Talk:Collateral (film)

Biased "feel"

As I was reading through this article, it felt very biased. It seemed like the authors loved the film and didn't want to say anything bad about it. I thought this was shown best in the interpretations area, and especially in the area discussing its filming in high definition. Just a reminder, when your editing this area be sure that you try and stay as unbiased as possible, not matter how hard. DurotarLord 03:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Gunshots

Would it be "adding" to the article a mention that the film (well, when I watched it anyway) seems to make the gunshots realistically loud compared to the way most films "mute" gunfire? In a few scenes, it really felt like there was someone a few metres away firing a pistol. Any comment? --Brendan Hide 20:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

well, in addition to not using any gun silencers, i did notice that the gunshots were too live .. maybe the sound FX guy was really good or maybe they were real live shots.. i suppose they don't use real live gun shots in making movies, do they? --PASSIVE (Talk|E-Mail) 19:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

If you can prove it, then by all means. Wanderer 04:48, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) The link to the movie "heat" previously linked to an article on heat in the scientific sense rather than the film, I have changed it.

They used blanks on set. So the gunfire you heard was the gun going off, minus the bullet.

Okay, just for the record they weren't realistic. The scenes with the silencer had the gun far to muffled (almost as if it where a whistle when in actuality it would have sounded like the regular gun shots from the film) and the regular ones sounded realistic, but not loud enough. Don't mention that in there as it is not true. And btw, most movies use blanks. In fact, every one ive ever heard of uses blanks, but they don't sound realisticly loud. DurotarLord 03:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Cameo by "Transporter" Frank Martin (Jason Statham)

Louis Leterrier Interviewed by IGN by Chris Carle [1]

Carle asks Leterrier about the future of the Transporter franchise. Leterrier explains that if the Transporter franchise fails that Frank Martin will just cameo in movies. Particularly Leterrier mentioned Michael Mann's movies. --SETTTT (Talk|E-Mail)

Final Shootout

In this article, it offers what appears to be a very assured explanation of the final shootout at the end of the movie. It claims that Vincent lost the battle because of his failure to change his killing pattern, blindly following the same method he uses to kill all his targets. I think that this theory is incorrect. Don't you think a hitman as experienced and capable as Vincent would know enough to change his method when it is clear it wouldn't work? While Vincent prefers to shoot his victims with the two-in-the-chest, one-in-the-head method, I'm sure that this tactic is used when he deems it appropriate, and I'm sure a man like Vincent, as intelligent as he is, would not stupidly follow this pattern when it obviously wouldn't work. When a metal door is blocking a clear shot of his target, I'm sure Vincent would know better than to shoot at the door itself, and take advantage of the situation and try to shoot through the windows.

Furthermore, there seems to be no evidence that suggests Vincent even followed this pattern. Although I may be wrong, as I have not seen the film in a while, from what I remember, both Vincent and Max blindly fired their guns without any real method or tactic. I don't recall any real evidence that Vincent used his usual MO, and there are no lingering camera shots or close-ups of the bullet-riddled door to prove this. I think that the victor of the battle, Max, achieved this by simple luck, and not by a particular method used by either of the men. I think to state in the article that Vincent lost the battle because of his failure to adapt is more of an educated guess than proven fact.

The way the article is currently written, it seems as if the argument presented regarding the final shootout is proven fact. However, as Mann has never explicitly addressed the issue, I think it's going a little far to present it as definitively as it is written. My suggestion would be to either remove this section of the article, or re-write it to present it as one opinion out of many.

RE: Final Shootout

I read this comment and watched the end shootout again, and noticed the following shot:

When the camera is viewing from Maxes side of the door, you can clearly see three bullet holes in the door, with two close together at chest height, and one at about head height. It's only about 2-3 seconds long, but it is clearly visible Duffking 13:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It's far more reasonable to assume that Vincent lost the battle due to blood loss and fatuge.

Major Edit - 12/06=

I've done a major edit of the synopsis, expanding the plotlines and adding a great deal of the story that was previously left out. Added quotes from the movie. Re-wrote most of the synopsis, as the previous synopsis was written quite poorly (with regard to grammar and sentence structure). The new synopsis is far from perfect, but should be much better than the previous. Please feel free to edit any mistakes I may have made or failed to catch.

User:Androoos 22:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Androoos

criticism

i believe theres too much criticism in the begining of this article, its not balanced but overly negative. your thoughts?

Really? The article feels like a giant Michael Mann lovefest. - Lou S.

Removed the last part.

As it was written the last part of the synopsis felt way too biased, so I think the article is better off without it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.67.89.246 (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Ad for Viper FilmStream High-Definition Cameras

The part on filming in High-Definition feels like a commercial, it really does with things like "There are many scenes of the movie where the use of the high-definition is evident" and "The high-definition images are surprisingly crisp and vivid, even when viewed on a standard DVD at 480i/p resolution" and especially "In Collateral , the use of the Thomson Viper HD Cameras greatly enhances the film noir/neo noir atmosphere and ambience that Michael Mann has projected in his previous work". I bet it was written by people who sell the Viper FilmStream High-Definition Cameras. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 20:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to how this high definition camera could improve scenes in this movie when it is lower resolution than film. --24.225.226.153 04:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Collateral (Movie).jpg

Image:Collateral (Movie).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use added. SkierRMH 07:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Themes Section (and trivia, too)

The entire themes section of this article is pretty ridiculous. I personally think that the whole section should just be removed. It is nothing but original research, and doesn't serve any purpose in this, or any other, Wikipedia film article. I vote to get rid of the entire section.

