marshall. A flight attendant was in on the scheme so it would be easy to grab the others attention. The flight was a red eye so most of the passengers would be sleeping. And remember how easy it was to get around the aircraft through either the roof or the cargo hold? And you really expect flight attendants to remember every single detail? And the Arab men? Who says she they were ever there? She was probably dreaming or something again. Remeber when she was walking with her husband even though he was dead? Dion 23:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Why would the designer of the plane be sitting in economy class? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.100.196.186 (talk) .

She is no longer working for Elgin when she is flying anyway. And did you see how middle-class her Berlin home looked like anyway? Besides, the whole plot of "little girl dissapearing in flight" wouldn't work in First or Business Class, with so many flight attendants per passenger. -- AirOdyssey (Talk) 02:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

About the Arab men: in the director's commentary on the DVD he says that it wasn't the same men, if I recall correctly. The men she sees at the beginning of the movie are basically just looking out the window, not spying on Jodie Foster & her daughter. Then the men on the plane have nothing at all to do with the men who lived on her street in Berlin, except for a general physical resemblance. --Mathew5000 19:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a question: the plot summary refers to the daughter being in the front of the plan and the front of the plane being blown up. From what I could tell, she was in the tail section, and that's the part that gets destroyed. There's even a shot of the cockpit from overhead as it crashes to the ground. Is this a mistake in the summary, or am I the one confused? --Phaedrus_X 07:40, 09 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have any problem with the poor little child paradigma or do you think it schould be someone similar to patricia hearst?

Not acting on a freudianic motivationfield, Jodie Foster shows female instincts and powership at her best. Stories who doesn't fit in the explanation cage of upper-class neurotics are rarely to be found.There is one point, which isn't really cleared up, how can she manage the "bomb" in such a professional way? Being an constructive ingineur mustn't mean, knowing about terroristic technic. The dynamic of the film needs this coolness anyway, but the figure looses a little of her profile. Whose side is she real on?! The double sight, which tells wrong for (w)right, is a magnificant storylining in that thriller; I think she has time to handle the bomb. There are hidden decisions in!--Hum-ri (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)ecisive

What? Sheavsey33 (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Additions to Story?

Should the rest of the story be added to the Story section? I'm not sure about Wikipedia policy on this; should the complete ending be revealed? -- RattleMan 03:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Nah. Just let them watch the movie. Most of the other Wikipedia pages for movies have the climax and ending removed. Spyco 06:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Engines

It says in the movie that she helped to design the engines of te plane, does anyone know if there's any realtion between Kyle Pratt and Pratt and Whitney engines? -- N

Alvar Aalto

I added a fact tag next to the claim in the "Trivia" section saying that the airline is named after Alvar Aalto. I understand the name "Aalto" almost always refers to the modernist Finnish architect, but what if the producers simply wanted a name that was neither English or German which expressed altitude? I suggest adding the word "possibly" to that sentence. I'd like your thoughts on this. -- AirOdyssey (Talk) 14:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Why Not Trivia?

This article is commented by the following block of text.

This article contains a trivia section.
Content in this section should be integrated into other appropriate areas of the article or removed, and the trivia section removed.

Is there such a rule in wikipedia?
What's wrong with having a trivia section?

Miamidot 18:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Click on Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. --Mathew5000 19:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Virtue of Questioning Authority

The plot is beautiful. Red herrings? It was rather obvious the Arab men were not red herrings. It was an obvious and immediately recognisable political reminder to stop persecuting Arabs unnecessarily. They even had a "Cohen" acting the part of an Arab.

The air marshall and the flight attendant, in cohort with the funeral director, may be allowed to have planned to execute the extortion without Kyle or framing of Kyle. Carson, is subtly portrayed initially as an ambiguous character with whom you wouldn't be surprised if he either turned out to be a good or bad guy. The villains probably could have intended to use Julia as hostage and the casket as explosives carrier. Then comes Kyle, which Carson never expected to be that persistent. A spark (like a light bulb) lights up in Carson's cunning mind. Why not frame Kyle and get away with it free?

