Talk:Eagle Eye

Unintelligible English

Anyone know what "$101.4 mit hd x with moeythe United States and Canada" in the Box Office section is supposed to mean? Dargueta (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Headlines

• Actor LaBeouf arrested while in Chicago to shoot 'Eagle Eye'
• West tribute in works

A couple of headlines -- they did film in Chicago, but apparently California later. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Eagle Eye Set Visit! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

- Your link to the Chicago Tribune turns up a blank page - clearly a conspiracy covering its tracks. Noaqiyeum (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"respectively"?

Eagle Eye is a 2008 action/thriller film directed by D.J. Caruso and starring Shia LaBeouf and Michelle Monaghan. The two portray a young man and a single mother, respectively

• Who is honestly going to think Shia LaBeouf is playing a single mother...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.40.112 (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The word "respectively" means that LaBeouf portrays a young man and Monaghan portrays a single mother. --Pixelface (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Or that Michelle Monaghan is playing a young man. "...framed as people they aren't", the lead probably needs to be cleaned up to get rid of some of this silliness. TransOceanic (talk) 04:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

um

Kay, why was the part about the similarities to other films removed? It's a legitimate criticism... 74.37.159.6 (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

—We probably just need specifics. How about Colossus: The Forbin Project for a start— —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.158.4 (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

- Agreed. The similarities to other films should definitely be mentioned. Rip off/homages - like the concert ending to Hitchcock's The Man Who Knew Too Much - should be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.152.211 (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

death to super computer

should it not be mentioned somewhere that Perez eventually defeated the computer herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.242.200 (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just watched this and i think that it was amazing. It was probably the most intense on the seat film i've ever watched and i absolutely love the happy ending. So aside from the epicly excellent film, do you want me to help with this page? I've got the film on my laptop so i could take pictures. Also if you want me to refine details then i can. Regards, The parkster (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that should be mentioned, no, because we can't absolutely verify that Perez DID defeat the computer. Sure, we saw her shoot it "in the head" (or what seemed to be that) but for all we know that was just a camera and not actually where the brain was located. ARIIA had already uploaded part of herself into the satellite systems, and in spite of the damage from Perez' gunshot may still have held herself together long enough to upload an adequaet amount of herself to survive once the military decommissioned her. Without actual proof of ARIIA's death (pretty hard to find, really) I don't think we should actually call this a final defeat. Ranze (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Introduction

Is talking about the "corrupted artificial intelligence system" not giving away too much, especially in the introduction to the film? If I remember correctly that is the punch line of the whole movie..? Fp8 (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Similar to Portal?

Doesn't the super computer with a female voice that gets destroyed at the end sound similar to the video game Portal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.84.121 (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Other similarities include having an advanced AI with a spherical "eye" and computerized female voice going rogue and killing off it's creators. The AI also instructs the main character what to do, and discourages/threatens them from deviating from her instructions. I have not heard if Portal has been an influence on the film, but it's interesting to note the similarities between the two. 71.231.69.53 (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

All the Troubles of the World

Did anyone else see the connection to Azimov's All the Troubles of the World?

RE: Edit about filming

I recently added the edit claiming that the film shot a scene on New Jersey Avenue SE in Washington, D.C. and that Democratic National Committee staffers were notified as such.

This is, indeed, a true statement as I was working there at the time the e-mail received and still obtain a copy of the e-mail from the head of the Human Resources at the DNC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.227.162 (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Medals & Awards

How do we know what medals they were given? All I could make out was that they were in black cases. While it makes sense that Ethan would get the Medal of Honor; Jerry could have gotten the Congressional Gold Medal, but the Presidential Medal of Freedom would make more sense to me.
On top of that, the medal they do show given posthumously to Morgan appears made up (or at least it does not match any award I can find)
Since the Secretary of Defense is giving them the awards—rather than the President, or the Speaker of the House—perhaps it is meant to be a DOD equivalent to the Presidential and Congressional medals. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 17:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The one medal they show (Morgan's) is a six-pointed star, possibly in a laurel wreath. The ribbon is dark (blue?) with white edges, and five or six fine gold lines running down the center. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 17:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. Perez also got a medal, but her's was easy to identify as an Airman's Medal. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 18:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

why didn't rachel get a medal/award? ≈Sensorsweep (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Similarities to 2001

It is worth mentioning under "critical reception" the (not unjustified) accusations from several critics of plagiarism from 2001: A Space Odyssey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.213.52 (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources for it then yes Orchastrattor (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect?