On a related note, the trivia section has to go to. If no one objects within the next few days, I plan on removing them both. ARSmith 21:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that. I just thought about it, and have decided to just go ahead and delete those sections right now. ARSmith 21:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Plot Edit - 06/08=

I added some more information about the second kill, as well as the kill in the Jazz club as I felt that the information lacked regarding these scenes. I think that it would be good if they were explained in more detail in order to grasp the mood more. The second kill shows that Max still isn't happy with the situation, and tries to escape, and without this info, some people may be inclined to believe that Max has agreed to help Vincent, when in fact, he hasn't.

User:JAGFin1 2121, 08 June 2008 (GMT)JAGFin1

Themes Section

Why is the themes section removed? The director himself has said what the main theme of the movie is, I do not see why it should not be mentioned. Please do not remove it again without good reason. 124.170.68.166 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC).

Do not keep readding a section after it was removed. That's called edit warring. Be bold, if its reverted, you discuss, you do not just keep adding it back and demand it not be removed again without "a good reason". It was removed as it is unsourced (which is a very good reason). You claimed it was declared in a DVD commentary, and such a section must be better sourced than such an unclear attempt at a citation. If its verified and properly cited, it still should be a production section, since that discussion of themes is purely the director's view. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This is primary source information, your removal of it is completely out of order. You are not correctly applying the WP:V policy. If you disagree with the factual accuracy, you need to look at the commentary for verification, you do not simply remove the content and effectively call another editor a liar. It is the source of the information. MickMacNee (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A DVD extra is not primary source information, nor does the written claim provide enough details to say which extra to even look at to verify anything. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is, and come on. MickMacNee (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not the film itself. Its an extra. But I stuck the section back. Since you feel it belongs, I hope you will take the time to go find the extra it is from, confirm this addition is completely accurate, and properly source it. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

I apologise I didn't know there was a limit in reversions. Can you tell me, Collectonian, why the current version of the plot section is more suitable to wikipedia than my edit? For a start it contains the actors' names, as well as sentences like "in a stunning display of skill" and "in a pivotal moment." There are also numerous grammatical errors and unnecessary detail. There were no such sentences in my edit. Autonova (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• The current version isn't perfect. But you are doing the exact same thing you are railing against. While you want to delete "in a stunning display of skill", you want to add "a sharply dressed Vincent". Both are opinion. Using the actors name as a reference is fine. Why should that be an issue? Fixing grammar errors is just proofing. And while there are unnecessary details, your edits add unnecessary details as well. Can we improve the article? Absolutely. But massive re-writes that do the same things you are claiming are problems isn't the way to do it. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • That's why in the last 2 reversions I deleted "a sharply dressed". Just for the record I think it's counterproductive that you would rather not be bothered and discard half an hour of someone's work just because you have a problem with a few words. If you had read the rest of the section you'd have realised it's the only bit of opinion I put in. Oh and by the way, this sentence appears in The Empire Strikes Back plot section (which is a featured article):

"Luke meets a wizened, green little creature who reveals himself to be Yoda."

So to be fair, 'opinions' of this kind are actually adjectives.

I don't know if I'll be back on this article, I've got way too much going on at the moment. But yeah, my suggestion - if you want to improve the article rather than sitting here talking about how to improve the article, revert back to my latest edit with the "sharply dressed" taken out, and mark the plot section as as good as done, because looking at featured article's plot sections, it is done.Autonova (talk) 08:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Wizened and green are adjectives, but not opinion. They are definable terms. "Sharply dressed" is not definable. That is sheer opinion. A rapper may think he is "sharply dressed" by having his pants sag around the bottom of his ass and 16 big gold chains. A business executive in an Armani suit might disagree and believe he is "sharply dressed". The cowboy with his best jeans, shined boots and a pressed shirt might feel he is "sharply dressed". Get the idea? As for the rest, this is an encyclopedia dude. You are writing it to sound like a drama piece for an English class. Hit the actual FACTS, save all the descriptive drama, and the article will be much better and encyclopedic. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Youre saying the current version is less dramatic than my edit?Autonova (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• No, I said both versions lean on drama a lot. In my opinion, yours was not an improvement in terms of eliminating the dramatic interpretation. All it did was substitute drama for drama. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

trivia

There is a Bollywood copy of collateral titled The Killer. I believe that should this info be encyclopedic it must be added to the article. LegalEagle (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

plot

August 5, 2009 I edited the plot down to its basics. There was way too much plot iteration. Sorry about not tagging it as such.