Talk:Stealth (film)

Film Start‑class

	Film portal 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 discussion 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.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Looks like a bad remake of Macross Plus.

The trailer shows the "bad" AI becoming "sentient" as the result of a lightning strike. For Gods' sake! The whole plot is redolent of decades-old Roddenberry syndrome (remember the original Star Trek, where computers were always nasty and amorally evil, until they blew up trying to come to terms with human emotions?). Shudder. You'd have to pay me an obscene amount of money to see this movie.

Urhixidur 21:20, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

The AI is about as sentient after the lightning strike as it is after. It seemed that the lightning strike plus some other events during the movie caused the AI to gain free will. Sort of like V.I.K.I. from I, Robot, except the AI doesn't set out to destroy some humans to save a lot more. I just saw the movie, so there are some plot details I'm going to add to the article. Cosmos 01:26, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

My first thought upon seeing the trailers was "Cool, Dale Brown finally made Day of the Cheetah into a movie." Then I saw more and it seemed like a shameless ripoff of Day of the Cheetah. Now it seems more like Goliath. [1]. The less I know about this movie, apparently, the more I like it. -- Yvh11a 02:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I read the plot summary for Day of the Cheetah, and it sounds much different from Stealth's plot. In fact, when I saw the movie the plot was completely different from what the trailer made it seem like. Spoiler: In the middle of the movie, one of the three pilots (I forgot his name) actually works with EDI (the name of the jet fighter with A.I.) to find his partner who gets lost in North Korea, and at the end of the movie EDI expresses regret for his previous actions, and sacrifices himself to save two of the pilots. 05:27, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

So... essentially a robot is struck by lightning and becomes sentient or self-aware? Wow, I've never seen that in a movie before. Imroy 17:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fighter jets encountered in the combat scene aren't Su-35 Super Flankers, they're Su-37 Terminators, as called out by the protagonist and visible on their fuselage and thrust-vectoring engines. Edited. Stealth 20:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just watched this on DVD. I picked it up randomly in Blockbusters as the fifth dvd in a buy 5 for £25 deal. It looked a bit poor on the box but I thought what the hell. I was very pleasantly surprised though. It might not have the most original plot if you've watched any Star Trek episodes involving computer AI gone wrong but it was great none the less. Maybe the reason this was such a box office bomb was that it wasn't advertised well. The first time I heard about this film was seeing the box in blockbusters, I don't remember ever seeing a single trailer / poster / tv advert for it over here in the UK. Had I of seen one I probably would have given the film a try. Spanky Deluxe 02:27, 14 August 2006 (GMT)

The movie has serious plot holes in there. Jessica Biel, who plays as Kara, ejects over Tajikstan, falls straight down until she reaches terminal velocity, and ends up in North Korea. There also was a massive airship that was supposed to refuel American aircraft over Russia, and it never was spotted and shot down. And of course, duering the battle with the Russians the UCAV did this rotation in mid-air that it somehow couldn't perform when confronted with the helicopter, which blasted it apart to the point that the UCAV needed to crash into the helo to bring it down. Ace Combat Fanatic 21:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote?

What is that quote for? Irfanfaiz 14:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Macross Plus?

What's up with that external link pointing to the Macross Plus wiki entry? It should be under "see also", not as a external link. Not only that, but the article doesn't mention any relation with the film and the OVA (whick I think it's minimal, if anything). Seriously, I don't understand what's that link supposed to be doing there.

Maybe a criticism of section should be added

Trailer's implied plot line doesn't match the movie.
Opening sequences special effects so overdone, it can easily be taken for a parody of action/flight movies such as Top Gun.

Joncnunn 16:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yukikaze reference wrong

Some minor spoilers follow

The reference in the article to Sentou Yousei Yukikaze is wrong. The relationship between the main character in stealth, and Rei Fukai and Yukikaze is different in that Rei Fukai trusted Yukikaze's AI more than his own eyes rather then distrusting it at all. However, there is a similarity between the two productions here. Rei Fukai and Yukikaze were going to be replaced by the FRX-99, an unmanned fighter prototype. Rei disliked it because it was going to force him to part with his FFR-31MR/D Super Sylph, the current Yukikaze. Similarly to stealth (Actually, Stealth is similar to Yukikaze in this respect because the novel which the Yukikaze OVA was based on is several years old) Rei Fukai ends up piloting the 'unmanned' fighter, but only after Yukikaze transfers itself into the FRX-99 prototype after the FFR-31MR/D is heavily damaged. Yukikaze is a much deeper and well done production to Stealth in my opinion. I would suggest anyone who likes a good story, or are just into military aviation check it out.

RegzTigershark

Plot needs to be redone

it contains numerous observations to the making of the film that has nothing to do with the plot:

"Right at the onset here we see the cinematography is intense and the visuals mean business."

"Hmmm."

all in all I've read a lot of "plots" here at wikipedia and this one needs some work. If nobody fixes it up in a reasonable time, I'll take care of it (just never edited these before so I didn't want to hop in without giving someone with more experience a chance". -- thanks

I possess the DVD of this movie.--Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions 07:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I POSSESS YOU —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.111.16.108 (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Plot

This section is about ten times longer than it needs to be. It's minutely detailed and uses a very chatty, colloquial tone. I've added the template to it, and suggest that someone who's seen the film give it a thorough tidying.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it's copied nearly verbatim from here: http://www.themoviespoiler.com/Spoilers/stealth.html (or is it the other way around?!) 129.170.247.201 20:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you are right. It seems our version of the section Plot was deleted and replaced with a very long version in this edit last November. The edit was made by an anon with no other edits. I'm bringing back our deleted version. Bergsten 13:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Story

All references to Star Trek in this discussion has forgotten that this movie is made with the background of militaries from all over the world now (21st century) doing a lot of researh on UCAVs to become a major fighting force in the air. They have even said that in future all new fighter planes will be tested by robots, and not humans. Recently they have even drafted the robots rights in war and rules of engagement. This is a serious topic and the film really stands out in addressing these issues. UCAVs are just a reincarnation of the cruise missle, except that they are re-usable. And in future they will even be able to protect themselves - will self-awareness develop? I like the film a lot! Yes, I am a Trek fan too. "It's nice to be part of the squadron."