The article says that Perez destroys the computer by impaling its main infrared camera with a metal rod. She does indeed do this, however to actually destroy it they drain out all of its cooling fluid. Logicman1966 (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, because when they did, ARIIA started uploading herself to an off-site satellite. So even if that computer was destroyed by the lack of cooling fluid she would have escaped. TyVulpine (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Naming of article

Propose that the article should point to the disambiguation page as this is not the only use of this title.

Haphar (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This article should absolutely be moved to Eagle Eye (film), however the biggest problem is the fact that its literally just a capital letter away from Eagle eye so just deleting this page instead of redirecting seems like a sounder choice. Orchastrattor (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Derivative of what?

According to the summary, critics found the plot unoriginal.
Perhaps, but what is the plot derivative of? If the critics made this point explicit, that didn't make it into the Critical reception section.
Manchurian Candidate? Demon Seed? HAL from 2001?
Yeah, there are similarities but the resemblance is not so strong.
This sounds like another case of critics having seen way too many movies and spotting "unoriginality" behind every rock and tree.
So, if a list of original sources for the "unoriginal plot" could be produced, that might be useful for viewers who found this film suspenseful and entertaining.
And why are only US critics represented?
Varlaam (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Citation Needed for soundtrack recording of earthquake

The session was interrupted by the Chino Hills earthquake on July 29, 2008—and a recording of the quake hitting the scoring stage is online.
This recording can be found at http://www.scoringsessions.com/news/156/ ("To listen to exclusive audio of the earthquake, check out the MP3 player at the bottom of the page!") and can be used as the citation needed for this section of the article.
I don't know how to add/edit citations and don't want to irritate the mods, so I'll just leave this link here for someone who can do it properly.
Thanks, 71.163.128.20 (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification! I used the URL to add a reference for that passage. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

$751,000

At the ATM the balance states $751,000. Before the ATM shows the balance Jerry puts a check into a slot of the machine (a $1,000 check from his father). Question: Is it possible an ATM can read the sum of the check and deposit it immediately to your account? Because later he is asked "who deposited the 750" (not 751) - and on the other side, why wasn't he able to pay his rent the day before, when there where already $1,000 on his account? So I figure the missing $1,000 must come from the check - or maybe I just don't understand a point or missed something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.4.48.237 (talk) 06:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the specific machine he used but my bank (UK bank called Nationwide) does have machines where you can feed a check in and it can read the amount written on it and add it to your account automatically (as well as doing most other things you'd do at a bank). I have no idea how quick it is because I've never checked the balance straight after but it's possible it would display the total balance as including that amount and then have a secondary figure for what you can actually withdraw. So in short, yes the extra $1000 could have come from the check. 109.145.213.217 (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2014 plot expansion

The guidelines at WP:FILMPLOT dictate a plot of "between 400 and 700 words". Before 108.20.119.105 (talk · contribs)'s expansion, the plot is already six words in excess. Because the expansion is simply making the existing prose more verbose by hundreds of words, I've reverted it a second time. This is merely the D of the bold, revert, discuss cycle, and I would appreciate it be utilized before expanding again w/o comment or edit summary. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the plot summary needs to be kept short. WikiProject Film's guidelines are based on Wikipedia's policy of not being an indiscriminate collection of information. #1 states, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." The WikiProject has interpreted "concise summary" to mean between 400 and 700 words. The goal is not to substitute watching the film but to provide enough context to comprehend the real-world treatment of the topic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Since the plot section of this article seems contested, I feel I should explain my recent edit.

• If it's important to signify that Shaw lives in Chicago, I condensed it and added it a little further in the paragraph.
• I removed all the "played by"s and "voiced by"s as unnecessary. Why would some warrant such elaboration and some not?
• The hexamethylene as portrayed in the film does not correspond to what's written at hexamethylene triperoxide diamine, so I've removed that linkage.
• There're a lot of "meanwhile"s in the article; I tried to reduce them.
• I contest that the scene where Perez and Bowman attempt to destroy ARIIA is important. The plan continues without her direct involvement, and whether she was "destroyed" is questionable since (a) ARIIA UI continues to be used afterwards, and (b) she was later said to have been decommissioned. The scene in question has no effect on the scenes that follow, so I removed it from the summary.
• Rewatching the film, there's no indicator of time for the denouement, so I replaced it with "sometime later".

