Talk:Collateral (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Film (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Biased "feel"[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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=[edit]

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


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.[edit]

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 (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Ad for Viper FilmStream High-Definition Cameras[edit]

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. -- 04:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Nuvola apps important.svg

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)[edit]

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=[edit]

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[edit]

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. (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. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · 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. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · 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. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit war[edit]

I apologise I didn't know there was a limit in reversions. Can you tell me, AnmaFinotera, 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)


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)


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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Coyote Scene - Not Staged?[edit]

As the article is presently worded, it seems as though the coyote scene was a random occurrence that the filmmaker just happened to record.

Michael Mann chose to use the Viper FilmStream High-Definition Camera to film many of the scenes of Collateral, the first such use in a major motion picture. There are many scenes in the movie where the use of a digital camera is evident, in particular, scenes where the Los Angeles skyline or landscape is visible in the background. One event of note was the filming of the coyotes running across the road; the low-light capability allowed Mann to spontaneously film the animals that just happened to pass, without having to set up lighting for the shot.

If this scene was indeed recorded simply because it was happening and included in the film simply because it was recorded and not an original part of the screenplay, it should probably be properly referenced.

Any more information on this? Matthew Meta (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Jazz Club hit[edit]

This might be a small nitpick, but as it reads currently the plot section suggest Vincent is correcting Daniel after he shoots him. This isn't really true. Vincent is more continuing the story than outright correcting him. Vincent was going to shoot him anyway. MuJoCh (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Revised/shortened plot summary[edit]

I'd like to offer a shorter and more detailed plot summary if no one has any objections. In the extended content below is my contribution, thanks. KeithLD (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

Nightshift cab driver Max Durocher (Jamie Foxx) drives U.S. Justice Department prosecutor Annie Farrell (Jada Pinkett Smith) to her office building to spend the night preparing for a pending Federal Grand jury drug indictment case convening the following day. Annie takes a liking to Max, leaving her business card as he drops her off. Vincent (Tom Cruise) hales the cab next, explaining he's in town for one night closing a real estate deal and bribes Max with USD$600 on the pretense of chauffeuring him to his appointments. As Max waits at the first stop, Vincent enters an apartment complex and shoots drug dealer Ramone Ayala. Ayala unexpectedly falls out of the window directly onto the cab, forcing Vincent to reveal himself as a hitman. He coerces Max to hide the body in the trunk and continue with their arrangement.

Max is pulled over on the way to the second stop due to the damage from Ayala's impact. The officers prepare to have the cab towed but are summoned to a higher priority call seconds before discovering the corpse. Vincent leaves Max tied to the steering wheel as he murders attorney Sylvester Clarke in his condominium. Max calls for help from passersby but gets robbed and Vincent arrives back on the scene just in time to gun down the thugs before they make off with his briefcase. He then brings Max to a jazz club under the guise of having a few drinks with club owner Daniel Baker (Barry Shabaka Henley). After the club closes, Max witnesses Vincent callously execute Baker when he incorrectly answers a question about jazz legend Miles Davis. Max suffers a panic attack, aghast from Vincent's savagery. Next, Vincent insists they visit Max's mother Ida (Irma P. Hall) in the hospital to avoid breaking routine. He pretends to be Max's business colleague and develops a rapport with Ida which upsets Max to the point that he runs out of the hospital with the briefcase and tosses it off a bridge overpass onto the freeway below. With his hit list now destroyed, Vincent takes Max to a Hispanic nightclub and demands he go inside to obtain a backup copy from the contractor, lest he murder Max's mother. Inside the club, Max meets with drug lord Felix Reyes-Torrena (Javier Bardem) and successfully passes himself off as a hitman to acquire the USB flash drive containing details of the last two targets. Felix orders his men to follow and eliminate Max once the job is finished and Vincent uses the cab's mount computer to direct Max to club "Fever" and the fourth target; Korean gangster Peter Lim.

Meanwhile, L.A.P.D. Narcotics Detective Ray Fanning (Mark Ruffalo) uncovers the connection between the three victims and reports his finding to F.B.I. agent Frank Pedrosa (Bruce McGill), who identifies them as witnesses for the pending indictment case against Felix. Pedrosa assembles backup to secure their final witness, Lim, and converges on the crowded nightclub simultaneously with Vincent and Felix's men. Vincent manages to execute Lim and slips out of the club amongst the chaos of the subsequent gun fight. Fanning rescues Max and smuggles him outside but is killed by Vincent, who beckons Max back into the cab. Following their hasty getaway, Max berates Vincent for being a sociopath and sharply criticizes his nihilistic attitude. In return, Vincent chastises Max for his passivity and procrastination to follow his ambitions. He angrily speeds through the empty downtown streets, deliberately crashing the cab and Vincent takes off on foot before a responding police officer arrives to the wreck. Max spots Annie's profile on the cab computer and, realizing she's Vincent's final target, overpowers the officer and takes his gun. He sprints to Annie's building and arrives at her office to prevent the assassination by sufficiently wounding Vincent enough for them to escape. Max flees with Annie, boarding a metro rail train with Vincent in close pursuit. He boxes them in and, left with no other option, Max makes his last stand; capriciously asserting himself to protect Annie. He miraculously remains unharmed while mortally wounding Vincent in a face-to-face shootout. Vincent slumps into a seat and expires as he reiterates an anecdote of "a man that rode the metro rail train for six hours before anyone noticed he was dead." Max and Annie get off at the next station, leaving Vincent on the train as it continues on in the breaking dawn of the new day.

Extended content


I feel as if it is worth noting the training the actors undertook with Mick Gould with respect to the weapons used in this film. While it might be trivia on IMDB, I think it would be beneficial to the article. "Mick Gould was hired to train Tom Cruise for the action sequences - including showing him how to fire live rounds. Michael Mann himself trained with various weapons so he knew how to direct the action sequences to full effect." and "Although he never uses his gun in the film, Mark Ruffalo nevertheless underwent rigorous weapons training so he would look believable sporting a gun."

-Deathsythe (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)