Talk:1408 (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Film (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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 project 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Nordic cinema task force.
 
WikiProject Horror (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Fiction vs Fictional film[edit]

I have changed the opening from reading "fictional 2007 film" to "2007 fiction film" as writing fictional reads as if the film does not actually exist, that it is a fiction. Ernestrome (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Trailer?[edit]

http://www.moviemaze.de/media/trailer/3125/1408.html --68.209.227.3 06:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly[edit]

"Håfström says the effects sequences required them to build at least seven versions of room 1408, including a particularly elaborate one that 'turns into an old, sinking ship.'"[1]

Information to use. —Erik (talkcontribreview) - 23:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Exterior Location[edit]

There are a number of references that suggest the exterior of the hotel was the Roosevelt Hotel in NYC, not Hotel Pennsylvania. e.g. http://en.allexperts.com/q/New-York-City-3182/Movie-1408.htm

Based on my knowledge of NYC (having stayed at the Roosevelt), and having taken the train at Penn Station a number of times, this seems true - the shots don't quite look like Hotel Penn (though there's a resemblance).

Interior shots were in London. The lobby actually is fashioned similar to the Roosevelt's, though not exactly.

Which hotel in London was used as the interior for the film? -Kingpin1055 21:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

References[edit]

Interview with director. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 11:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Roth formerly involved. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 11:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

References for possible use. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 17:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Differences between the short story and the film?[edit]

Were there differences between the film and the story it was based on? If so, the list of differences would be great information to add to the article. --Raimu 00:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the short story, it would seem like the only major changes are additions of his family in the film, as opposed to the story. There are minor differences, yes, but the majority of those differences stem from the fact this is a film not a book; since strict adherence to the book would've made this movie about 35 minutes long. Still, if it still sounds like a good idea I suppose a paragraph can be written mentioning how close it sticks to the story. -WarthogDemon 23:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of ending is opinion[edit]

The final sentence of the plot synopsis currently reads: "After listening to the recording, and hearing his daughter's voice on it, his wife steps back in shock and horror as they both realize Mike's adventure in room 1408 was in fact real." While it is fact that they both heard the daughter's voice on the recording, what this actually means is not entirely certain. It seemed to me that, upon seeing his wife's reaction, an almost devious grin spread across his face. This could indicate that he never actually left the room (again) and that his wife was tricked into joining him. Adding to the credibility of this explanation, the daughter said that she wished all three of them could be together forever. Perhaps that is exactly what has happened. I'm sure that some people will make the argument that he obviously really got out because that's what happened in the book. Personally, I don't think that's a solid enough reason. Films often deviate from their written basis.

I'm not suggesting that the article be rewritten with my above explanation, but rather that the facts are simply stated without the added opinion of what they mean. It would suffice to simply say that upon hearing their daughter's voice, Lilly looks shocked and somewhat horrified and that Mike begins to grin just before the credits roll.75.72.183.252 06:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Grin? I didn't notice any grin. -WarthogDemon 06:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I did. He had a certain smug look going on. 24.137.126.62 03:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Even so that's be WP:OR and conjecture for the most part. -WarthogDemon 03:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, I did notice a little smirk on his face right before the credits. I also think he made it out of the room..maybe I just prefer happier endings to hopeless ending movies with no real closure. AgentHappyDay 19:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Another possibility is that Michael did die in the room from the fire. But I also think that the Michael we see at the end of the movie is the same Michael from the web-cam scene, the "evil" Michael, and that his wife did indeed enter the room. I also saw a smirk on his face, a somewhat mischievous grin as his wife hears their daughter's voice, leading viewers to think that she is now trapped in 1408. In any case its a puzzling ending, and nothing is really concrete either way. One of the most interesting and thought provoking endings I've seen in a film for quite awhile.--Alafalula 01:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of movie[edit]

(This is also a response to the above comment) If we are to compare the movie to the real world, I'd venture a guess that Mike had recorded over a taped conversation of a conversation he had with his daughter before she died, then partially recorded over it while in the room. What happened in the room? Simple. While in the room Mike expressed the thought that perhaps the bottle he was drinking from was drugged. Although unstable, LSD is a powerful hallucinate with unpredictable consequences. When mixed with a lot of adrenaline in a stressful situation it can lead to a very bad trip. My thought are that the drink was spiked. If you notice, every time Mike takes a sip from the bottle the hallucinations become stronger and when he nearly drowns himself in alcohol he goes through a trip warping all his senses.

Then again, we must all remember, that the Hollywood writers write these scripts in order to scare us and thrill us and give us a good run for our money, they do NOT write the scripts to make sense. Perhaps Stephen King never decided if what happened in room 1408 was real or not, he leaves that part to his readers. -user:technogiddo

In response to the theory that there was some LSD in his drink and that the whole experience was a "bad trip," the physical evidence must be considered. Since none of the answers are given in the movie, the following questions are rhetorical, but, does he really have the cut on his hand from the window shutting down on him, and is the toilet paper really folded, while 2 "squares" of it are in the trash can, or wherever he put them? I guess the second one couldn't be answered since the place burned down, but I'm sure that even if he got burned pretty badly, his bleeding arm would be noticeable.