The plot section now sits at 698 words; it's lengthy, but I think it covers all of the salient and necessary plot points of the film. — fourthords | =Λ= | 07:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

I've again reverted BattleshipMan (talk · contribs)'s expansion of the plot section. Not does it put the word count outside of the WP:FILMPLOT guidelines, but it makes claims that the film itself doesn't substantiate (i.e. there's no proof that ARIIA was destroyed. Instead, as I said above, there is circumstantial evidence that she continued operating until being decommissioned). Myself here and Erik (talk · contribs) above agree with keeping the plot section short, though I'm happy to discuss these concerns here as part of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Eagle Eye. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080903144956/http://www.magmic.com:80/game/EagleEye to http://magmic.com/game/EagleEye

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

science fiction

To those IP editor(s) who are repeatedly removing the qualifier of "science fiction" from the article and talk page: please stop and discuss your rationale here before editing these pages again. — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC).

In these external links not written that this film is science fiction . — Bendybit (talk)13:21,10 June 2016 (UTC).

I added a reliably sourced, if not comprehensive, addition to the article about the film being nominated for a Saturn Award for "Best Science Fiction Film". There are more reliable sources out there for the genre, but I'd hoped that adding this one would be sifficient to stop the edit warring. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed science fiction from the intro. I do not doubt that it is one of several genres that apply to the film (yes I see the Awards and the Production details) but only the primary genre should be listed if at all possible. See WP:FILMLEDE "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". The guidelines were probably not as clear as they should have been about this in the past, so I expect people were all acting in good faith at the time but in future please try to avoid genre bloat. -- 109.76.144.223 (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

opening scene

GwydionM (talk · contribs) has twice now added a paragraph (22 Jan & 28 Jan) at the beginning of the "Plot" section that tries to describe the opening scenes of the film. As I explained in the edit summary for my initial removal, not only is this information unnecessary and irrelevant (as it's covered later in the summary), but it pushes the word-count beyond the bounds of WP:FILMPLOT (from 693 to 734 words).

With regards to GwydionM's second edit summary: ("Restoring the vital first scene. It DID happen, you know.") (a) It's not vital when it's already explained at the point in the summary where it becomes relevant. (b) I'm not disputing that the scenes exist in the film, but it's not the plot summary's purpose to recount a blow-by-blow of the entire film.

I'm removing the content again per this discussion, though I invite GwydionM to contribute here if there's something that I'm not realizing. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

A more useful response would be a rewrite to get it below 700 words. Or not be so fussy - an excess of 5% is hardly gross. As things stand, we have the absurdity of a summary that takes no notice of the opening. --GwydionM (talk) 08:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

IP edits

Thrice now, unregistered users have made 46 total edits ([1], [2], and [3]) that (a) lack any edit summaries, (b) wordily expand the summary prose beyond what's recommended at WP:FILMPLOT, (c) unalphabetize the categories, (d) violate MOS:PUNCTSPACE, (e) introduce original research, and (f) add a redundant, less-specific categorization. They haven't explained any of their edits, nor complied with the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I recommend and entreat any interested editors to discuss these edits here before reintroducing them to the article. Thanks! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

(second-level header—"Plot summery"—removed)

Added details that are IMPORTANT as to understand plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18F:602:6970:4DC:87DF:5DD:3052 (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

What is IMPORTANT is determined either by reliable sources and/or consensus; none of the IP editors have added the former or cultivated the latter. Furthermore, IP editors have not only been bloating the plot summary in contravention of WP:FILMPLOT, but also violat[ing] MOS:PUNCTSPACE, (e) introduc[ing] original research, and (f) add[ing] a redundant, less-specific categorization. As such, I've reverted your edit and will again implore further discussion here in accordance with the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and not edit warring. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 08:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