Had Kyle been less persistent then expected, she would have not been framed but then losing her daughter. Had Kyle been persistent as expected, she would have lost her life, her reputation and her daughter. No, Kyle is over-persistent like any mother should be. She goes berserk and over the top by her maternal instincts. Our instincts tell us when exercise of respect is no longer valid but listen to that instinct for the need to question authority. Despite impending damage to our reputation, pursue the truth fervently. Miamidot 19:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC) I'm sorry but I have no idea what you're on about. I personally think that the film is about prejudice. Kyle's prejudice against the Arabs, the staff and crew's prejudice against her as insane and ultimately our prejudice against Sean Bean as the villain because he always plays a villain. Anon

• I think, it#s no neither nor discussion in. If there are concret thoughts about a figure's subjective and the other way around somebody tells something collectiv, these are just different points of views, which are possible.

A film beeing built in a tensionfield between this antigon positions is a real fund. The balance leads to the dynamic of the action. About rules, which man have made, is the global theme, and accepting authority is something, which depends on the form of this instrument. Power-Players with poisoned cards aren't to be respected! Their prejudiced followers need to be confronted. The symbolic order is a hidden frame the protagonist trusts in. She she:::--Hum-ri (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Movie paid for by Airbus?

Does anyone else think that this movie might have been paid for by Airbus, at least in part, as propaganda for their A380? The whole movie felt like a commercial to me. In almost every scene they are trying to showcase what is possible for the A380. This is just speculation, but perhaps someone has more concrete evidence to back this up.

Maybe, but would Airbus want to fund propaganda about a kid getting lost in a huge airplane? -Lapinmies 23:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The movie is very unflattering about the airline industry overall and was even boycotted by a flight attendant association. So I really doubt that it's positive propaganda! Also, the fact that the action happens on a double-decker airliner is not necessarily an A380 promotion but a simple reflection of reality. AirOdyssey (Talk) 13:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Resemebles the origin of the Avenger

It resembles the origin of Richard Benson, the Avenger.

Enda80 (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Enda80

Doublemeanings

Strange, that such a simple story of missleading accusation has got a bottom of various possible meanings. She has lost her husband and looses in a flight her daughter. Who has lost the father? A function, which is most of all a social one. Loosing her man, she leaves her job and Berlin. and : "they made him fly!" Criminals, who want to gain money destroy a little family and all virtues constructive people believe in. How a mother represents herself not being victimzed by terrorists. Rescuing her daughter. A sky_ marshall. who speaks and acts lik a worse medicine. Anybody needs a wing?!--Hum-ri (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Douglas Adams link?

In this piece of Douglas Adams's work, "on a commercial liner flight, Fenchurch disappears, and the ship's crew deny she ever existed...". Perhaps Adams was the first to adapt the concept of The Lady Vanishes for an aeronautical mode of transport, and perhaps Flightplan was inspired by this? zazpot (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Explanation missing from summary

The plot summary does not explain what the villains were trying to gain by killing her husband and then making her child disappear. It would be good if someone could clear that up a little bit. Tad Lincoln (talk) 04:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Similiarities to The Lady Vanishes

This film has a lot of similarities to the 1938 Hitchcock film "The Lady Vanishes." This should definitely be mentioned in the article at some point. Ed Sanville (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Avionics Bay

The article stated that the avionics bay used in the movie is from an Alitalia 747-200. This is not correct. To start with the statement has no reference. Upon further inspection the avionics bay of any 747-200 looks NOTHING like what's in the movie. In fact, there is no real avionics bay out there that looks anything like what was in the movie. It's not surprising because the design shown in the movie would be a massive waste of space on an aircraft where they try and squeeze as much space for passengers as possible. I'm going to remove that sentence from the article. If there is any evidence to the contrary the sentence can be returned to the article.Brendan OhUiginn (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)