I think the ending should have been less straight forward, and less "Hollywoody." Maybe instead of going into the credits as he's beginning to smile, they would zoom out and the audience would see that they're both actually still in 1408 or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.158.112 (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the film in worked fairly well as the dream of a man that died on the beach. There was a lot of nautical/wet metaphor such as the "Dolphin" hotel, the sprinklers, the silent outside world, the picture of the ship at sea and the room turning into a shipwreck (apparently) - the sort of dream one might see as one drowns. The film went for a similar interpretation, the dream of a man that *almost* died on the beach, and then went haywire, back to the room again, indicating perhaps that he did die on the beach. This interpretation does not explain the ghost, or why the ghost appears burnt addmitedly. --218.223.193.144 (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

-- No, no, you got it all wrong... the spirit lived in the 3 paintings! The spirit wanted to die but couldnt, thats why all over the room it kept saying "Burn Me Alive." The spirit wanted Michael do kill it. In the theatrical ending, he did kill it, and he did make it out alive, his "grin" was more justification for what he went through, his wife knows he really did experience all that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.56.13 (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought his smile at the end was not happiness in getting free of the room, but in the "Evil Mike" knowing that Lily has realized that SHE is caught in the Room -- the EVIL room. My first viewing I immediately said out loud "omg, she went in the room. SHE WENT IN THE ROOM!" i.e. the last few scenes were HER own personal 1408 experience (pulled from her unconscious). 142.229.107.204 (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Plot section length[edit]

I thought I'd mention the specifics of the guidelines on plot summaries, since Erik has been level headed enough to remind us of them. The general rule is 100 words for every 10 minutes of film, meaning this plot summary should be about 1060 words long. Right now it's 1700. Doing the math, about 1/3rd of the section needs to be trimmed. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 04:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, with the effort of quite a large number of editors the plot section is now down to well under 1060 words. (870 after my most recent edit, though I'm sure that will change slightly) Let's make sure it stays that way. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 06:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipolicy aside, I think 1408 words of summary would fit this article nicely... MrZoolook (talk) 03:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Release Date For DVD[edit]

Does anybody know when 1408 coming out to DVD????

Alternate endings[edit]

Lucky enough to get my hands on an advanced release and neither of the alternate endings included in the special features section resemble what is described in the original post in the alternate ending section of the page (the whole Olin at the funeral and seeing Mike's ghost thing), and since the two alternate endings that were on the DVD were completely different, I requested a citation. Added what was actually on the DVD. -- Mount Molehill 05:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems there's also a 2-disc special edition which has a director's cut that includes the whole Olin/burnt Mike ending. -- Mount Molehill 01:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait, if there are 2 very different endings, which one is the right one that happened in the book?-Jesus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.26.150 (talk) 12:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Production section[edit]

I think the last sentence of this section should be rearranged. It's the first accurance of the name of the hotel ("Dolphin") and it isn't clear that it is the hotel with 1408 room (I hope I made myself clear). --Nabeel Achlaug 16:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

DirecTV Pay-Per-View Version[edit]

I watched the DirecTV pay-per-view version, and it had the ending where he died and Olin saw his ghost in the car. There was no indication that this was a "Director's Cut", "Alternate Ending" or "Unrated". I was shocked to read this and see that this was not the intended ending. Can anyone find any explanation? 166.82.206.146 01:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


I ordered it off insight digital PPV (in New Albany, IN) and got that ending as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.220.188 (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Number 13[edit]

The heading the number thirteen now says that the clock in the post office has the time 4:56 on it, and that 4+5+6=13. This is just not correct at all, from a third-grade math level. What is actually correct here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.198.143 (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Just remove references like that which don't work or make sense. I frequently have to do just that when people try and use the release date as a 13, despite the fact that you have to avoid using the month when you do so. Basically, common sense should be at work here. Nezu Chiza (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
This section is getting out of hand. Obviously if you look hard enough, you can find references to the number 13 in any movie. Keep nonsense like "Burn me alive" (including spaces) and "Michael Enslign" (not including spaces) out of this (He wasn't even called Michael in the movie... whole article calls him Mike). Otherwise it becomes very OR like and gets out of hand. (...Mike's name starts with M, the 13th letter of the alphabet, Mike drives a 1994 Bronco, 13 years old, the movie takes place in New York, the 13th largest city in the world. etc. etc.) 80.37.26.156 (talk) 11:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Door Knob[edit]

when the guy come up to fix the thermostat the doorknob is on the right side of the door, then after mike fixes it and closes the door, the knob is on the left side of the door. Does anyone know if this was a mistake or not, because it seems too obvious to not be caught. Thrasher6920 (talk)

After watching it again, this is one of the subtler clues that the room has "gone off the rails" at the beginning. Notice that when Mike picks up the Bible at the beginning, he thumbs through it, then drops it - whereupon the title is now reversed. It indicates that the 1408 Mike winds up in is not the real thing, but a "mirror universe" and later this is confirmed when the wife sends police to the room and they find it empty. 75.71.151.46 (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


If you watch the movie again the view of Mike closing the door is from a mirror so it appears that the door handle is on the left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.68.133 (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

did anyone take into account the mercury?[edit]

When mercury is exposed to the human body I've heard you TRIP hard for the rest of your life. You basically go insane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.245.159 (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Mercury was in a sealed tube. Even so, Mike was experiencing hallucinations before 'fixing' the thermostat. MrZoolook (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Plot Summary[edit]

How come the written plot summary of this film is very different from what actually happens in the film? The written order of events are different than the order that appears in the movie. It's becoming increasingly blatant that the several people who wrote the plot summary have not actually seen the movie, which begs the question why write the plot summary in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corbenine (talkcontribs) 13:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Not expecting a reply from a bot, but this goes out to anyone else watching this article. A quick Google lists a few possible reference for the Roosevelt exterior being used. Try here or here, but they do not specify that John Cusack said it was the Roosevelt. If that's the only sticking point, you could just re-edit the article to take out that it was him that said it. MrZoolook (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).