US$ & its variables

109.76.203.124 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has again removed {{US$}} from the article, saying, ‎USA film of course it is US dollars same as the Infobox. Inflation adjusted figures are entirely irrelevant to the Plot. Add elsewhere like the Production section if you really believe it is important. The inflated amount is for readers, to allow them to better understand the power of money as it was, compared to their relative present. It's as relevant here as everywhere else the template is used. As for the US$ specificity, it's recommended by MOS:CURRENCY and a lack of ambiguity is never a detriment. Welcome to the discussion phase of the BRD cycle. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 10:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

user:fourthords again added this unnecessary detail to the plot section, his barely comprehensible jargon filled edit summary only stated what he was doing, but failed to explain why he thought it was relevant or necessary.

My first edit removed the inflation adjusted figure, but kept the USD template. My second figure removed the unnecessary templating entirely. The figure is itself is irrelevant to the Plot section and I would remove it too.

Project Film has established the consensus that large figures should be rounded and that they prefer clarity and readability over detailed numbers as you can already see in the Infobox and box office section of most film articles. (See also: MOS:LARGENUM and this consensus discussion. )

WP:FILMPLOT States "avoid minutiae". The only relevant plot detail is that a large amount of money appears in his account with no explanation. The specific amount of money $750,000 (three quarters of a million) is not an important plot detail, it is only relevant is that he has been set up and is forced to go on the run. The inflated adjusted amount of "equivalent to $893,788 in 2019" is even more irrelevant, the increase over time is not relevant to the plot, twenty or fifty years later it is still a large amount of money, the differences between those two large amounts is not significant or relevant.

MOS:CURRENCY applied strictly would specify USD "on first use", that is when the gross is listed in the lead, and there should not be any need to specify it again after that.

@Erik: Do you think it is appropriate to list the inflated adjusted amount in the Plot summary? Do you think it is necessary to mention the money amount in the Plot summary at all? -- 109.76.196.7 (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Fourthords wanted to discuss. He seems to think his interpretation of the guidelines is correct. I have pointed to the guidelines I believe are most relevant and that it is inappropriate to include the template (to list the inflated adjusted amount in the Plot summary) and probably not even necessary to mention the exact amount of money at all.

If he does not have anything further to add to the discussion then WP:BRD says the cycle continues and the change can be made again. If he still thinks this detail is important and does not accept the change I can ask for a neutral 3rd party to give their opinion. (I had thought Erik might add his opinion since he is an editor active in Wikipedia Project Film and had previously edited this article, but I can take it to WP:3RD.) -- 109.76.202.207 (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I had been thinking about proof-by-contradiction and wondering if there were cases where I thought it would make sense to include such information in a Plot section, but I didn't think I'd be able to find an example, but by chance I did stumble across a different article that included inflation adjusted figures in the plot section. The film Rules Don't Apply is set in the 1950's and the inflation adjust amount is used to make it clearer that the weekly income the character was receiving was substantial. Even in that case, where the explanation is somewhat justifiable for that much older time period, it is a distraction and an interruption from the plot and would be better presented as a footnote or explained elsewhere. So there might occasionally be reason enough to use that template for historical or period films, but Eagle Eye is a film from only the recent past, and in this case the detail is not necessary. -- 109.76.200.72 (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Strange to see that I was apparently pinged, but I don't think I ever got it. I happened to find this discussion while checking out the recent changes. I would have to agree that the detail is not necessary. We do not need to convert every dollar figure (including the production budget and the box office gross). I do not think it's worth setting a precedent for, either. It seems especially less important in a fictional work compared to talking about amounts in historical events. As for mentioning the specific amount, eh... I could see arguments either way, but if we don't mention a figure, then we may struggle to identify a word that reflects the amount -- "excessive amount of money"? It seems mostly better to be specific with the amount and leave it at that. I don't think it will be very common for readers to want to know the inflated amount. Like if I saw a 1940s gangster film talk about $10K being found, I'm not really going to go out of my way to find out how much that would be today. It's fair to assume that the amount is substantial enough to keep the story moving. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay so, the amount is not essential to the plot but keeping the figure does seems like the simplest option for brevity. I was considering if maybe the inflation adjusted amount could be retained as a footnote {{efn}} but in this case there is no good reason to include the inflation adjusted amount. Done.[4] -- 109.76.192.5 (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)